Sinking ship -- rats -- Obama -- unions -- rats -- Obama -- ...

The end is near.

Obama says this is one of the great economic thinkers of all time. Seriously?

Any chance of coming up with someone that has actually created something starting with that dirty word PROFIT?

He said he was a great thinker. Was he wrong? If he claimed he had tons or practical experience you might be right, but he didn't say that.

Note how many of Obama's advisers come from academia, the land of theory over experience. Note how many are running away. Obama and crew are re-arranging deck chairs on the Titanic and his advisors are sensing the upcoming collision with the iceberg, perhaps this means that Obama will appoint someone with some common sense? Nah.

Isn't "Top Obama economic adviser" like saying "First loser"?

My first reaction was - he was not having his advice taken so he is leaving.

After reading the article I'm thinking great! now he can go back to teaching kids things that don't work. Doesn't the news media do enough of that?

Mr. President,

If you add ALL of your economic advisors together you couldn't come up with "ONE" great thinker. I see two things here 1) he is a lousy thinker and that's why our economy s..ks or 2) you don't give a s..t about his advise on the economy because all you think about is getting re-elected and the true solution to our problems would have gotten in the way of your re-election.

Interesting move. University of Chicago economics professors are opposed to President Obama's economic solution for the USA.

Obama called him "one of America's great economic thinkers."

"Thinking" does not get the job done. Even the "economic experts" have trouble decypering what this Administration has done to the economy.

Maybe, Mr. Goldthinker should join Mrs. Romer teaching Obamanomics in California.

If this was one of the greatest economic thinkers of all time..., then plain and simple..., we're screwed... But maybe..., just maybe..., he was just another progressive hack...

Yes, Obama's really screwing up. He just can't clean up the mess left by the Republicans fast enough to please the Republicans. Guess we should go back to the people and party that first got us into this economic mess. I'm sure they can get us out of it by utilizing the same policies that got us into it. I think there's a logical fallacy there, but so what? The rich in this country just aren't rich enough!

Remember, a vote for a Republican is a vote for rich people.

Really...when 7 out of 10 of the richest in the senate are Dems?! Take that tired argument and shove it up your glory hole.

I don't care about how many of the 10 are wealthy democrats, I just care about how much of the overall Senate supports the rich over the non millionaires.

Obama called him "one of America's great economic thinkers."

Goolsbee has been the face of the White House on economic news, and is a regular every first Friday of the month explaining the administration's take on the latest jobless numbers.

If he is such a great economic thinker....why cant he "THINK" of something to turn this economy around?

Obama's "take" on the latest job numbers? He "thinks" everything is coming up roses!

"Unemployment will not be above 8!" Meanwhile, it just rose to 9.1!

CCryder

Yes, Obama's really screwing up. He just can't clean up the mess left by the Republicans fast enough to please the Republicans. Guess we should go back to the people and party that first got us into this economic mess. Remember, a vote for a Republican is a vote for rich people.

Well that’s rich, since the Democrats have had control of congress for the last 4 years and yet you want to blame Republicans for this mess? Keep drinking that koolaid buddy! Your thirst will never be quenched!

Remember, a vote for a Democrat is a vote for more of the same!

ccryder ever hear of John Do Nothing Kerry? And he didnt even earn his!

Teachers advising the administration on the economy, instead of proved business leaders; is much like a priest giving advice on sexual tactic's to use on your wife, all theory no practical experience .

And none of you who are bashing Obama think that maybe, just maybe, Obama has asked him to resign because his theoretical policies are not working? It very well could be that he is bringing someone on with better real world experience.

or maybe, just maybe:

dividing us along race and income, doubling the debt in 2 years, 9%+ unnemployment....

was and is barry's goal.

think about it, he has done everything he could to ensure all of the above, brilliantly I might add.

perhaps, if your still backing BO, your for it as well?

ccryder ever hear of John Do Nothing Kerry? And he didnt even earn his!

Yeah, just like John McCain...

What does McCain have to do with Obama's failings?

John Kerry is spending a conservative mans fortune. And he even tries to get away with avoiding taxes on his spending. Something I seriously doubt that John Heinz would have done. John Kerry, a great American, buys a yacht from a manufacturer in another country and hides it from his states tax man. Liberals are killing our great country.

CCryder - You side is full of losers. All the way from the President down to their Weiners.

Don't pick on Kerry or he'll shut down the ketchup train.

Great time to abandon ship:

"59 percent, a new high, gave Obama negative marks for his handling of the economy, up from 55 percent a month earlier.

Obama's approval rating on the deficit issue hit a new low of 33 percent, down 6 points since April."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/pl_nm/us_poll_obama

Why would this president need a economic advisor..?? BHO is all about personal gain.. What did BHO's last overseas trip cost the American tax payer.??

God Bless the rich people! They employ the rest of us...

Yep, another rat deserting a sinking ship. Austan Goolsbee is hoping to put as much distance between himself and the impending and unavoidable economic disaster as he can. More will follow.

"Austan Goolsbee, a longtime adviser to President Barack Obama, will resign his post as the chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers this summer to return to teaching at the University of Chicago Graduate School of Business, the White House announced Monday."

Another 'rat deserting a sinking ship'? It seems that Obama's top economic advisers don't last long - I wonder why?

Perhaps they realize that Obama's policies are a huge failure, and they want to get out before they are 'tainted' by them. Is it a matter of the recommended policies being wrong, or Obama ignoring the advice of his economic team?

Obama may just have to start another war as a diversion.

Guy little, everyone is trying to get the cost of the trip to Britain and Ireland; 500 people, six doctors, 3 white house chefs, four aircraft, two beasts(armour car), White house has refused to release figures, NATIONAL SECURITY, exempt from public records request !

old fat guy-1144960 "Obama says this is one of the great economic thinkers of all time. Seriously?"

Absolutely. It didn't take him very long at all (6 months) to realize that Obama's economic policies don't work, and to get out before having his name associated with them.

Let's call it the great "teflon" administration in the history books - jumping ship so fast so none of the $hit sticks. POTUS and his appointee's really remind me a lot of the old king and his clothes story.......

You mean Obama has economic advisers??? I really couldn't tell.

Seriously, this guy Goolsbee puts a face on Obama's problem. He is an academic. He has never run a business. He has never worked in a business. He is a student of disproven economic theories ( Kensian economics).

Obama wrongly believes academic theory and big government spending are the keys to running the world's largest economy.

We must have a team in Washington that can create jobs and reduce the deficit!

Time to change Hope and Change.

For some reason I can't get the image of Dave Chappelle playing the President on his show out of my head. He's only got one economic adviser on his staff, Timmy Geithner. After he's gone you'll probably see a clip of Obama running down Pennsylvania avenue yelling I'm Ricccccchhhhhhhhh Bitchhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!! As he abandons the presidency.

Gary

You mean Obama has economic advisers??? I really couldn't tell.

He HAD to have help. One man working 24/7/365 could not possibly have laid waste to this much of the US Economy all by himself. He HAD to have help (let's see, Nancy, Harry, ...)

Gary

Maybe finally The Keynesian yTheory has been validated......as BS

I think he was asked to resign because he said government is not the answer to our economic woes. Obama simply cannot allow this type of mutiny.

If you look at his resume he is all academia. Wrote for new york times and slate, Chicago professor, history channel host, Progressive policy institute, law research etc. And need help with this one...focuses on human activity in natural settings. What the heck does that mean? Gentlemans club research maybe??? And he led the economic council with no real world economic experience.

Same with the head of Commerce that just bailed also, 30 year career politician.

The white house is full of theoriticians that probably can't fill out a 1099 between the lot of them. If they even know what one is.

People, when, JUST WHEN are we going to wake up and REALIZE that we are ON THE TITANIC AND GOING DOWN!!!!!!!!!!!

Yes, the MUSIC IS PLAYING and WE ARE IN TROUBLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

WHOEVER, and I mean WHOEVER ---- and I mean Republican, Democrat, Independent, Tea Party, or even Joe the Plumber that runs on the platform of the TRUTH to GET US OUT OF THIS MESS WE'RE IN ---- he'll get my vote.

What, do you want all of us out on the street starving to death, before anybody in Washington decides to take some real leadership action and fix this problem?

Yes, his economic advisers are leaving him because THEY KNOW WHAT'S COMING JUST LIKE WE ALL DO.

Right now, the BEST thing we can all be doing is PUTTING OUR BEST IDEAS FOWARD NOW, AND GET THEM TO THE PRESIDENT, before we REALLY ARE ---- ALL ---- OUT ON THE STREET STARVING TO DEATH AND CAN'T DO ANYTHING.

----

My idea is a speech that the President could give TOMORROW, and get us out of this mess REAL QUICK.

He could go up to the podium and say:

"Hello America, I have called this special press conference, not to take questions, just to tell you about a few things that I have on my mind, and what I am going to do. Lately, I have been thinking real hard, and things are just not working out like I wanted them to. Not at all. The biggest overall problem I have to face every night that I look in the mirror before I go to bed is the huge national debt that we have, and how directly or indirectly people are suffering because of it. Yes, year after year I am having to present a budget that is nearly twice the size of the money that we bring in in taxes, and this is not right.

People, we are headed in the wrong direction, and as President of this fine nation, I am tired of seeing our people suffer, tired of all the political games, and tired of all the inaction that we have here in Washington. So, as of today, I am implementing immediate changes to this great nation of ours.

Effective immediately, I am fully opening up drilling and production of oil and natural gas reserves here in the United States. Yes, leases and permits can be aquired immediately, to get our people back to work. Also, I am implementing a nationwide overhall of all our roads and bridges. Yes, our roads and bridges are old and falling apart in many places in this country. Also, effective immediately, I am decriminalizing marijuana. Our jails are filled up, many of whom are people who just got caught with an ounce of marijuana while driving home from work. Now they are in jail for two to three years. This is not right. After studying how Amsterdam legalized it, and the use of marijuana actually went down, I am quite confident that this is the right thing to do. It is one of the best decisions that I am making, to create more tax revenue for this great nation of ours.

Also, effective immediately, I am appointing a new committee to go after waste and fraud in the five main areas of government spending: Social Security, Defense, Unemployment/Welfare, Medicare, and Medicaid. This new comittee will report to me monthly on the waste and fraud it has uncovered. Yes, you will know monthly about your hard earned tax dollars that have been saved as a result of their work.

People, we need to get back to work, and make our economy strong again. And what better way for us to do this than to put our people back to work in a profession that they already know how to do. Do you realize because of my action today, how many people are going to come off of the unemployment checks, and get a job that pays a real check? All of these people that will be returning to the work force will be doing two things. They will be getting off of the government check and paying taxes to the government. This is a twofold way that will help get our yearly budget balanced.

Yes, all of these things that I have immediately implemented this afternoon will strengthen the economy by creating millions of new jobs, save massive amounts of money, and generate massive amounts of tax revenue for this great nation of ours. People, I promised you change. I have been going down the wrong track for quite some time now......... For this, I deeply apologize......... Implementing these changes this afternoon though, is the right thing to do, and yes America ---- this is the change you can believe in!

Thank you"

Again people ---- Please, Please, we HAVE TO DO SOMETHING NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

This is real.

And just yesterday his Fed governor pick declined the position. Everybody knows this administration is finished in 2012, can you blame them for not wanting to be on the worst team in U.S. history?

"Nobel Prize winner Peter Diamond said on Sunday he planned to withdraw as a nominee for Federal Reserve governor"

node.......................The don't you ever wonder why people are leaving him left and right?

Either they are not the "experts" he makes them out to be................or

He is not listening to them.

Either way, none of it is working.

We ARE thinking and we DO understand what's happening. You and your ilk are the idiots that don't think!Your time is limited, so go ahead and have your fun. You'll be crying in your soup in 18 months.

avonmonster,

You raise a good point about a possible change in direction. To be honest, at this point I have very little confidence Obama will pick an economic direction I agree with, but hopefully he'll surprise me.

Interestingly way back during he beginning of the presidential campaign, I read an article about all the candidates and how they took their own personal money and made it grow.

John Edwards, decided to find out more about investing and the business sector by mentoring with some wall street companies. I can't stand the guy, but he was benefiting personally from this learned information. Guilani had a terrible financial track record having had lots of opportunities but apparently squandering them as well. Obama was extremely conservative with his millions virtually doing not a darn thing about that money. McCain we all know gave away most of his money since he had his wife's money to lean on. He admitted numbers were not his forte. The person that had an overall very good track record for a long time was Romney.

avo....................Where in that entire post did I say I was an "Obama hater"? I simply stated the obvious.

His system is not working.

CLOWARD & PIVEN Strategy?

In spite of what "some people" want to believe, including myself until recently... either this "presidential impersonator" is the DUMBEST FOOL ever to walk in to the Oval Office (let alone actually occupy it) or?

Or maybe... just maybe he really does subscribe to the CLOWARD & PIVEN Strategy. People who have read up on this strategy usually feel it just "SEEMS too far fetched" and no one really wants to believe this, or any POTUS could EVER subscribe to such an extreme philosophy? But Professors Cloward & Piven certainly believed in their "strategy" enough to WRITE and LECTURE about it at Columbia University.

Considering his record of BLUNDERS, MISTAKES and MISCALCULATIONS, combined with the DISASTROUS EFFECTS his "so-called Policies have had on the USA until now...

Until recently, many, many "former Obama supporters" refused to examine the long list of people who MENTORED Obama from his childhood on up throughout his academic years and right up through the present day?

There IS NO DENYING that his entire life has been DOMINATED by some of the "most radical Socialist and Marxist thinkers".

Who would ever believe that a U.S. President would hire an "admitted MARXIST" like VAN JONES... and make his the "Green Jobs Czar?" Sure, Jones is gone, but how did this person we have for a 'potus' EVER allow himself to even CONSIDER hiring such an individual, knowing what controversy it would stir up?

As hard as it may be for some to even "read about", every single day this 'potus' says or does things that make more and more "former supporters" BACK AWAY from him, his administration, his policies and his party?

In case SOME PEOPLE didn't get "the memo last November", over SEVEN THOUSAND Republicans were SWEPT in to offices at the city, county, state and federal levels in the largest SINGLE PARTY LANDSLIDE in over EIGHTY YEARS.

American voters "decided to give this community organizer a chance in 2008", for a variety of different reasons. Within just two years, millions of "FORMER Obama supporters" jumped ship and began supporting Republicans in RECORD NUMBERS. To add insult to injury, BLACK Conservative candidates are EXPLODING on to the political scene from Coast to Coast?

Ask yourselves, "What happens next?" WHAT will people DO? or HOW will people REACT as more and more companies close their doors; go out of business; lay off more people; more schools close due to NO TAX REVENUE from less TAX paying homeowners; unemployment continues to RISE; FOOD & living expenses continue to RISE?????

Sooner or later we will see LARGE SCALE SOCIAL UNREST. Then what?

After it is all said and done, that whole CLOWARD & PIVEN Strategy sure seems to be the ONLY thing that makes all the Obama moves make any sense.

WE ALL WANT to believe or say THAT is NOT TRUE and THAT is NOT POSSIBLE.

Unfortunately, maybe... just maybe... it is true?

33 percent of housing prices were wiped out in the past 4 years.

No one is going to bring it back. This country is on full slide down the hole. GOP isn't going to save you either.

People talk about Obama's economic policies but the fact is, almost none of his policies has actually been put in place. In the first two years, the House passed a lot of bills that would enact Obama policies, but they went nowhere in the Senate because of the Republican filibuster.

The very few things that got through were grossly compromised versions of their desired policy. Look at the Stimulus, the only way it passed was to make more than a third of it tax cuts and about 20% gifts to State governments in order to sway a few votes. At best, less than half was "Obama style" stimulus.

Look at bank regulation. The Dems did not get what they wanted, they had to water down the proposals to the point of making them meaningless in order to get anything passed.

Even health care, which regardless of what the opposition says, is on the books as a deficit reducer. But even that needed to be watered down enough to get a couple Republican Senate votes and even at that, it was necessary to essentially use a procedural trick to get it through, with the House having to accept the greatly watered down version or get nothing.

And then of course we have the hostage taking of unemployment benefits in exchange for an extension of the Bush tax cuts for the rich. In reality, getting 10% by having to give up 90%. Republicans insisted these were absolutely key to recovery. Well that was six months ago and those tax cuts are locked in for another year and a half, so where's all the jobs that was supposed to create? An Obama failing? No I don't think so! Just more Republican BS.

We can debate about Keynesian economics and clearly that is how Obama wanted to approach the economic crisis, but the reality is that's not what we are doing. We are in fact still under Republican economic policy only slightly modified and blocked from taking to an even more destructive level. The only economic tool Obama has had to even some degree is the Fed. And that economic authority that they have used regarding the economic crisis was given under the previous administration. The only other tool they have is the interest rates. Even at that, the President doesn't control the Fed although he can have a strong influence on some Fed policy.

Anybody that thinks that the President determines economic policy is crazy. The best he can do is control his agencies regarding what gets prioritization. And if you think that the Democrats "controlled" Congress for the first two years, you haven't been paying attention. The House without a doubt was definitely controlled by Democrats, but the Senate was not. Republicans used the filibuster religiously and with virtually no defections. The only give and take required Democrats giving up far more than they got. Takes both Houses of Congress to change policy.

The President may be the guy in the spotlight and the one who makes the speeches, but the only edge he has over Congress is the ability to veto their policy decisions.

If you are an economic adviser and you see no way your advice will actually be taken, what is the point in staying around? Obama, believed in his advice, but without the backing of Congress, he can't do anything with that advice. As for Peter Diamond's withdrawal from the nomination to Fed governor, it's not because he doesn't believe in Obama's policy ideas, it's because he has been blocked by Republican Senator Shelby, for some time now and refuses to yield, effectively vetoing his nomination. (Of course most people don't even realize that and individual Senator has that much power.)

You can blame Obama for not yet recovering from the economic crisis, but you need to realize that it is not because of "his policies". It is from a refusal by Republicans to allow the instituting of those policies. What the President has been able to do, has been very limited and arguably, those things have been successful, but not enough to turn everything around from the disastrously precarious condition we were in when he walked in the door.

I suppose you can make a case that because the Republicans absolutely refuse to work with Obama, even when he agrees to many of their ideas, that it is Obama's failure. In a bizarre sense, I suppose that's true. Maybe it is his fault, because if he completely adopted their agenda, I suppose they just might agree with him. But it's not about policy, it's about stonewalling an individual. I'm sure that if you are an Obama hater, there is no way you will see this. But if you are independent and indifferent to Obama personally, maybe if you really look at things a little closer you will see who really is at fault. It's the obstructionists that are holding us back.

The MAIN reasons businesses are not hiring is because of economic uncertainty. A large part of that uncertainty is Obamacare, Cap and Trade, etc.

We are most certainly still in this mess because of Obama's policies and the possibility of these policies being instituted.

What uncertainty? How could you conclude that those nasty things might happen when the House is in the overwhelming control of the Republicans and they hold enough seats in the Senate to block anything with filibuster? How much more certain can you be? As for the Affordable Health Care law, there should be no uncertainty, it's been law for awhile. It's not a secret law, all the provision are available to read, analyze and evaluate. They know that they have tax cuts assured for at least another two years. Do you really think they wouldn't hire people for "fear" that they might have to fire them in two years? Get real!

The "uncertainty" line is pure BS. Is there any uncertainty associated with making big investments in a communist country like China? Sure, but that hasn't stopped American businesses from going there! Is there uncertainty with instead investing your free capital in the commodities markets? How many US businesses can you name that pass up profit today because things "might" change in the future? None! That is a ridiculous arguement. The reason businesses aren't hiring is for the simple fact that demand is not there that they can't keep up with. They have successfully used the economic downturn to milk even more efficiencies out of fewer employees and made healthy profits in the process.

The "uncertainty defense" is a Boehner invented talking point that has no basis in fact.

1Newday: I agree with some of your points. The Republicans forced Obama into the reinstatement of the Bush tax cuts, across the board. That was a good thing. Interestingly enough in 2004 there was a report about the US economy, stating that: the current US economy is plagued by record high trade deficits, budget deficits, household indebtedness and record low national savings assets.

This was three years before the poop really started hitting the fan and four years into the poop hitting the fan. Note that nothing has changed except: The housing collapse (thanks to Freddie/Fannie, derivatives and investment banks and spurious lenders) the jobs collapse (thanks to the housing bubble and Wall Street and Banks) and the ever increasing debt. Obama should have left the health care industry for another day. Instead he spent a year focused on messing with a program that only obfuscated and exacerbated a problem while ignoring the real issues that needed addressing.

Obama is an ideologue, unfortunately, his ideology is anti-capitalism. Not that he is against corporations mind you, look to GE, Google, Microsoft and several others who benefit from his policies. Nope, in the overall picture what you see is facism under the guise of socialism.

The Gramm-Leach-Bailey act, the repeal of Glass Steagall came during Clinton's watch. Both parties had their grubby little hands in this, the lone voice in the wilderness was Ron Paul, a man quickly demonized.

Let me just say that I often do agree with you on a variety of topics, but sometimes I think you're a bit off base. Not by a lot, but maybe sometimes oversimplifying things.

The only reason GLB passed under Clinton is because of a deal. Clinton had originally said he would veto it, but in all likelihood, it would have been overridden. The compromise deal he got was not cutting out CRA protections for poor an working class neighborhoods. (The original version was going to drop those regulations too, which would have allowed banks to completely ignore low income areas regardless of loan performance. Interestingly enough CRA driven loans are better performers than the industry average, just low dollar values.) I won't argue that GLB was the root cause of all the financial industry problems. It played a big role. But it was also just the start of a rampant deregulation trend in the ensuing years, that really sealed it.

I don't think Obama is anti-capitalist at all, but he is not supportive of only market driven capitalism without regulation. To call him Facist is way too far, maybe you don't really understand the term. The right likes to sling that around along with Socialism but neither really applies. Is Obama more Socialist than Bush? Absolutely, but the best democracies are always some balance of Socialism and Capitalism. Neither is entirely evil. Neither works well without the other.

As for Ron Paul, I will admit that he has moments of brilliance, but he is just too anti-government and anti-regulatory. The problem is that we have created this chasm between philosophies instead of creating the middle ground that takes the best of both. Look at Germany since the re-unification. They have taken a middle ground approach that works very well. They are still a very strong manufacturing country, highly technical, with high cost labor and value added products, highly regulated with many government programs, and a totally unionized workforce, with a high standard of living. And they are very successful. Probably the most economically stable country in Europe. The German people feel good about their government and the role it plays. What the German government does is steer it's economy and the businesses within it. The government drives research and innovation and doesn't just allow business to rule. Ron Paul is sometimes on the correct side of things but is about as idealistic as they come. His basic belief is that if left alone, people will naturally do the right thing. That is simply unrealistic. Just look at what deregulation of the financial world did. They behaved like irresponsible selfish children and we are all paying the price for that now.

what?

doesn't like keynesians. That means he likes the chicago school of long discredited fraudsters who brought you the Derivatives, CDO & CDS meltdown.

And that would lead to the suspicion that he's one of the thieves who made tons of money from the fraud. Or, perhaps, like many republicker morons, he just believes that if he licks the rich often enough they will make him one of them.

Don't assume that because Goolsbee taught at U of C for 14 years and wants to go back, means that he isn't a believer in Keynesian principles. No doubt that U of C Business has turned out some real snakes, but that doesn't mean their economics staff is entirely one sided in their views.

The fact is that it is clear that with the politics of today, no one is going to implement Goolsbee's advice. In that regard he can probably have a bigger impact educating the future economists of tomorrow.

Goolsbee is a "Third Way" guy without a doubt and that approach is clearly going to be blocked by Republicans and the power brokers of free market Capitalism. Goolsbee can probably do more good regarding his philosophy by educating new followers, than by staying where he is at, only to keep banging his head into a wall. I'm sure he will still be unofficially consulting with the President as these guys are very much on the same page.

1NewDay -

Have you talked to business owners? I'm taking about small to medium size business owners that need to make an annual budget; that need to make a 5 or 7 year plan. Those are the ones who are uncertain about what their future expenses would be under this President. Those are the ones that employ the majority of people in this country. I'm not talking about major corporations, I'm talking about the bread and butter of this country who would be risking their own personal assets if they roll the dice and they aren't going to do it. They are not going to hire or expand until they have a better grasp of healthcare costs, taxes, etc. It's smart business and they are doing it because they want to stay in business. Better to have $250,000.00 in the bank and not hire or expand right now then to spend the money only to find out in 2 years that you cannot sustain what you have built and have to close your doors.

Yeah I've talked with a lot of small business owners and have my own experience. A couple of the business owners are stupid fools who make money in spite of themselves, by treating people like dirt and paying barely above minimum wage. These are guys who have no clue and have some "trusted" bean counter brother-in-law do all their finances. A couple of these guys claim to be "uncertain" but they can't explain why. When pressed, they will just say something like "I just can't stand that Obama, he's bad for business. I know I'll get screwed, you just can't trust those people." These are Fox news people who think Glen Beck is a genius! Yeah, you probably know some of these guys and they are uncertain about what they're uncertain about. But the only thing that will change their mind is a white hillbilly in the White House.

Those with a good head on their shoulders say things like, "I'd love to expand but my customer base is still down 25% from 2 years ago." But frankly about 80% in the Chamber are basically idiots who simply use their business as a clever way to support their lifestyles. But even most of them realize you can't sell stuff if nobody is buying. Excess supply does not create demand. But they'll get by, they'll just hold off on the new Suburban and cut out a couple convention vacations.

I say again, no business owner with half a brain should have any doubt about cost issues, unless of course they listen to Fox rumors rather than read the laws themselves or use a competent attorney/accountant. If there is any uncertainty, it is because the right wing pundits are feeding the rumor mill. Now if you are uncertain about expanding, on the possibility that things could possibly improve, well you have good reason to be uncertain as there is no real jobs plan being proposed by Republicans and any Obama plan that involves spending a dollar is going nowhere. Now, if you are seriously considering expanding when their is no demand or even a viable promise of future demand, you're just stupid. Most businesses are nowhere near operating at capacity, so maybe hiring some people back might be considered, but true expansion is a dream with no real cause to do it.

Any business person who uses the "uncertainty excuse" is simply not very bright. If you are falling for this line, you don't know very much about supply side economics. This is not a typical recession. Most consumers aren't sitting on cash because they are uncertain about the future. They burned through their reserves a long time ago. They have nothing to spend. Think about it, 25 million people without jobs, (the real number, not the official figure), are not spending ~$30,000/year in consumer goods and services. That's $750 billion not being circulated. Likewise, at least another 25 million employed are holding debt, maybe have an underwater mortgage, can't get credit and are barely hanging on. That's probably at least another $10k/year not in circulation. Put that together and you're talking about a trillion dollars worth of business not happening. But also think about why it makes sense. Housing values are still down $10-15 trillion from where they were a few years ago. Most of that is middle class consumer wealth that has simply vanished. The only people with money are the upper middle class and the wealthy. And there's simply not that many of them. Unless your business specifically targets those people, there is little reason to consider any kind of growth in your business.

I stand by my statement and although there may be some who claim to be uncertain it's because somebody told them to be uncertain. If they have a real business mind, they'll have a damn good idea of where their costs are going.

So, when did the Presidency become a trainee position??

I thought you had to kind of know what you were doing from the get-go.

OH, That's right, Obama was only a "community organizer" in Chicago. No economic experience there. No foreign policy experience there either.

Oh yeah, he was a junior Senator from Illinois for what?? six months?? And he voted present most of the time. Present, meaning...what?? My body is here, but I don't care what is being voted on??

This is what we elected?? Some really stupid voters out there. I think most of them have scraped the old Obama stickers off their bumpers out of embarrassment.

The ship is sunk.

"59 percent, a new high, gave Obama negative marks for his handling of the economy, up from 55 percent a month earlier.

Obama's approval rating on the deficit issue hit a new low of 33 percent, down 6 points since April."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/pl_nm/us_poll_obama

I find it hard to believe 59% of Americans are that stupid. How old is the article you cut & pasted from?

96ws6.....it's all over every news site today....including MSNBC...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43308329/ns/business-stocks_and_economy

And why exactly would that make the 59% stupid? What has he done to improve anything that would make the majority of people approve of his work?

Luckily he will put another professor in their and the only people left with jobs will be government workers. Obama has thousands of these professor left to pick from. And they are all tenured.

Remember, business laid off workers as soon as the economy began to tank. They looked out for their profits and not the workers/customers. Theory is how a rational market works. What happened here was thievery, plain and simple. The banks make money off of inflating prices of commodities with "free" money from the Fed. Then fails to lend the money they just "earned" with their trades. Big business sits on capital not hiring any additional workers, because they can make all the goods they need with reduced labor. You should blame business, not solely this administration. While, I would've taken a different course than this administration. The Obama administration did what the textbooks say they should've done. Pay the private sector to hire workers, give tax breaks to workers to help them consume, and by their consumption require more workers to replenish goods consumed.

However, I think that big business played this administration. I myself believe that hiring the unemployed in the same business from which they were laid off would've been a more effective stimulus. Competing directly with big business would've been a effective incentive to them to re-hire laid off personnel, and get back to work.

Finally, I wonder why do you send your children to school if you don't want them to learn theory. All knowledge is based upon theory, application and evaluation. Other than that you might as well have apprenticeship programs for certain fields. But then you'll have an inflexible workforce, much as you have now, that cannot anticipate and react to changing workforces/economies.

Peter17; "Well" now he has experience too, after the first year he had experience, He did a good job, considering the mess he had to work with because of the recession!!!

The Republicans have been in control of congress for five months now Peter what have they done since they have been there with all their experience? keep rooting for them Peter and who knows they might get something done in a year or two the way they are doing there job so far!!!

yes, knowledge is based on theory ----- but you know what they say about theories............... ------------------and if all your teachings are slanted toward your own particular theories, then how is that objective teaching ?? ----- if i was a teacher, i would want my students exposed to all theorys, then if they agreed more with mine, it would reinforce my belief in my own theories.

This guy leaving is change I can believe in. Now I even have reason for hope.

Oh and who do you think educated these bankers and government officials that robbed us blind. I doubt if they learned this behaviour running their dads hardware store. I believe that many of these guys went to haaavard and yale etc etc. Where they learned their morals and economic theory from guys who have never owned or run a buisiness.

Chilidem - business MUST look after their profits. They can't keep their doors open otherwise. They must make the most profits for their shareholders which includes all the union pension plans. This theory notion from the left that only republicans are benefiting from the run-up in the market is laughable. If this market doesn't continue to climb, say goodbye to any public union pensions, or least look for them to be drastically reduced. The left had better hope the private sector finds a way to keep making those profits even with rising commodity prices that Ben inflated.

I know Ben inflated those commodity prices by printing money out of thin air expecting that money to go to work. Well early on it was obvious a lot of it left the country to go to work for other countries. Nice move Obama. I also realize that Obama wanted to switch from the consumer driven economy to an export economy and thus pushing the dollar down would encourage that. However, those rising oil costs, brought on by a weak dollar, hurt consumers and now they have quit spending.

We just keep plugging holes as others surface. This is because this administration keeps looking back believing we can rekindle the Clinton years when the tech industry was galloping. We have no such industry today that will create tons of high paying jobs. The strategy must be different and something that the US will embrace for decades, not just for the next couple years.

Steven B:

YES, I agree with you. It went SOOO bad for business that every major Corporation record high profits ....

SOOO BAD for the economy....

Can I start laughing now???

Unemployment = through the roof.

Foreclosures = whopping.

Underemployment = 20%

New businesses = down.

US Standard & Poor rating = downgraded.

Deficit = trillions.

Value of the Dollar = crappy.

Economic forecast?

IMF cuts economic forecasts for U.S.

http://money.cnn.com/2011/04/11/news/international/imf_world_economic_outlook/index.htm

US economic growth down on forecast

http://www.onefinancialmarkets.com/news/2011/04/28/us-economic-growth-down-on-forecast/

Steven. Big business is doing that, not the Government. Well...the Government (both sides) allow it for two reasons. One...it's their Gravy Train, and two...any time there is talk of regulation or holding big business accountable, everyone screams Socialism. The economy will NEVER be 'fixed' (pretty much all your talking points) until businesses stop pushing jobs offshore and start paying taxes at the rate of the average citizen.

Stevie boy, the Fortune 200 are awash in cash. Apple has over $60 billion in cash. Major corporations are buying back their stock. The last of the TARP funds will be paid back this year with interest. If you have a bank to bank at...thank Presidents Bush and Obama.

And this happens since?????? Jan 20, 2009 maybe>????

The 2008 housing market and Wall Street debacle happened in another country?

Have you seen by any chance the movie "Too Big To Fail"????

I know that you'll accuse me of being "liberal", but it was the "conservative" freedom of enterprise that put us where we are now.

They keep making profits and middle class America to the toilet.

BTW

Obama: Bad for business!

That was your line, not mine.... Business is perfectly fine!

Obama is a Socialist. Those companies and all that cash you allege they have? They're not spending it.

Know why? Because they're waiting for Obama and Co. to raise taxes and they're waiting for the huge burden that is Obamacare.

More people work for the Government now than ever. Obama spent that god-awful 'stimulus' money and we have nothing to show for it, except debt.

Pelosi hasn't 'cleaned uo the swamp'.

The liberal Democrats are destroying the nation, one job at a time.

LOL....Wow...I see a very ugly headline in this guy.

Know why Steven...It's like the CEO of the company I work for says when asked why we offshore 60 - 80% of our workforce in the current American economy. . "We cannot be concerned about the economy of any of the countries we do business in. That is not our responsibility. Our responsibility is the profit we make for our shareholders"

Grouse about it if you'd like, WisconsinDad, but it's true and that's as it SHOULD BE. A CEO's only job is to return as much value as possible to shareholders.

Now before you get all bent out of shape about it, keep in mind that most of the stock of the fortune 500 companies is owned by pension and retirement funds which require high returns in order to fund the retirements of a whole bunch of elderly folks in the U.S.

Trust me Paul...I make PLENTY off the backs of those overseas apes...and I never said I don't 'understand' how business works, and I'm certainly not 'bent out of shape'. I'm telling it like it is. There are so many idiots that believe Government is responsible for the woes of our economy, it's just not true. When the s#it hits the fan, my a$$ will be with the CEO...out of the way and safe. Good luck to you and the rest of the poor souls.

More automated technology=smaller workforce. Smaller workforce in third world country=more profits. Fewer taxes=more profits. Fewer labor laws=more profits. Less insurance compensation=more profits. No retirement options=more profits. Lower cost of living=less raises and more profits. Not hiring Americans=more profits. Policy makers in DC talking about the economy=can't fix what is culture.

@Paul-2314271 wrote

that's as it SHOULD BE. A CEO's only job is to return as much value as possible to shareholders.

But that's a misguided & overly simplistic frame of analysis. First, even the issue of maximizing shareholder wealth is confounded by one's time frame. It takes different policy decisions to increase the stock price for a half-year vs. for a few years vs. for a few generations. A CEO must be concerned about other stakeholders besides the stockholders -- employees & their families, the local community, the environment, customers, suppliers/vendors. Even those who want maximization of shareholder wealth as the sole criterion for CEO evaluation, must recognize that providing for a company's other stakeholders generally promotes the longer term profit fortunes of a company. If a company sucks the life out of its other stakeholders, that company may likely suffer its own survival challenges.

Bad for Big Business is Good for America.

Based on your "logic" toasty, the government should NOT have bailed out GM and Chrysler. All those remaining jobs would no longer REMAIN.

Face it. Big business has relocated jobs overseas because of ever-increasing government rules and restrictions and the high cost of labor. Union demands have had a lot to do with labor costs and the labor burden.

Of course, in your world, a company should always go for higher production costs and thereby run itself out of business.

You know Jim, the "the unions are the reason for outsourcing" argument is tired at best.

So jim, big corporations relocate offshore to avoid America's corporate tax structure, its government's business regulations and the American labor cost. Then tell us why they should also be allowed to maintain their access to the richness of America's markets.

America has a mutual allegiance between its labor force and its markets, then why should the politically bought practice of foreign based corporations being allowed to exploit the American markets while avoiding a responsibility to America's populace and its labor force. If the other countries business offerings are so much better than America's, then base the corporation's profit structure also on their markets. You can rest assured that America will survive and other American corporations will fill the void.

Okay, don't allow them to have access. Then what happens....30% unemployment ?

Toasty, all you have to do is look backat the history of the auto industry. In the late 60's, the American market was thriving and foreign competetion was nothing. Unions push for more and more and more....today, American products struggle to compete with less expensive foreign labor.

No jim, America doesn't what a hypothetical threat of high unemployment, but just how does a majority of corporate employment at minimum wage with no healthcare or retirement considerations support and maintain a rich American market. How can corporations expect to keep exploiting America's richness without the responsibility to assist with its replenishment, if not the responsibility of those taking out, then who's is it? America's economy is based on a zero sum game, not a never ending stream.

Well welcome to democracy, Jim. Love it or leave it.

use your....:

And what "socialism" is??????

Doubtful, that would require acknowledging reality.

This is what needs to be done about the weak economic recovery; If the congress wants to bring back jobs, and have A full economic force generating revenues to pay on the deficit they need to make it happen! waiting for it to happen will take too long, and millions will suffer, and fall behind creating more problems that will cost more money down the road.
If they pay the people unemployed and low wage earners around 17 million people around five or six hundred dollars per week for two years this will bring these people up to the poverty level, and give them the chance they need to recover, and support there lives and families while saving the government, and states money that would be spent to help them, also the money they spend will stimulate the economy.
Also to make it more effective, and bring in more tax revenues allow them to work while they collect this money without penalties; from the five or six hundred dollars take out from the top 28% tax, and 8% SS tax every week, If they give this 28% to the states every week as A one time accounting practice it will stabilize most of the states, in a short time, this in turn would create many jobs on the state and city levels, and bring in more tax revenues while stimulating the economy more.
[ Also the states should not pay this money back]
[ for these two years they could cut more spending with a much lessor effect on peoples lives as the economy is being stimulated by all the new taxes, from the jobs this would create.]
The government and states could withhold assistance money for two years saving more while at the same time the ones receiving this would have to re- apply for it later possible eliminating much waste and fraud by means testing when they apply for it.
repeal the Bush tax breaks for the wealthy, and the middle class as A way to pay for this, also it could help to raise wages in the work force when they have more demand for workers.

If they do this it will create demand! it will stabilize the base of our economy; and allow the people on the bottom to recover some of what they and their families lost during this recession, it will also bring in more tax money to help pay on the deficit, with the lower class receiving what they need the government can cut more spending, and eliminate more waste, to bring the debt down, when the 1.4 trillion dollar deficit is paid off the government will save billions of dollars on the interest they are paying on that now.

also when the troops come home they will find a better job market waiting for them, this plan is a way for everyone to benefit and the country will recover better!!!

note the 28% tax taken from the top would be around 2.4 billion dollars per week going to the states for two years, the money paid to these people would be around 5.9 billion dollars going into the economy each week for two years, the 8% would be around 70 billion dollars that could be paid on the deficit or to SS !!!

Many of these people have been living without a pay check for a long time now, in order to have a strong economy we need to have a strong middle lower class ; this is a Way to get these people back on their feet so they can be a strong foundation so the economy can grow, it will also help the real estate markets!!!

dale:

Remember that JOBS, JOBS, JOBS was only the slogan to have the Teapublicans out of the closet. Corporate America who paid their campaigns won't let that happen.

herman33189; I agree if the jobs come back it would not be good for the Republicans, in the next election "but" it sure would be good for the country!!!

But remember that "they" have "party" over country, otherwise how could you in your sane mind understand that since day 1 they've been doing to make this administration fails (like if they live in another country)

That's what enrages me the most.

IF THIS (OR ANY) ADMINISTRATION FAILS IS AMERICA WHO FAILS.......

And they called themselves "Patriots"....

How lame!!!!

Uh I think both sides have done their share of that. They all think of everything first in terms of "how is this going to effect ME?", second in terms of "how is this going to effect my PARTY?" and third (maybe....could actually be lower) in terms of "how is this going to effect my COUNTRY?". That goes for Democrats, Republicans, Independents, Tea Party....who ever.

Why do we always end up pointing a finger in one direction or another anyway? I really couldn't care less who's fault it is that we are in the mess we are in....I just want someone to stand up, put their finger away....and do something to fix it. So far no one has been willing to do that.

Dale // Herman.... do you honestly believe it's only Republicans in the pockets of monied special interests? If so, why may I ask did Mr. O, after his heart felt appearance at ground zero, have a campaign fundraiser dinner that cost $35,000 per place for those poor people who work on Wall Street.. I thought those people were all Republicans.. at least according to YOUR thought process.

When will ALL of the people wake up and realize that POLITICIANS from BOTH parties are nothing more than paid special interest prostitutes. They do the bidding of whomever is paying them at the moment... and it changes predicated on who offers more for the trick.

David:

Forgive him, he was doing the Geiko commercial "living under the rock" for the last 20 or 30 years maybe?????

Yes, you can have another GW in the Teapublican ranks.....

Jeb doesn't want now....

The name BUSH is still too "heavy" and carries too much weight in it....

Maybe 2016

DMAC:

It wasn't YOUR Repugnican economy that leads us where we stand today?

The September crisis of Wall Street in 2008 that leads us to the 1st bailout, remember that "They are too big to fail"....? And the crisis with the housing market where people here in America (maybe can we call them Americans?) believe that buying and selling homes was like buying and selling candies, with the complacency of the BANKS because they profit from it,. All that was under the Conservative government of GW (aka Junior) and "don't cross in my line of fire" Cheney. We get involved in 2 wars (iraq wasn't needed at the time) and who was who said "deficits don't matter???".So, if for economic failure you are blaming the Democraps how about blaming the Repugnicans too.??????

Could ya'll seriously just grow the hell up and stop with the Democraps, Repugnicans and Teabaggers? You sound like a bunch of brats on a playground. Why don't you fling boogers at eachother while you're at it.

Unemployment while Bush Jr. was President averaged 5.3%. Unemployment while Obama has been President has averaged 9.4%. Both of them had recessions to deal with. The facts speak for themselves.

Liberals/progressives never like to use actual facts. They think facts just confuse the public. Since early 1984, soon after the deep recession Reagan had to deal with ended, the unemployment rate in the U.S. was below 8% for 25 years, until February 2009, shortly after Obama promised the country that his "stimulus" plan would keep unemployment from rising above 8%. Some promise.

David:

For Peter and most of the Teapublicans it was someting that happened on Jan 20, 2009 at noon, just after Obama sworn in. Before that they lived in La La Land......

Obama has been the first anti-business President I can remember. His anti-business agenda was clear from the day he was elected. Business didn't trust Obama, so they reacted as business always does when they are concerned about the future, they hunkered down and cut well beyond what they would have done had they had any confidence. They still don't trust Obama, and that is why the recovery is so weak. I don't trust Obama, and that is why I cut back on our spending even though I didn't need to. And I have been restructuring my assets to be ready for the crash that will come if we don't rid ourselves of the current occupant of the White House in 2012.

Peter, I believe the economy (as well as foreign policy, environment, deficit, debt, etc.) Obama inherited from Bush was just a LITTLE more dire than what Clinton turned over to Bush. Here's some actual facts for you - Bush inherited a suplus of over $200 billion, and Obama inherited a deficit of $1.3 trillion. Bush didn't include the cost of the wars in the budget - Obama does.

Bill, please check the U.S. Treasury website. The last year the national debt did not increase was 1957 while Eisenhower was President. Clinton, just like all recent Presidents, have used Enron accounting style practices to make their budgets look better. Bottom Line - there never was a Clinton Surplus.

In addition, the key to weathering recessions is to keep those with money spending. Obama did everything he could to trash businesses and promote class warfare, trashing the wealthy. That was the worst thing he could have done. He needed those folks to keep spending, and he got the opposite. Businesses were actually e-mailing their execs. asking them to dial back their personal spending. Those with the upper 20% of incomes account for 40% of ALL consumer spending and 50% of all DISCRETIONARY spending. That is the one group you cannot afford to trash.

Peter please check FactCheck.org. I think you've been watching too much Fox TV. The rich have been getting richer and richer every year. They now pay a fraction of the taxes they paid during the Reagan administration on through the Clinton Administration. According to factcheck:

"Social Security surplus" makes the total deficit or surplus figures look better than they would if Social Security wasn't counted. But even if we remove Social Security from the equation, there was a surplus of $1.9 billion in fiscal 1999 and $86.4 billion in fiscal 2000. So any way you count it, the federal budget was balanced and the deficit was erased, if only for a while."

Peter: You keep mixing two terms: The national debt and the annual budget. The annual budget is something far different from the national debt. Please be careful how you use the terms.

-

They do, and it only takes 12 czars, 7 new committees, and a taxpayer funded subsidy of $5,000 for each drop of oil.

Officially it "saves or creates" 2,374 jobs at a price tag of "only" $26.7 BILLION annually.

Did you by asking that question?

Actually, I think he (David-34) made an excellent point.

And how might they have done that, by giving BP free reign to destroy the rest of our shores?

Socialism fails because sooner or later you run out of other people's money to spend. That sounds kind of familiar to what we are experiencing now. We've made promises we cannot keep.

David - it won't matter. All you seem to care about is who wins the next election cycle. I, and many others, will be making financial decisions before that election even occurs. Either the current Congress and Obama get serious about getting our federal spending down, or we will do what we must to protect principle and keep our assets safe while the credit markets force radical changes, similar to what we are seeing today in Greece. That is the future if we don't change direction. And I, and many others, will have gotten off the U.S. Titanic long before it hits the iceberg and sinks. This is not "all for one and one for all", it is more like everyone for themself. Your choice.

I hardly think economists like Alice Rivlin are promoting right-wing progaganda. Even liberal Senators like Durbin from Illinois support the idea of cutting the deficit $4 trillion, with $3 trillion of spending cuts and $1 trillion of revenue gains. That was the recommendation of the Obama bipartisan deficit reduction commission. The only reason Ryan would not support it was that it did not address the huge unfunded mandate we have with Medicare. He would have supported the rest of the package.

We do not have the money to do everything people want from government. It is that simple. There is no way to get sufficient tax revenue without a V.A.T. and there appears to be no support for that approach. The numbers are what they are. We are on an unsustainable course. Hide your head in the sand if you wish. Not me.

All you do is pull numbers out of your fat ass and put a percentage sign behind it to MAKE IT LOOK LIKE YOU KNOW WHAT YOUR TALKING ABOUT.

You know exactly what Im talking about...forget socialist policy, basic liberal philosphy fails.

Wealth is earned and not given...You lispy liberals can pass all the laws you want ...Some people are productive, others are stupid and still others are entitled lard-asses who can only cry "where my check where my benifit".

Anti-libs outgun libs on this LIBERAL BOARD 2:1. I type 50 meesages per day on non-partisian boards where it counts ..you better get off your fat ass and get to work. I'm sure you can sh*t some more numbers.

But wealth can be taken too. Without liberals, we would all still be small tribes. Without liberals, we would be just like Africa.

If the south seceded today would the north really carry it's dead weight back? 9 times out of 10 if a state is red, it takes more money from the government than it gives back in taxes. Just check the Federal taxes received to given ratio.

States. Here are the Top 10 states that feed at the federal trough (with Red States highlighted in bold):

States Receiving Most in Federal Spending Per Dollar of Federal Taxes Paid:

1. D.C. ($6.17)
2. North Dakota ($2.03)
3. New Mexico ($1.89)
4. Mississippi ($1.84)
5. Alaska ($1.82)
6. West Virginia ($1.74)
7. Montana ($1.64)
8. Alabama ($1.61)
9. South Dakota ($1.59)
10. Arkansas ($1.53)

States Receiving Least in Federal Spending Per Dollar of Federal Taxes Paid:

1. New Jersey ($0.62)
2. Connecticut ($0.64)
3. New Hampshire ($0.68)
4. Nevada ($0.73)
5. Illinois ($0.77)
6. Minnesota ($0.77)
7. Colorado ($0.79)
8. Massachusetts ($0.79)
9. California ($0.81)
10. New York ($0.81)

All this is from 2004, I think it is the most recent list.

Congratulations David,,,,you have won The Massengill Award ! You EARNED it big guy for all your name calling and disrespectful comments of other opinions.

You will not likely be disciplined, however, because you support Obama.

Actually, according to the Congressional Budget Office, it was the middle class and below who benefitted most from the bipartisan Bush-Era tax cuts (the Senate was split 50-50 during Bush's first two years and 51-49 during the second two).

Those with the top 2% of incomes, according to the CBO, pay almost 50% of individual federal income tax yet got just 20% of the benefits from those tax cuts. The other 98% of taxpayers who pay just over 50% of individual federal income tax got 80% of the benefits. Don't you just love numbers and facts?

I say let ALL those tax cuts terminate at the end of 2012 when they are due to expire. How about you??

Weath distribution in this country has been remarkably consistent over the past 40 years. The top 1% has controlled about 35% of the wealth. The next 19% has controlled 47-49%, and the bottom 80% around 16-18%. Wealth is not distributed, it is earned. The financial pie is not and never has been limited. Accordingto IRS data, the biggest gains in wealth for the those in the upper 10% of incomes occurred during the late 1990s while Clinton was President as a result of the equity/tech bubble. Small fortunes were made, helped along because Clinton cut the long term capital gains rate from 28% to 20%, a bigger cut than was done by Bush.

I am not suggesting that the tax cuts did all that much for the economy, what it did was cut taxes more for the middle class than it did for the high income earners. And those at the bottom got big increases in their tax credits. The CBO's point was that cutting marginal rates does less for the economy than using that same amount of money in other ways. But Dems and Reps alike pushed through those cuts. The Senate was split 50-50 in 2001. The deal for the Bush-Era cuts was done between Bush and Daschel, Dem leader in the Senate. They split the difference between what each side wanted, a pure compromise.

Peter17

what it did was cut taxes more for the middle class than it did for the high income earners.

What they cut in terms of real dollars for the average middle class person was about .0000000001% of 1% of the rich....

If I make $20,000 dollars a year and you give me a 3% reduction, I get $600. If I make $20 million dollars and you give me a 1% tax reduction, it's $600K.

So when they say we'll give everyone a 3% reduction they really mean you'll get $600 dollars and I'll get 600 times more than you...sounds fair..

Don,

The person making $20,000 pays $2000 income tax on their income, the rich person in your example pays $8,000,000 on his. Since the people making $20,000 are the ones most likely to be using all of the government social benefits, they should be thanking the rich person for paying their way instead of complaining that they don't get as much back on a tax reduction.

I don't want tax reduction for nobody...

The more you make, the more you pay,.....

wrong brenda

it was all caused by the community reinvestment act. i was in banking at the time. were you? if not, you have no idea what you are talking about.

NONE

Wade - The problem with your argument is that almost every cabinet member stays only about 2 years, in every administrtion, republican and democrat.. Hardly jumping ship.......

And I'd suggest you start looking for another country because he will get re-elected...

And if you listen to most economists the major indicators do not depict a slip into a recession but continued growth...

i cant imagine anyone stupid enough to believe obama deserves re-election

don if this is your idea of "growth" i simply pity you