And the same powers that ensured that they got all the recovery money are now using the Tea Party to eliminate the economic safety net for that bottom 90% of us as well.

That way, they get 100% of the recovery $$, not just 98%.

Anyone who thinks companies aren't hiring due to lack of money is deluded. Corporate profits are at their highest level in the history of this country, and they're sitting on over $1.5 TRILLION in cash. OUR cash.

Are we really dumb enough to help them get the rest as well?

GHX - that is the smartest thing posted today. Thanks

I've said it before and I will say it again, tax breaks for billionaires DO NOT create jobs! What makes people think it does?

If I am a business owner, I hire employees with my business capital and investments. I do not pull out my credit card and pay salaries with the money from the refund check I got from the government. The money millionaires and billionaires keep from tax breaks sit in private bank accounts until they decide to buy a yacht from Italy or a limo from Britain.

But of course, the Republicans believe that we should feel privileged to work 65 hours a week at our two or three jobs, that we might feel privileged to live off of the non-existent "trickle" coming from the wealthiest Americans' pockets.

How can government create jobs? What does the record show?

The government does not create jobs (except when they hire more people in government). They can only create an environment for the private sector to create jobs. That business environment is set by Congress, through taxes and regulations (either pro or anti growth). The President has little to do with it, except by signing or vetoing legislation.

When we 'do the numbers' based on who controlled Congress over the last 30 years, here are the actual numbers when it comes to 'creating jobs';

Jobs created when Democrats controlled Congress (12 years) = 8,100,000 net new jobs.
Jobs created when Republicans controlled Congress (10 years) = 21,773,000 net new jobs.
Jobs created when Congress was split (8 years) = 9.888,000 net new jobs.

Clearly, Republican Congresses help 'create' jobs, while Democratic Congresses have a poor jobs record.

PS – Over the last 30 years, we needed an average of about 160,000 net new jobs per month to maintain a stable unemployment rate. Anything less increases the (real) unemployment rate, while anything more decreases the (real) unemployment rate.

Sources - Democrats controlled Congress from 1987 – 1994, and from 2007 – 2010. Republicans controlled Congress from 1995 – 2000, and from 2003 – 2006. There was a split Congress from 1980 – 1986 and for 2001 & 2002. The government site to verify average employment by year is;

http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat1.pdf

henryxc - Some very big players are using deficit scare-mongering to get you to go along with giving up the crumbs they've left you so far.

America is nowhere near going under due to debt, but 98% of Americans are very near to going under due to the tax and power-grab that those players have made over the last 20 years.

There is more money in the American economy today than there was in 2007. (See Corporate profits have recovered, but job market still depressed) The question is, where is it going? Not to workers any more.

Nothing like driving a wedge into our country... From the article:

Driven by higher profits, the Dow Jones industrial average has staged a breathtaking 90 percent rally since bottoming at 6,547 on March 9, 2009. Those stock market gains go disproportionately to the wealthiest 10 percent of Americans, who own more than 80 percent of outstanding stock

How is it disproportionate when the rich make the investment and take the risk? They invest their money in stocks and somehow it's disproportionate that they make the profits from their actions? They can also take a bath when the markets tank. What will the headlines say when the markets fall? I can imagine it now... Market falls, rich people become poor people YAY!

I don't know the motives behind MSNBC, but they are supporting class warfare. I'm not rich at all, but it makes no sense to blame the rich when they know how to manage their money, take risks and make profits when they can. I suppose MSNBC is frothing at the mouth for a stock market collapse.

MSNBC cites a female mortgage broker as their example of a new poor person. Why don't they cite me? For 23 years I have been in construction. Do I blame rich people for the lack of work in my profession? Not at all. I do blame the government for the housing bubble because of the practices of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Leave it to liberal MSNBC to drive that wedge and get people to hate the rich even more.

Roy - the numbers are reversed if you look at which party held the White House. Yet you've posted a whole lot of comments about how Obama hasn't created jobs.

Nice selective data mining and ignoring the facts when they don't support your FAUX-fueled beliefs.

ROY: While I don't dispute your figures, you can't draw a cause and effect from them. Job creation has more to do with business cycles than who's on the Hill in any given year. What you're implying, that Republicans create more jobs than Democrats, may be true, but you can't prove that just with a compilation of employment figures.

Brianb - Funny how when the investor class grabs the biggest piece of the American pie in history, nobody can say a word without people like you crying "class warfare".

Who do you think MADE all that money for them? WORKERS.

Hey Comrade (no pun intended),

You do realize that the US EFFECTIVE corporate tax rate is only about 17%, right? After all those write-offs, deductions, "production credits" and so on that we (the taxpayers) provide to them?

And that's nowhere NEAR the highest in the world.

Many countries who are currently kicking our a$$ economically have much higher effective (meaning ACTUAL) corporate tax rates.

That's why sh$t like this happens:

What the financial statement says is that ExxonMobil, in 2009, after a handful of deferrals, recorded a total U.S. income tax benefit (i.e., a refund) of $46 million. Next to this, it shows total non-U.S. income taxes of $15.165 billion.

Roy Wilson,

Another interesting website showing the difference between red states and blue states is:

http://godlesspaladin.com/2010/08/10/liberal-states-vs-conservative-states-which-are-better/

Yet you've posted a whole lot of comments about how Obama hasn't created jobs.

The President and his cabinet sets the policy for job creation. Since Obama has filled his cabinet with academics and not people who actually ran businesses, its no surprise Obama and his cabinet have no idea how to set policy that is conducive to job growth.

ComradeChaos,

WOW! Seriously, what revisionist histories are you reading - do you get your talking points every morning from FOX and Friends. Taxes are at their lowest point since the early 1950's. True, small and medium size companies pay their fair share but the multinationals and large corporations not only do not pay taxes because of they can afford the LLL (Lawyers, Lobbyists and Loopholes) but they get Corporate Welfare, tax refunds and shelter their profits in off shore accounts all the while sending jobs overseas. You like many of those on the Right fail to understand that monopolistic Corporatism is the antithesis (opposite) of Free Enterprise. Their notion of Capitalism is a system where there is no supply and demand, competition or innovation. The game is rigged my friend! Use a little critical thinking!

Bush and the GOP Congress caused this. Obama is trying to fix the most colossal mess ever left to a new president. So...

...let's blame Obama, and get another Republican in office.

That logic makes sense!

RealAmericansFirst "Roy - the numbers are reversed if you look at which party held the White House."

Nice try, but no cigar.

Over the last 30 years, these are the results;

When Republicans controlled the White House, 27,669,000 net jobs were created.
When Democrats controlled the White House, 12,101,000 net jobs were created.

Nice try at a 'spin' though.

RealAmerican, true, corporate America, even though making huge profits and sitting on a nice nest egg, are not about to make Obama look good by hiring and speeding up the recovery. Republicans and the corporate world are working hand in hand to throw out an anchore in order to slow economic growth and hiring.......Look at the facts, the only solutions offered by the republicans to put people back to work is lowering taxes on the rich and deregulation of Wall street, the very same solutions that caused the great recession in the first place.........Obama is on the right track for resurrecting a sustainable economy and job growth, too bad he is being hindered by having to drag the republicans along inch by inch kicking and screaming

How can the economy recover without any meaningful regulation of the banks that put us here in the first place? I moved out of my home in search of work 21 months ago, and still cannot get closure with the B of A.

With record numbers of empty homes and homeless people I expected much more from the Obama administration in prosecuting the culprits. Instead, they bailed out the banks with our tax dollars and let the CEOs keep the ill-gotten gains.

How can recovery begin until the bank removes their boot from our throats? How can the deficit be reduced while we are borrowing from countries like China, and then giving billions to countries like Pakistan?

We need to cut all foreign aid until we put our own finances in order. Stop taking the food off of my table and giving it to others that are better off. I'm not going to point fingers at one party or the other, because they all put us here and refuse to take any responsibility for it.

The banks did not do this by themselves. Congress voted for the deregulation that allowed this to happen. It shouldn’t be rocket science that you can’t spend more than you make. The answer is not to keep raising the debt ceiling. I believe accounting classes should be a requirement for those seeking office.

AG999

While you cannot PROVE such cause and effect, you certainly can INFER it.

It also matches the 'conventional wisdom' that Republican Congresses tend to be pro-growth (pro-jobs), while Democratic Congresses tend to be anti-business. Can you think of any real pro-business policies over the last 4 years under a Democratic Congress? I can cite several anti-business policies by the Democrats (HCR, Financial 'Reform', EPA regulations, drilling moratoriums, etc., etc., etc.).

People voted for "Change we can believe in", but only now are they realizing what that meant.

Morning AZ--I thing it has become fashionable to care for the nation's wealthiest like they are needy children and forget the middle class and the blue collar worker. Corporations are cutting benefits and pay, while shareholders cheer. I think corporate America is a far bigger problem than our government. The defense contractors run the show and are joined by the rest of the wealthy welfare recipients.

Regarding the issue of people in this country illegally---if the corporations don't hire them, they won't cross that border and eliminate cartels by making marijuana legal in all 50 states. Bring the troops home, amend the Constitution so the can act as border patrols and replace TSA.

Stop squandering all the tax dollars collected on WMD's and occupation of countries that will change on their own as they grow. It's not our job to police the world.

I don't think we should hate the wealthy. If you have not tried being wealthy, how does one know what it is like? It's like Italian food, I think. How do you know if you would like it or what it would be like if you have never tried it? Try it first and then if you should decide you don't like it, then you can complain about wealthy people and stop being wealthy yourself.

ROY WILSON-336103

How can government create jobs? What does the record show?

The government does not create jobs (except when they hire more people in government). They can only create an environment for the private sector to create jobs. That business environment is set by Congress, through taxes and regulations (either pro or anti growth). The President has little to do with it, except by signing or vetoing legislation.

When we 'do the numbers' based on who controlled Congress over the last 30 years, here are the actual numbers when it comes to 'creating jobs';

Jobs created when Democrats controlled Congress (12 years) = 8,100,000 net new jobs.
Jobs created when Republicans controlled Congress (10 years) = 21,773,000 net new jobs.
Jobs created when Congress was split (8 years) = 9.888,000 net new jobs.

Clearly, Republican Congresses help 'create' jobs, while Democratic Congresses have a poor jobs record.

PS – Over the last 30 years, we needed an average of about 160,000 net new jobs per month to maintain a stable unemployment rate. Anything less increases the (real) unemployment rate, while anything more decreases the (real) unemployment rate.

Sources - Democrats controlled Congress from 1987 – 1994, and from 2007 – 2010. Republicans controlled Congress from 1995 – 2000, and from 2003 – 2006. There was a split Congress from 1980 – 1986 and for 2001 & 2002. The government site to verify average employment by year is;

I don't think you can look at the "number of jobs" created within the period of political control as a measure of success. Sure, jobs were created during the Republican control - but what kind of jobs? What drove the growth during GW's control?

• Massive deregulation
• Massive amounts of cheap money from the fed.

In both cases, saying that those two caused "growth" that resulted in jobs is to mis-state the obvious: It was not real growth, but nothing more than dumping gasoline on an existing small fire - a short burst of growth, and then a massive crash resulting from the bank shenanigans and the collapse of a false/fake expansion.

Sure - it drove the market up - so what? How has that benefited average Americans? Average Americans receive their income via payrolls - not dividends.

At least when Clinton was in control - he took the overgrowth coming from the tech boom and channeled it into paying down the debt. When that boom ended, the government was at least on a steady course. Had the Republicans been in control, they would have issued tax breaks to the wealthy/corporate folks, who would have pocketed it.

Then GW swindled his way into office (FL) and opened the floodgates of deregulation, cheap loans and massive government spending (the most since FDR or LBJ). By the time Obama go to the White House, the economy had imploded, and there was little left for him to fight the fire with (two wars "off budget", un-paid for tax breaks for the wealthy, and massive deregulation of the financial industry which encouraged outright theft and fraud).

I agree with you that government spending has a very, very limited impact on employment. That is because this country has always favored private capital and free markets to any kind of oversight whatsoever. Because of that we run on a boom-bust schedule - all manipulated by a small number of folks who are getting extremely wealthy as a result.

Look at Sweden or Denmark - or Norway for that matter. Those countries, branded "Socialists" by those on the Right in the US - actually provide for their people, because they actually take care of their people - but they (the government and the citizens) are also very, very conservative when it comes to investments and regulations which would get their economies into trouble in the first place. They have very, very few - if at all - homeless people - and their economies do not boom/bust like ours.

Before you start screaming: Have you ever been to Scandinavia? I have - lots of times. Have you ever looked at how the US insurance giant USAA operates? There is actually a lot of similarity between the two - as both take care of their people, both are very conservative with their decision making and both steer a very, very steady course - based in common sense, equitable policies.

Until this country wakes up and realizes that there is more to life than getting "rich" and making "money! money! money!" we will be doomed to failure.

That's because the hucksters among us will convince us that we too can become wealthy like them, and that all we have to do is follow their prescription (which usually results in more money going to them) for success. Take a high contrast example (late night TV huckster selling "cash flow" businesses in real estate) and polish it a few thousand times and you get Wall Street execs, major corporations and people like the Koch brothers.

Example: the current "international income tax holiday" being demanded by US corporations. They say that allowing them to repatriate income to the US under a 5% tax will spur jobs. What BS! We've been to this movie before - in the mid 1990s - with the same promise - and it never happens. The money returned will go to dividends and the top 5% of wealthy Americans. The big corporations right now are enjoying record profits - mostly because their remaining employees are scared to death, and are doing the work of three people. They are not interested in hiring - only in making more profit. But, it appears that their current set of promises are taking hold in DC - so they'll get yet another break!

If you believe in the propaganda that has been shoveled to us (Freedom! Equality! Opportunity!) then you must admit that we need to restructure how we (as a country) do business. The stupidity of allowing 5% of our population to wreck the economy so they can buy yet another mansion has to stop.

Just wait until the government shuts down - and everyone - including all the rank-in-file GOP supporters stop getting their Social Security and Medicare payments. Wait until the non-wealthy supporters of the GOP vision find out that their membership cards to the "good life" are no good - that the vision really did not include them, and that the real members of that party number very, very few indeed.

See the unrest in Greece/UK and elsewhere in the world now? It's coming to your neighborhood - very soon. We (all of us - average Americans) have been lied to for a long, long time. It's as simple as that.

Brianb is right....msnbc are class warfare pimps....couple of things stand out here

-the whopping increase in the stock market over the last two years is back to 85% of where it was in 2008...if you had wanted you could have bought into this bonanza in 09 at 45 cents on the dollar. Your children could have invested thier allowances and you could have rolled your meager 6 or 10% contirbution in your 401k investment into a windfall of stocks and etf's.

-80% of the stocks are owned by the rich. Really; the mutual funds that hold most of the stocks are in your IRA and pension funds. We all must be "the rich".

-If our tax system encourages lobbyists and write offs for the wealthy and corps then maybe it should be overhauled. What about the underground economy to including thugs and dope dealers? A flat tax on consumption would work better for this country but don't bet your pandering politicians including the icons on the left would ever cede to anything that makes that much sense.

-The corporations are holding your jobs for when you vote for an administration that believes in our way of life and not in social programs in exchange for votes. Why do you suppose these "leaders" won't close the border and want to allow amnest. They prostitute your constitution to fit their need for votes. Corp coffers are bloated because the govt is bloated. There is more money in the system not because of the rich but because the fed is printing it. Consider what Obamacare is doing to your heretofore expected job benefits. The corps can't wait to unload healthcare expense on you just as they did when the fed gave you the 401k; pensions became a thing of the past. Is obama really doing that for us?

Roy Wilson asked: Can you think of any real pro-business policies over the last 4 years under a Democratic Congress?

I can think of only two. With the enactment of the ACA, insurance companies will benefit greatly. It seems the Obama administration has taken a liking to insurance companies. The second is AARP. They lobbied for the ACA passage because they will benefit in the billions for supplimental insurance since medicaid has been reduced by half a trillion dollars. AARP will be there to pick up the slack.

I guess all the other sectors will have to suffer though because of Obama's anti business policies. He must be getting something under the table from the insurance companies.

Two years after economists say the Great Recession ended, the recovery has been the weakest and most lopsided of any since the 1930s

Two years.....two years....let's see now, what has been in motion for two years? Who could it be? Bush....gone/Reagan....gone ummmm, I give up.

Seattle Architect "At least when Clinton was in control - he took the overgrowth coming from the tech boom and channeled it into paying down the debt."

Your post is much too lengthy to try to address each point, so I'll limit my rebuttal to this one obvious error. There was not a single fiscal year under Bill Clinton where the debt actually went down. It increased every single year, despite the claimed 'surpluses', which were the result of accounting trickery, not reality. Check the record and you will see that I am correct.

Roy Wilson....."Over past thirty years republican controlled White house produced 27,669000 and democrat controlled only produced 12,101000 ?"........really you say ?......Well, of the past 30 years republicans controlled the White House twice as long as democrats 20 years to 10. And in just eight years, the sexual predator Clinton produced more jobs than Reagan and Big shrub did in twelve years combined.......And your numbers are fictional anyway

So MSNBC feels it is OK to admit that there is no recovery as long as they can use it to divide America?

You would think they would realize that the wealthy only receive the benefits of the current administration; How many times did bankers meet in private with Obama to help draft the bailouts? Who gave GM a $14 billion tax gift and lets GE go tax-free in exchange for "green" propaganda and "renewal" propaganda? Who gave GE's CEO a "job czar" position in addition to his "propaganda minister" position?

You want to blame someone for a non-existent recovery blame the president who presided over it, but then again the purpose of the article is to divide/inflame the electorate because running on accomplishments would leave Obama buried in the dust, which is where he will remain anyway.

P.S.

Anyone see the re-run of "Obama single handedly kills pirates and rescues the world" Dateline show on NBC last night? Apparently Obama's dismal approval ratings warranted a burst of propaganda... can't wait for the "Obama killed Osama with his bare hands" miniseries just before November 2012.

Divide the masses, praise the king, ignore reality, label competition "extreme"; What a "leadership" inspired campaign strategy. (sarcasm)

So guys...do we still want tax breaks for the rich?

ROY WILSON-336103

Seattle Architect "At least when Clinton was in control - he took the overgrowth coming from the tech boom and channeled it into paying down the debt."

Your post is much to lengthy to try to address each point, so I'll limit it to this one obvious error. There was not a single fiscal year under Bill Clinton where the debt actually went down. It increased every single year, despite the claimed 'surpluses', which were the result of accounting trickery, not reality. Check the record and you will see that I am correct.

Perhaps - but at least the Dems got PayGo through the system and began using it. The GOP has resisted PayGo, and allowed it to expire. Then they front-loaded so many of the expenditures and tax cuts that it accelerated the failure of the economy.

From my perspective, this appears to be almost intentional. Those on the Right (and this includes members of both the GOP and Dems) seem to have both slashed revenue coming into the government, while at the same time massively increasing spending (and I don't include TARP and other stimulus spending in that simply because those appear to be reactive measures to the crisis).

It's well known that the wealthy among us (and by that, I mean super-wealthy - hundreds of millions, plus...) have always hated the social programs that FDR and LBJ put through - and now they've found a way to kill them: drive the entire thing into the ditch and we'll be forced to jettison them. They've accomplished this by doing the very thing cited above.

All I'm saying is that all of this is morally wrong - and I worry for the future of our country - and my children and grandchildren.

If any one is expecting a recovery, well, you missed it. It will not get any better. In the past, governments created bubbles by borrowing and spending, just like the stock market of 2000 or the real estate bubble and that allowed people to feel better and borrow more and spend more. Now the only bubble left was in the commodities market but that backfired because we can't afford the higher prices, in fact we are now spending more and more just to survive and there is not much left to spend it on other things. We will experience what Greece is experiencing, it is just matter of time. By 2020, the US will be spending about 25%-35% of it's total income just to make interest payments on it's debt and for that reason our economy will NOT get better. What we are doing right now is UNSUSTAINABLE, I hope America will WAKE UP.

pjam09

So MSNBC feels it is OK to admit that there is no recovery as long as they can use it to divide America?

The right has done the bidding of corporate interests, not the left. They want to continue to "not tax, yet spend on non-domestic issues. This die was cast by the GOP and their boys, Murdock and the Koch's.

Have you felt that we were "united" over the last 10 years? I haven't felt so for a couple decdes.

Our election laws have put all major politicians under the control of the super wealthy and the corporations. {Not just some, ALL politicians are controlled.} The election laws have made it virtually impossible to break out from this control with politicians who will actually represent the people. The corporate media and the wealth of the wealthy and corporations distort reality and have a lock on the truth which could break us out of the vicious cycle.

When you vote, remember what the past news has already done to you and your family. Vote wisely for your personal better interests, not what the latest advertisements say.

Ellis,

It may appear that the president is having to pull republicans along kicking and screaming but as I recall he did have a full super majority in both the House and Senate when he took office.

The man, due to his inability to lead, spent the great part of that period trying to construct a very different social contract with America surrounding health care. Though I applaud the effort, and do feel that we need to get finance out of health care and move to making it a basic right of every American to have access, his approach was sorely lacking in real leadership. He didn't come to office with a grand design in mind. He came to office with the idea that it needed to happen and then left it to bureaucrats to design and then vote on it. He couldn't even get his own party to unify around a single approach. As such they wasted 18 months of amazing majority rule.

Durring which time the economy was tanking. Everytime the president was asked he quipped back with the statement "I can multi-task, we're on it". Well where were they? Not on the economy. Even if I got the health care system I wanted, we couldn't pay for it if no one was working and paying taxes.

So now we find ourselves with angry voters who told The Senate and The Congress "You dropped the ball so now we want a new direction". The president finds himself without his Super Majority in the Sneate and the House was lost.

I truly believe that if this president was visionary, and could unite the people of this country around a cause, the House and Senate would follow because they had to. Party politics will always be there. But the politicians still fear the electorate. We are fickle and they know it. If we want something and we as a nation rally behind it, they will do our work.

But my friend that takes visionary leadership, and to my extreme dispair, that is something this president has very little of.

pjam09

So MSNBC feels it is OK to admit that there is no recovery as long as they can use it to divide America?

And what would you say that the contribution to the debate has been - coming from the folks at Fox News?

(Sorry - I attached this to the wrong thread below earlier)...

Roy, BrianB, and nico,

Your theories are based on "push" economics... wow! Seriously?

So if a business hires people and produces product, our economy will rise? Really? So if I build houses, people will buy them? Even when there is no demand? Foolishness! Stalled business expansion is a symptom, not a cause. It is a symptom of stalled demand. When there is demand, businesses will respond whether taxed 3% more or not. THAT is called economics... not "voodoo" economics as you spew.

The ONLY driver to our economy is demand... which is primarily driven by consumer confidence. And consumer confidence can be affected by many things... a popular president... seeing political parties work together and have the confidence that they will continue to do so... World War II spending combined with a coming together for common goals.

Giving away our tax dollars to the rich does nothing for demand.

Congress striking down regulations does nothing for demand.

Members of Congress threatening to not raise the debt ceiling does nothing for consumer confidence.

Demonizing everything the president says and does is NOT creating jobs... quite the opposite.

Seeing your wages and the wages of your family and friends erode does not inspire spending or confidence.

The focus on "helping" corporations is pure unadulterated bullsh!t. It is meaningless. It is depressing the middle class no end. There is NO confidence in Republican solutions and those are the only ones being tried at the moment.

We should be letting people know they have our unending support... that if they fall they will not starve... that's the ONLY way to "allow" consumer confidence to come back. Throwing money at the corruption that got us here is not going to work... and THAT is for sure.

All I'm saying is that all of this is morally wrong - and I worry for the future of our country - and my children and grandchildren.

I'd actually believe you, if you didn't support the destructive policies of the Right, while lying about what it has done to this country.

bicfg

Our election laws have put all major politicians under the control of the super wealthy

Me thinks our election laws have put all major politicians in control of purchasing votes with free entitlements!

Bernitch

All I'm saying is that all of this is morally wrong - and I worry for the future of our country - and my children and grandchildren.

I'd actually believe you, if you didn't support the destructive policies of the Right, while lying about what it has done to this country.

Uhhhh - I think you need to re-read my responses at 1.26 - I am not supporting the policies of the Right (and by Right - I don't necessarily mean just the GOP - I mean any one-sided policy that supports corporatism and profit as a primary goal).

Please re-read the post - you'll see what I mean.

I'm not sure where you're getting your numbers, I believe it's from FOX news. Under President Clinton in his 8 years the country grew 22 million jobs and he raised taxes on the wealthy. This myth that the government should be run like a business is nothing but BS, any economist worth his weight would tell you that in a deep recession like now we should be spending on infrastructure and other projects with massive spending to get the economy going until it can sustain itself. Once the economy is growing at a fast and good clip then we can discuss paying our bills but right now is not the time to tighten the belt and let the economy sputter which it is doing.

justoneguy

bicfg

Our election laws have put all major politicians under the control of the super wealthy

Me thinks our election laws have put all major politicians in control of purchasing votes with free entitlements!

Agreed - strongly.

Citizens United v. FEC has driven a stake through the heart of democratic (small d) politics - and aside from an amendment to the US Constitution, I don't know how you can overcome it.

I don't think this is going to end well.

Seattle Architect said: At least when Clinton was in control - he took the overgrowth coming from the tech boom and channeled it into paying down the debt. When that boom ended, the government was at least on a steady course.

Excuse me? Clinton paid down the debt? You'd better do your research a little better than that! Where do liberals get the idea that Clinton was some sort of genius when it comes to the economy when the numbers don't lie. Every president since Reagan has had the increasing compound interest from the 80's to deal with. That included Clinton. Clinton practically scrapped the military, the CIA and the FBI in order to get the budget under control.

Our national debt is exponentially growing because congress hasn't grappled the problem of compound interest on the debt. The only way to deal with it is with controlled spending, living to a budget, paying off some of the debt and stop borrowing. It's the same way with personal finances. You increase your revenue by paying off credit cards and control spending. It doesn't help our finances when we have a president giving billions to other nations to develop their oil industry and neglect our own.

BS socialism is the reason people are being screwed over by the government, corporations and special interest groups. All these schemes that supposedly help are really strangling us and making us peasants.

How stupid can you be? To claim that tax breaks collapsed the economy is moronic. No what has collapsed the economy is socialism, it is the continual hand outs to corporations, special interest groups and worthless lazy individuals that has destroyed our economy. It is regulation, stupid regulation that really is designed to eliminate competition and protect markets that has killed the economy.

Actually Brianb, he's right. With the blessing of Congress, President Clinton gutted SS surpluses to pay down public debt, then deemed himself to have a "surplus", which he did not. He did, however, use intragovernment holding to pay down public debt.

Seattle Architect

I would also like to address your comments about European countries. I agree that we could learn from them with regard to taking better care of their citizens - especially with regard to health care (I favor universal health care), but their 'stability' comes at a price - slower economic growth and higher unemployment.

Here are some interesting figures to consider;

The average western European has per-capita income of about $37,000, but pays an average of 49% of their income in various taxes, for a net after-tax income of about $18,870 per person.

The Average American has per-capita income of about $49,000, but pays an average of 34% of their income in various taxes, for a net after-tax income of about $32,340 per person, or an extra $13,470 of after-tax income per year.

Europeans pay a high price for their 'stability', but also suffer from higher systemic unemployment and slower economic growth. If you have a calculator, run American after-tax income at our average growth rate of 3.75 per year and the average European's after-tax income growth rate of 2.7% per year for another 20 years, and you will see that our average after-tax income will increase to about $67,500 per year, while the average European's after-tax income will only increase to $32,150 per person, giving the American an advantage of $35,350.

Which system would you like for YOUR children and grandchildren?

PS - I'm all for increasing taxes on the 'rich', since they can easily afford to pay more - in fact, I would not only let the Bush tax cuts expire for the 'rich', but I'd like to see a lot of the 'loopholes' closed (even though this will likely have some negative economic effects, it is fair and necessary).

SNAPPA

I'm not sure where you're getting your numbers, I believe it's from FOX news. Under President Clinton in his 8 years the country grew 22 million jobs and he raised taxes on the wealthy. This myth that the government should be run like a business is nothing but BS, any economist worth his weight would tell you that in a deep recession like now we should be spending on infrastructure and other projects with massive spending to get the economy going until it can sustain itself. Once the economy is growing at a fast and good clip then we can discuss paying our bills but right now is not the time to tighten the belt and let the economy sputter which it is doing.

I think that government spending has a limited impact - positive, but limited - especially in a time of massive debt (would spending more on your credit cards - at a time you can only make minimum payments make sense?).

Beyond the immediate situation (which we actually need to raise the debt ceiling to get some breathing room) - long term, major structural changes to the government are needed.

Our policies need to be fair, equitable and based in common sense, realistic projections.

• Why candidates in the US are allowed to decide if they "want" to enter debates is beyond me - it should be mandatory.
• Income taxes should be flat - a flat percentage - with no exemptions, no loopholes, no BS. The tax code should be very, very short and sweet.
• Expenditures/appropriations should all have sunset clauses on them - so they work, then say so - if not, defend it when the time comes to renew them. No appropriation policy should renew itself automatically.
• Sentencing guidelines for federal offenses should include consideration of "public influence as an enabler of the crime" - basically asserting that if you have public influence and use it commit a crime, your penalty should be x3 or x4. This would nail crooked politicians, cops, CEOs (of publicly traded corps), pedophile teachers, and recipients of public contracts - among others.

All I'm saying is that when considering the economic consequences we find ourselves in, I really think we need to broaden the scope and consider our entire manner of how we value our society and what kind of country we want to be.

If all we're interested in is short-term, short-sighted "profit! profit! profit!" - then this is what you get.

Phil, sorry, I should have included the Pelosi loyalist who fought Obama's moderate position as much as right wing extremist, therefore, the temporary super majority Obama had, meant nothing......After nearly seventy years of life, I believe America has reached a divide no one can mend without a major national disaster. Sad times these are for future generations, sad times these are.

What we are seeing now is the real American economy. The stuff before was the illusion.

LMarcT said: The focus on "helping" corporations is pure unadulterated bullsh!t. It is meaningless. It is depressing the middle class no end. There is NO confidence in Republican solutions and those are the only ones being tried at the moment.

I'm glad you admit that Obama is using republican tactics when it comes to insurance companies. He did pander to them when he signed the ACA. He's using republican tactics when helping banks and the unions.

Maybe we shouldn't call them republican tactics... maybe they should be referred to as politician tactics, eh?

ROY WILSON-336103

Seattle Architect

I would also like to address your comments about European countries. I agree that we could learn from them with regard to taking better care of their citizens - especially with regard to health care (I favor universal health care), but their 'stability' comes at a price - slower economic growth and higher unemployment.

Here are some interesting figures to consider;

The average western European has per-capita income of about $37,000, but pays an average of 49% of their income in various taxes, for a net after-tax income of about $18,870 per person.

The Average American has per-capita income of about $49,000, but pays an average of 34% of their income in various taxes, for a net after-tax income of about $32,340 per person, or an extra $13,470 of after-tax income per year.

Europeans pay a high price for their 'stability', but also suffer from higher systemic unemployment and slower economic growth. If you have a calculator, run American after-tax income at our average growth rate of 3.75 per year and the average European's after-tax income growth rate of 2.7% per year for another 20 years, and you will see that our average after-tax income will increase to about $67,500 per year, while the average European's after-tax income will only increase to $32,150 per person, giving the American an advantage of $35,350.

Which system would you like for YOUR children and grandchildren?

Well - I know I'll take heat for this - but I would rather our country focus more on stabilizing people's lives rather than on the (perceived) opportunity of becoming super-rich.

If you talk to people in Scandinavia, you'll note that they are not as obsessed at owning this type of auto or that kind of house, etc - that they are more focused on their lives and those of their family, friends, etc.

Yes, they do pay higher taxes - but they also get things like universal healthcare, education, retirement, re-training when unemployed, etc - so to compare our numerically higher income to theirs is not really fair.

I think that what we, as Americans, tend to overlook is that having a life that is free of worry (from being wiped out from healthcare costs, losing one's job, etc) has some value.

By US standards, my family enjoys a very good life - and yet I know people who have less than I do, and it bothers me that the one thing that stands between ones peace of mind (not "bling" - but peace of mind) is money.

I know I'll never have the money of Bill Gates - and that's ok. What bothers me is that so much of our society is driven by these false promises of people whose sole ambition is to get more and more - regardless of how much they already have, or regardless of how many people they hurt in the process.

It also bothers me that we treat profit-seeking corporations as people legally - and have given them so much leverage over our legal and political system. History shows us - conclusively - that when societies become too one sided (in terms of benefits or power), they do not last very long.

And that system - OUR system - is what worries me when I think of my the future of my children and grandchildren.

Seattle Architect

I can see that you are a believer in Keynesian economics, and I also subscribe to many of his theories, if they are properly applied. For example, I believe that the government should use a certain amount of economic 'stimulus' during a recession to speed up recovery, but unfortunately, the proponents don't typically apply the other facet of Keynes theory - to repay the debt when good economic times return. Instead of using surplus revenues from a period of recovery to repay the borrowed money, tax & spend politicians just use those excess revenues to expand government spending, and the result is an ever increasing debt problem - which is where we find ourselves today.

Sooner or later, we have to pay the piper, and we are at that point now, and the payment will be both difficult and expensive. Either we have an austerity program to control the debt, or we have runaway inflation where 'almost' everyone loses (The 'smart' money today is in inflation hedged investments).

The democrats have controlled congress for 4 years.

The Tea Party has a small number elected to Congress in November 2010, so exactly how is any of this mess Republican caused?

Sorry folks, but your libbie losers have caused this mess, and the savior has just made it worse.

Obama has transferred more wealth to the uber-wealthy than any President in the history of our nation.

I bet that just burns all you libbies to have to swallow this. Can't wait until 2012!

It's funny when we were all young we were told anyone could become President, what they did not tell us was we would have to be RICH, it's interesting looking at all these politicians, all are very wealthy does this tell you something so how in the world would the Medium income and the poor have any representation, they can't understand what it's like to have to make those hard decisions like making a choice of Food verses Gas, I bet most of you think this just happened by accident that the economytook a nose dive, people are making more now then ever and if they can they will reverse every gain that was made for the REAL working class, not those snot nose people that make money off of our backs, they are the real cause of this mess ....... both parties are a Fu_king joke and both have their slimmy hands in our pockets, taxes are one of the main problems along with these Social programs like Welfare & Food stamps, have you ever been shopping and right there in front you a person has two full shopping carts full and uses food stamps while you have a few items and it cost you $70.00 of your hard earned cash, I don't know about you but that sucks ..... Think about it.

Seattle Architect

One last point before I go play with my 5 year old.

Including Norway in your comment about Europeans taking care of their citizens is not really fair, since they have huge oil reserves (North Sea) that they are fully exploiting to subsidize their welfare system.

Unfortunately, we have severely restricted the development of our own fossil fuel resources (WHICH ARE THE LARGEST OF ANY COUNTRY ON EARTH), and we instead have opted to buy much of our energy requirements from foreign countries, and we transfer enormous amounts of our 'wealth' to foreigners in the process. That is one of the most short-sighted decisions any country has ever made.

I can see that you are a believer in Keynesian economics, and I also subscribe to many of his theories, if they are properly applied. For example, I believe that the government should use a certain amount of economic 'stimulus' during a recession to speed up recovery, but unfortunately, the proponents don't typically apply the other facet of Keynes theory - to repay the debt when good economic times return. Instead of using surplus revenues from a period of recovery to repay the borrowed money, tax & spend politicians just use those excess revenues to expand government spending, and the result is an ever increasing debt problem - which is where we find ourselves today.

Agreed - but think the label "tax and spend" should be applied to both sides of the political spectrum. The GOP is happy to spend - as long as it's to profit making businesses - and not social programs. Why we've not loaded amendments to the constitution requiring a balanced budget is beyond me. Why someone could have two wars "off budget" is beyond me.

Sooner or later, we have to pay the piper, and we are at that point now, and the payment will be both difficult and expensive. Either we have an austerity program to control the debt, or we have runaway inflation where almost everyone loses.

Also agreed. Where we are headed is not pretty. I'm not in favor of raising the debt ceiling so we can spend more - I'm in favor of doing it because if we don't don't and we default on our debt, the world will be plunged into a depression that makes that of the 1930s look like a vacation...

Imagine sitting in a cafe, talking to a friend, and at the next table (within ear shot) is the fellow who holds your mortgage and your banker. You're talking to your friend, telling them that you "...are considering not making my mortgage payment anymore..." What do you think would happen? Why are we even having this discussion?

I told my barber the other day - "I'm glad I'm old" - and I meant it. I would hate to be a high school student right now - growing up and seeing how the country is getting ready to hand you a bag that is full of you-know-what.

I really need to get back to work now.... =)

Good discussion.

http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/BarackObama-FredUpton-China-Oil/2011/07/02/id/402295?s=al&promo_code=C8BF-1

about 100,000 jobs await Americans..... to include more oil prodution....... Nobama is letting it go to his socialist buddy's in China..... who would have thought this?

do we still want tax breaks for the rich? The Republicans do. Those who put the Flat tax forward forget, that the POOR will pay MORE in taxes than they do now. One of the suggestions is 19%. Corporations will say, no way. We only pay 16% in Ireland. The richest 2% will say no way. We don't pay that much now after all our breaks written in the tax code.

Markt, thanks for reading my post; can't let you go uncorrected. The lack of confidence is exactly what I am talking about. Your govt put us here with all the meddling not just in the past three years but the past 40 years. The lack of confidence stiffles any expansion. The elected elete give away your future with every vote. Save for a few most are idealogues with personal agendas. Vote them out. You see the power of your vote when you see them pander.

Roy the vast bulk of our fossil fuel reserves consist of dirty coal and oil shale, which is uneconomical. You remember oil shale? Republicans blasted Carter for proposing to develope it using tax subsidies, and are now blasting Obama for failing to develope it using tax subsidies. We cannot burn any more dirty coal than we are currently burning due to the damage caused by acid rain, which is currently limited by the successful Cap & Trade policy signed into law by GHW Bush.

"

How can government create jobs? What does the record show?

The government does not create jobs (except when they hire more people in government). They can only create an environment for the private sector to create jobs. That business environment is set by Congress, through taxes and regulations (either pro or anti growth). The President has little to do with it, except by signing or vetoing legislation.

When we 'do the numbers' based on who controlled Congress over the last 30 years, here are the actual numbers when it comes to 'creating jobs';

Jobs created when Democrats controlled Congress (12 years) = 8,100,000 net new jobs.
Jobs created when Republicans controlled Congress (10 years) = 21,773,000 net new jobs.
Jobs created when Congress was split (8 years) = 9.888,000 net new jobs.

Clearly, Republican Congresses help 'create' jobs, while Democratic Congresses have a poor jobs record.

PS – Over the last 30 years, we needed an average of about 160,000 net new jobs per month to maintain a stable unemployment rate. Anything less increases the (real) unemployment rate, while anything more decreases the (real) unemployment rate.

Sources - Democrats controlled Congress from 1987 – 1994, and from 2007 – 2010. Republicans controlled Congress from 1995 – 2000, and from 2003 – 2006. There was a split Congress from 1980 – 1986 and for 2001 & 2002. The government site to verify average employment by year is;

http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat1.pdf"

Quoting this collapsed comment because there is no reason to collapse it. It presents facts that are on topic, and has a citable source. I don't care what your petty individual politics are, you cannot suppress free, accurate speech because it makes you uncomfortable. Grow up. Try to be a decent human being.

we are at war with these thieves the rich.about time we started acting like it.the french have a wonderful device for wealth redistribution.the germans just round them up and call them traitors.they are.the rich caused the last depression and are responsable for this one.they are selfish and horde everything for themselves.wait till the population turns on them.lets see if they can buy their lives

And my last comment:

One last point before I go play with my 5 year old.

Including Norway in your comment about Europeans taking care of their citizens is not really fair, since they have huge oil reserves (North Sea) that they are fully exploiting to subsidize their welfare system.

Agreed - you cannot compare the two head-to-head - not so much for the oil reserves they manage - but because the country is much smaller and has a more homogenous population (which change things dramatically policy-wise).

Unfortunately, we have severely restricted the development of our own fossil fuel resources (WHICH ARE THE LARGEST OF ANY COUNTRY ON EARTH), and we instead have opted to buy much of our energy requirements from foreign countries, and we transfer enormous amounts of our 'wealth' to foreigners in the process. That is one of the most short-sighted decisions any country has ever made.

Also agreed - I think utilizing our resources is a good idea - generally speaking. The issue is not the will of the American people to access the resources here - the issue is more about means-to-an end, and the information they are being given.

• Do you think the American people (or the oil companies which "inform" them) would be charged-up for deep off shore drilling if they knew that the only way to shut down a runaway well is to drill a second intersecting well at the same time - thus increasing the cost? That blowout preventers do not work? That this technology is the same as it has been since the 1960s?
• Do you think the American people (or the private sector companies which "inform" them) would be charged up for hydrological fracturing of rock deposits - if they were aware that in order to do that, you have to pump tens of thousands of gallons of dangerous chemicals into the ground - where it can get into our water table? That Halliburton has an "exemption" from disclosing what is contained in that fluid - provided by Mr. Dick Cheney while in office - because the nature of that fluid is "proprietary" in nature?

My issue is not with utilizing the resources that God gave this country. My problem is with those who lie to us (the American people) about what they're doing, what the risks are and what the likely benefits will be (and to whom, or what percentage of the population).

THAT is the issue. We have been LIED to - by many people - most of whom have something (financially) to gain from the process. I don't defend the actions of one party or the other - they're both wrong.

This concludes my rant on this thread. I really have work to do now... Thanks for the discussion.

Seattle

ATA boy go get'm

Are you sure you are an American? I admire your arguments and way of thinking so if you are a Yank then there might be hope for the US.

Then again with all good intent you could be swimming upstream.

The way I see the US politics is that they need a strong 3 or 4 party system. Makes it more difficult for all the politicians, lobbyist and crooks to get away with murder.

Sofar the 2 party system is not goinf anywhere.

First,

Obama created jobs. Not really, if you notice his shovel ready funds ran out June 4 and now July 4 and States are shutting down and/or passing their own illegal immigrant laws (ala GA and others). Ladies and gentlemen the economy has stabilized (corporate) but now get ready for the gov to shrink shrink shrink. Pain sill coming

Second,

If you did not retool during your 99...you have a high chance of not getting a job. Personally I make more now than before the recession. During this recession I have bought the American Dream in cash 3x (Houses in GA, Nevada, and Washington). Funny how the American dream is affordable when it is not artificially inflated by the government.

Third,

I own infrastructure businesses. No businesses are guaranteed profitable. It is amazing how 8000 dollars in solar panels and converter in Nevada net me a 5000.00 a year profit from the utility. In Washington I live next to a stream and invested into a water turbine that nets me 10,000 a year profit to the electric company. You get the picture. Very small investments anyone can do and make a profit. 15,000 pays all my taxes and allows me to live free off the land. I am not a rocket scientist. Granted you have to THINK and CHOOSE where you buy to do certain businesses like this.

Finally,

We, that is ALL Americans, have to accept these "jobs" the left our country will not come back. We have to accept that the true cost of living will never reduce. We have to become dependent on the land again and not the government. Your choice should not be between food and gas. Your choice should be to educate yourself or accept the new "economy"

"The economy's meager gains are going mostly to the wealthiest."

Hey, that's o.k., the "trickle-down" will start ANY SECOND NOW (when the wealthy decide to start peeing on us, too).

bloggit, your political manifesto notwhithstanding, government most certainly can create jobs. good jobs. necessary jobs. Are you so mired in conservative political orthodoxy that you're forced to utter absurdities? The government is an important part of our economy, performing vital functions that help provide an environment in which the private economy can prosper. Get a grip.

Remember how giving the rich tax cuts was a good idea? How if they had the money they'd create jobs? Yea, let's keep at this Republican strategy, it's doing a bang up job. Don't give me this "It's Obama's economy" crap, he's conceded to nearly every Republican demand, and has Republicans and bankers as his economic advisors. You can say he's weak, but only because he's giving in to the failed ideas of others; of the same people who want to take power to ramp up those failed ideas.

You might want to listen to President Obama's own economic advisors. In an article written by Jeffrey H. Anderson of the Weekly Standard entitled,"Obama's Economist:: Stimulas has cost $278,000 per job,The Stimulas is now Causing the Economy to Shed Jobs",Anderson analyzes a report that was released by the White House Council of Economic Advisors on Friday , July 1st, right before a long holiday, (never a good sign), that stated the stimulas has added or saved 2.4 million jobs at a cost of 666 billion dollars, which means, if the government had simply cut a check for $ 100,000 to every person whose employment was allegedly made possible by the "stimulas", taxpayers would have come out 427 billion dollars ahead, but there's more!, the Council reported that as of two quarters ago the, "Stimulas", had added or saved just under 2.7 million jobs, or, 288,000 more than it has now! We are actually losing jobs! and according to Anderson, "in truth , by borrowing an amount greater than the regular Defense budget or the annual cost of medicare, and spending it mostly on Democratic constituencies, Obama's stimulas has actually undermined the economic recovery, while leaving us,(thus far), 666 billion dollars deeper in debt...."so, yes, along with the wealth redistribution, Fundamental change really has come to the United States, but how much longer can we afford it?

Phil H...

Not even GW Bush could overcome the same rules even though he had illusions of becoming the dictator of the United States.

Those view lots/homes over looking Puget Sound have been vacant for 15 years - ever since the Dot Com bubble burst.

I used to love removing water meters on Puget Sound blvd for non payment - half the people in Mukilteo were in over their heads (house payment wise) 20 years ago. I guess home loaners didn't accept Master Card. Credit cards made lots of people look like they were upper middle class in the 80's and 90's, so don't cry now. That's what you get for putting that bumper sticker that read; he who dies with the most toys wins, on your F150.

The spoils went to investors? Somehow I don't feel it. During the Great Recession my 401(K), like many others, fell under 101k. Way under... :-(

Now, 2 years after the recession ended, that 401(K) is still only a hair over half of what it was at the peak, notwithstanding all subsequent contributions :-(

Did anyone else notice that this is similar to the recovery during the great depression? Both events were triggered by excessive credit. This may not be due to political action so much as the Fed policy of trying to micro-manage the economy and creating asset inflation.

It should also be considered that wages are undergoing convergence as world trade increases. Economic forces will not tolerate the wages we regard as normal when we choose to trade with people making much less. This trade favors the GDP and investment not wages.

Now is a good time for a political comment. In light of current economic developments the Republican insistence that services to the poor and middle class should be cut rather than increase taxes on the very wealthy is ridiculous. The wage earner is cursed and the wealthy are blessed as wages fall and investment is rewarded. Why shouldn't taxes follow the money?

If someone wishes to call this socialism, I will respond that making the wage earners servants of the rich is feudalism.

pffft, all this crying about the rich, boo hoo! tell me this, when the rich do get taxed more, and it wont make much of a difference in the spending spree the last term of dems left us with.. who do you think comes next when you realise it didnt make much difference taxing the so called rich?

now from taxing more those who make $100,000.00 or more a year, they also want to drop that down to those who make $50,000.00 a year....who do you know that makes $50K a year, and is rich?

2nd of all, the government doesnt create jobs, it buys product, and produces infastructure. Those maybe jobs for some people yes, buy who pays for that? the taxpayer. when the government puts out a contract to buy say, rifles, ammo, tanks, and so on, yes it puts Americans to work. ok, who pays for this? Not Nobama the Clown, or Biden out of their pocket, it comes from the taxpayer. When they hire X=amount of people to work in the government buildings they just built, who pays for wages, pensions, insurance, and so on? The taxpayer does. Now we have all the jobs given out from the government, and yes now those people have jobs, but does the tax $$ coming off their checks cover their salaries, pensions, wages,insurance and so on? nope....only a very small portion. So the government isnt creating sh!t but a bill, when it makes all these so called jobs.... jobs that even before the recession/depression hit, couldnt have been paid for in the 1st place.

so when there isnt enough $$ to pay for all these new people working for the government, making product for the government.... like we are seeing now with needing more $$ already.... and the job market still looking like a trauma victim who needs the plug pulled....where is all this $$ going to keep coming from? where all the people who are so well in right to be entiteled to all the freebies.... well, what are they going to do when there is no more freebies left to give?

Now, i start a new job tomorow, working for a union shop, and even tho i hate unions....i'll do it because i have no choice at this point. the government is the only ones making ample enough work... leaving small buisness out in the cold. something i think this article could have been more clear on, who and what types of buisness made out, and were they union or not. Thats what i want to know.

JD Still, your accounting is straight from right wing kindergarden...... FYI, over 1/3 of the stimulus package was tax cuts. Are you against tax cuts? Don't you think tax cuts stimulate spending and therefore job creation? Another large chunk of the stimulus went toward keeping people on their jobs (cops, firefighters, teachers), not creating jobs in the private sector. your reasoning is so full of holes and outright lies, it's pathetic. if you were smarter, you'd be embarassed.

Man I must have struck a nerve by asking when did we have a recovery because the Obama administration had to admit that the 3 million jobs that they supposedly saved cost the taxpayers $278,000 per job. Isn't that great? I mean if that many jobs were created or saved, which they weren't the American people lost as much as the total stimulas package. So where again was that recovery? Go ahead delete this I'll just do it again.

i agree donna,

the job stimulous was a waste of $$$ a huge waste. So were the lame tax incentives given in the past 2 years, so was the no dealing with tax issues before they had to exstend Bush era tax breaks. Seems like if enough time was spent working on ways to actually bring jobs back to live for small buisness (back bone of this nation) rather than spend like no tomorow, this wouldnt be a burp of work spurt like it has been for the past 3 years, it would be employers looking for skilled labor, and more.

@Scott_TOO

If someone wishes to call this socialism, I will respond that making the wage earners servants of the rich is feudalism.

I've been saying that for years, brotha. Glad to see that other people are noticing it, too.

joe mota "Roy the vast bulk of our fossil fuel reserves consist of dirty coal and oil shale, which is uneconomical."

Actually, a huge amount of it is from relatively clean natural gas, but all of our (best in the world) reserves are based on profitable recovery using current technology. And even if coal is relatively dirty, that is not stopping China from exploiting their cheap coal reserves to power their economy.

Russia is a close second place with nearly as much fossil fuel reserves as the U.S., and Saudi Arabia is in third place with only about 40% as much in fossil fuel reserves as we have.

ROY WILSON,

I read your NewsVine profile. I've been following you for some time. I think that you're a fraud (and so do a few of my friends in the local Mensa society in Sacramento and friends that are employees working for the California State Judiciary that also read and occasionally contribute to NewsVine ...they also contribute to other online publications). Prove to us that you're not a fraud, Roy. Tell us the names of the corporations you worked for in your profile. Prove to us you have these degrees in marketing and finance, and from what schools. Supply us with the names of these places. Anyone with a will to do so, can cross-reference and/or look it up or make a few phone calls to verify any one of your credentials to prove or disprove you are whom you want us publicly believe you to be. And please, don't give us the excuse that you're protecting your identity. Your identity is a fabrication; an exaggerated set of distortions veiled in scripted generalities about your credentials. I've already come across the assertions by some right-wing bloggers on other subscription sites that they're proud to have you as one of several commenters operating under a complete alias as one of the web's verbal supporters of their PAC's mission. Is it true? They even went to into detail about how they placed "shills" into these news sites to support your claims by name, when it looked like you were being refuted by everyone that disagreed with your distorted, right-wing conclusions based on your cherry-picking of statistics. Readers. for proof of this, go ahead and click on Roy Wilson's Newsvine profile. And do a search on his name in Google. You be the judge. Is Roy Wilson-336103 real... or fake?

The recession never ended or even began to subside and it won't until those oil speculators are dealt with and taken out of the market permanently. The recession won't end until those gas prices are back under 1.50$ a gallon. We haven't gotten raises since the oil speculators destroyed the market and we won't see them again until even long after those gas prices are brought back down as the corporates now realize they can run their businesses on a skeleton crew and will until those gas prices come down and consumer demand on their businesses mean hire or fold.

Seattle Architect "My issue is not with utilizing the resources that God gave this country. My problem is with those who lie to us (the American people) about what they're doing, what the risks are and what the likely benefits will be (and to whom, or what percentage of the population)."

Now that I'm back from bicycling with my daughter, I read your last post, and I agree with much of it. Personally, I think that our natural resources belong to the people, not the energy companies, and so their development should be treated more like Public Utilities than exploited by private companies.

I also agree that homogeneous populations make social policies much easier to implement successfully, but part of our strength is also in our diversity. In any event, that cannot be changed.

Joe Mota

The" right wing kindergarden" information You refer to is straight from President Obama's Council of Economic Advisors,( oops!),if You have disagreements with their data, I suggest You take it up with those that brought Us this mess, the Democratic controlled Congress, or Obama himself.

rradiko

Thanks for the laugh. Obviously some of my comments have struck a sore nerve with you. I have no intention of giving you specific information about myself - I don't need weirdos knocking on my door. Whether you want to believe me or not about my 'profile', I can assure you that all of it is true, but I don't really care what you think. As for some 'right-wing bloggers' claiming me as one of their own, I doubt that they would appreciate my support for tax increases on the 'rich' (even more than Obama wants to do), nor my consistent support for universal health care.

But all of that is immaterial because my comments and my research are all my own, and I always try to provide reliable sites for the basis of the facts that I post. Actually, I can generally respond fairly quickly to nonsensical figures posted by people with an agenda because I have done meticulous research, from government sources, on GDP, government revenues and expenses, deficits, national debt, defense spending, state & local spending, employment, inflation, etc. for each year since 1976, all on an excel spreadsheet, so analysis is fairly quick and accurate.

I try to use average figures for each year, which largely avoids the ability to 'cherry pick' data, which is a common tactic of my critics.

Honestly, I had no idea that I had so many people 'following' my posts - I'm flattered. I will provide you with some additional personal data, but I will not provide you with the information needed to physically 'track me down'.

I am 71 years old and retired, live in California, have 5 children - the youngest of which is 5 years old (adopted & bi-racial), and I my wife is African-American. I consider myself a fiscal conservative, but a social moderate, and I am not a registered Republican or Democrat.

PS - I'm not sure why my 'profile' is of any concern anyway. Since I generally quote my sources for the facts I post, if you don't like the data that I provide, you are free to use the links to refute it - but I won't hold my breath.

Have a nice day :)

No matter what you all can argue till you're blue in the face, the Reality is America will default, there is no way to fix the problem taking away the tax deduction and discounts and every other way these MORONS are thinking will not make us solvent, they can even stop both wars and that will not help, DO the math the problem should have been addressed years ago, but we have these politicians with that lets wait and see attitude, what did they expect to happen. there is no Tooth Fairy or the Easter Bunny, Santa maybe, they put us so far in the hole that we will never dig our way out ........ REALITY PEOPLE IS ALWAYS A HARD PILL TO SWALLOW ...... HAPPY 4th

I'm super thankful for rradiko's post on ROY WILSON-336103!

Thanks for validating Roy with your Liberal jibberish!

You go Roy!

I have debated ROY WILSON-336103 in the past. It is my belief that he is a moderate conservative. A paid blogger posts talking points without debate.

We (ROY WILSON-336103 and I) have found common ground on many issues. Healthy discussions with concessions from both has been the norm.

Though I can say I don't agree to his views on everything, I believe ROY WILSON-336103 has the nation's interests at heart.

Bosslimo

Thanks for the support. I've learned that, when people resort to personal attacks, it's because they are devoid of the ability to debate intelligently, but sometimes it's fun to 'tweak' them.

Hey rradiko.....

Telling everyone you're in MENSA (which is an acronym and therefor completely capitalized) is like telling everyone how big your johnny is. If you have to tell everyone how big it is, it's probably pretty small. The same would go for you and you "mensa" friends.

lol....

While technically the recession ended two years ago, the hard fact is that the recovery never began. After reading numerous posts here I truly feel all but a handful are blind or ignorant of the real situation that is prevalent in our society and the underlying cause of this mess. As we have advanced as a nation we have forgotten to stay anchored to our core values and goals. In a lust for the bigger better deal common sense has been thrown under the bus and the finger pointing has intensified. Personal responsibility has sunk to an all time low. It shows up everywhere from sports, to news media, jobs, and politics. Everyone is looking for someone to blame, anyone to blame but themselves. I am fiscal conservative and social moderate. I believe government has grown much to large and the population much to dependent on it for our own good. I am not opposed to lending a helping hand to someone in need but am angered by the abuse of that help that is allowed to continue. With all that said, I think it is time for us as a nation to reset some ideals and discard some of the political garbage that plagues this nation. We have become way to intolerant of each other for the most menial of comments and to quick with accusations of those that have differing points of view. In this debate of finance and spending in Washington I choose to side with conservatives but not because of their talking points or ideals, but because of common sense. History shows us that the favorite tactic of politicians (and I mean all politicians) is to package their rhetoric to pick our pockets with greater taxes and fees then spend an even greater amount requiring further revenue increases. Negotiate and make the cuts to spending first, all programs on the table, before any tax increases are even discussed. The two issues should remain separated though they are related. We are in a serious situation and must use a common sense approach to the whole mess if we are to survive it whole. History also shows us that in the past, great economic upheaval on a global scale inevitably ends up in a shooting war. We must break that cycle and get beyond it if we are to advance as a species. I am willing to pay more to help out but only if what I am paying is used efficiently and wisely which is something our government in its current form is terrible at doing. We are over governed, over spent, and over taxed in the name of politicians doing their "jobs".

No, we are still in a Depression

Roy, it takes more than a simple majority in the Senate to control it. The minority party can filibuter any bill and keep it from coming up for a vote. It takes 60 votes to override any filibuster.

pjam09

So MSNBC feels it is OK to admit that there is no recovery as long as they can use it to divide America?

And what would you say that Fox News' contribution to the debate has been?

sorry to have to inform you people trying to make up your own economic lexicon. the terms recession and depression are already officially defined by professional economists. you're free to gripe and complain, but you cannot make up your own definitions of economic terms to suite your political agenda.

You can't have a business recovery in the United States when all the manufacturing plants have been shipped overseas. You can't have a recovery in the United States when almost all the steel for construction is bought in CHINA You can't have recovery in the United States when we pay outrageous Tariff Fees to foreign Governments and we let them in on the cheap.

Chuck,

The plants were not arbitrarily shipped overseas. Companies do not have to pay healthcare benefits in the countries they went to. They do not have to pay corporate taxes in these countries. They are not raped by the states with special taxes for infrastructure "charges" which in the long run do not support that said infrastructure...but pay bloated salaries int he gov. I can go on and on. It would basically take a fool to want to keep a manufacturing facility in the US unless the product would not support a month at sea to the US.

You have a valid point on the Tarrifs. Wonder why they are like that? Let me tell you why. You know those "leaders" in DC? All their money is now in China and they are making money hands over fist fleecing you..again.

Want to turn a loss into a win? I can give you the 5 steps.

1. Convert your car to LPG. I did it. It cost me under 1000 USD. I now spend 15 a week where I was spending 120.

2. Put a garden in your backyard. Do not buy one stick of produce.

3. Pull your money out of the bank and pay as you go out of your pocket.

4. Cash out IMMEDIATELY 401Ks.

5. Any illegal you suspect, sic the cops on them.

If just 20% of Americans did the above you would see HUGE changes in this country. In 5 small steps you outted the Banking Clan, The Wall Street Clan, and the Gas Clan. You untied yourself from the system. You are back in control of your life. Yeah you need a debit card to buy some things so go buy one at the store when you "Just have to have something".

lee-936758

You're being a witless racist. Why would anyone subscribe to that horrid poisoned view of the world?

Yeah man, your problems are all caused by the unions and blacks, sure.

Maybe you live in a horribly mismanaged deep south Republican run state and thats why you're struggling. I'd bet on that before some convoluted conspiracy where the UAW and black people are trying to keep you down....

A quote that I think is appropriate for this dismal period that many of us are facing.

"A recession is when your neighbor loses his job, a depression is when one loses their job".

hey lee; we didn't have one minority at my old Union job. I worked for the Alderwood Water district - we said AWD stood for; All White Dudes. Most the guys I worked with (laborers) were red neck conservatives, and they hated that an old hippie like me could work circles around them - they were too busy sucking up so they would get promoted out of the ditch.

When I hear of comments like lee's, I automatically get a mental picture of the kid who did his report papers the night before they were due - nothing in depth - just racist rhetoric.

Lee's bent on the racial side aside, he makes a valid point.

Who did the stimulus bill primarlily benefit? Largely unions and primarily fat cat union bosses.

Government unions got their share by keeping on staff they couldn't afford. Infrastructure unions got it because it was written into the law that only union shops could be considered for the bailout money. Throw the rest to the green jobs gurus and this is the reason that the porkulus bill failed to work.

And what happened to all those saved jobs when the cash ran out? You guessed it... they went bye bye. And we wonder why the job numbers are dismal.

I see some posters cleaned the golf-balls?

Seattle

PAYGO??? You got to be kidding Right??? I find this statement the FUNNIEST YET!!.

"Perhaps - but at least the Dems got PayGo through the system and began using it."

Here are the National Debt numbers since Pelosi's "No new Deficit Spending" speech of 2007.

09/30/2010 13,561,623,030,891.79
09/30/2009 11,909,829,003,511.75
09/30/2008 10,024,724,896,912.49
09/30/2007 9,007,653,372,262.48

Now if PayGo worked so well WHY DID THE NATIONAL DEBT INCREASE EACH YEAR UNDER DEMOCRAT CONGRESSIONAL CONTROL???

slodon

Seattle

PAYGO??? You got to be kidding Right??? I find this statement the FUNNIEST YET!!.

"Perhaps - but at least the Dems got PayGo through the system and began using it."

Here are the National Debt numbers since Pelosi's "No new Deficit Spending" speech of 2007.

09/30/2010 13,561,623,030,891.79
09/30/2009 11,909,829,003,511.75
09/30/2008 10,024,724,896,912.49
09/30/2007 9,007,653,372,262.48

Now if PayGo worked so well WHY DID THE NATIONAL DEBT INCREASE EACH YEAR UNDER DEMOCRAT CONGRESSIONAL CONTROL???

PayGo was allowed to expire under the GWB Administration - they actively sought to have it expire so they could push their agenda (two wars and huge tax cuts). Had they been bound by this law, it is likely that the blow-back would have stopped at least some of these policies.

By the time Nancy Pelosi (of whom I am no fan) became Speaker of the House (in 2006), it was well into the negative impacts of GWB's policies, so it is difficult to compare the two periods (the mid/late 1990s to the mid 2000s).

I am no fan of deficit spending - however history is replete with our countrymen demanding it both ways:

• We demand cheap fuel because the way our transportation system was developed, so one must travel by auto - or be severely limited. So, instead of demanding more and better passenger train service - we got sucked into the SUV craze - giving more power over to the oil companies and those economies where the oil originates.
• We demand cheap food because we want to spend other portions of our money on other things. So, companies have developed industrial farming methods for making "billions of burgers" and other things that are bad for us, rather than our demanding safe/healthy foods - and paying for the inspectors and regulators to do it.
• We demand cheap entertainment to distract us - because the other aspect of our lives may not be as appealing - and passive entertainment is, well, "passive" (how appealing!). So, cable and entertainment companies have leveraged control of television, cable and (increasingly) the internet - and now we complain how the negative influences of it corrupt our kids; we complain that politicians are all corrupt because we make our decision on who to vote for based on a 30 second spot of "infotainment"; we whine about not having enough money to spend after purchasing yet another "Salad Shooter" (yeah, no cracks about my age, please...) or other useless "toy" that we don't really need - or that could possibly enhance our lives.

So - until this country wakes up and realizes that there is more to life than eating junk food, watching hour and hours TV, surfing the net for hours (God help me), or drooling over that new set of golf clubs that you don't need, then we're screwed. Oh - and to those folks above this economic stratum - you get to learn that there is more to life than making money all the time - and ruining other people's lives in the pursuit of it.

One good thing about us going broke: Poverty has a way of clearing this kind of BS out - and makes people focus more on what's important (cannot afford those clubs - who cares - I'm more focused on providing food to my family)....simply because you have no other choice...

That's all I'm saying....

Seattle

Are you NUTS?? PAYGO WAS RESTARTED IN 2007 UNDER PELOSI AND REID!!!

The PAYGO system was reestablished as a standing rule of the House of Representatives (Clause 10 of Rule XXI) on January 4, 2007 by the 110th Congress:^[12][13][14]

It shall not be in order to consider any bill, joint resolution, amendment, or conference report if the provisions of such measure affecting direct spending and revenues have the net effect of increasing the deficit or reducing the surplus for either the period comprising the current fiscal year and the five fiscal years beginning with the fiscal year that ends in the following calendar year or the period comprising the current fiscal year and the ten fiscal years beginning with the fiscal year that ends in the following calendar year.^[15]

Less than one year later though, facing widespread demand to ease looming tax burdens caused by the Alternative Minimum Tax, Congress abandoned its pay-go pledge.^[16] The point of order was also waived for the Economic Stimulus Act of 2008 which included revenue reducing provisions and increases in spending that increased the deficit, which paygo was designed to prevent. It was again waived in May 2008, upon the consideration of the 2007 U.S. Farm Bill by the House of Representatives. In this last bill, the advocates of the measure claimed that it was in compliance. However, the Rules Committee issued a report indicating at least a technical violation: "While there is a technical violation of clause 10 of rule XXI [paygo], the conference report complies with the rule by remaining budget neutral with no net increase in direct spending."^[17]

At the beginning of the 111th Congress, PAYGO was modified by including an "emergency" exemption. This designation was provided for the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (H.R. 1), which increased the deficit and increased the public debt limit to $12,104,000,000,000.^[18] Both direct spending in the bill and tax cuts, as passed by the Democratic-controlled Congress and signed by President Barack H. Obama, were exempted from the PAYGO rule under clause 5(b). The establishment of the House PAYGO Rule, and a similar Rule in the Senate, did not prevent the deficit from growing to $1.42 trillion for fiscal year 2009.^[19]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PAYGO

Or if you don't like Wiki

• After Democrats won control of the Congress in 2006, the House of Representatives quickly re-instituted PAYGO and the Senate adopted a similar rule with the Budget Resolution for fiscal year 2008. Unlike the version passed in 1990, the new PAYGO is not a law. It is simply a procedural rule. If legislative changes were not fully paid for, the earlier law required a sequester of spending to make up the difference. The new rule does not.
• Violations of the PAYGO rule are subject to points of order in the House and Senate. In the Senate, points of order against PAYGO violations can be overcome by 60 votes, and when considering particular bills, the House can adopt a rule prohibiting such points of order with a simple majority.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/background/budget-process/paygo.cfm

Right. So if Bush had not let it expire it would have been in force at that time.

The "experts" work for government or for media who works for government, you are correct though, they "find" what their bosses want them to find, if they didn't they would become part of the unemployment statistics they analyze.

Recession is an economic term defined by professionals. you guys are just whiners who don't know what you're talking about.

Recession is over. Recession does not mean "back like it was". Sooner that sinks in sooner you can get off the government dole and have a productive life.

PUBLIC NOTICE: Due to recent budget cuts, the rising cost of electricity, gas and oil, plus the current state of the economy, the light at the end of the tunnel HAS BEEN TURNED OFF.

Have a nice day!

That light at the end of the tunnel was, as the Air Force used to say "swamp gas". Why would any corporation pay US workers a liveable wage including a pittance of discretionary money when they can enlist at will, outsourced slaves at a fraction of the former cost? Whatever we're in, it seems to be working out quite well for the "heaps" top 10 percent. All you thumpers and waddies just keep believing in the justification of these wars. Keep believing the country is broke. Keep believing corporations pay great amounts in taxes. Keep believing in republican espoused "trickle down economics". Keep believing "government is the problem"when it interfers with corporate conduct. Push the whole mess off onto the position of the poor. We are all being royally screwed and the most effective action we take is to curse each other. Money mongers couldn't be happier.

Maybe we should get rid of Clinton's NAFTA as the Dems sent this work overseas. Also, why does China have a 47% import duty and the US has a 2% inport duty for them?

Maybe Obama could bring the troops home and send every family a check like the GOP did. And then spend the money on infrastructure to repair America instead.

bklynj

Good luck with that thought. The republicans have had the reins a few times since Clinton and has failed at "correcting" NAFTA. I do concur that Free Trade needs to be fair.

Secondly, bringing the troops home will only increase unemployment, unless you got an idea to put them to work somewhere.

You can't make that argument in good faith unless you are unaware of all the bills the good ol boy party filibustered. They broke the record for filibustered bills by almost double.

Good ol boys have obstructed at every chance and they are a cancer to the economy and our nation.

If they are serious about fixing the economy why are they fighting to keep the tax incentives for corporations to keep deporting American jobs?

They want the nation to fail so uninformed people who are hurting will vote them into power again.

You cannot pass Obamacare, then play the obstuctionist card. You can't pass something that phenominally bad for the country and then act like you can't get anything passed.

That's like driving out of an army base with a tank and when a buddy asks you to go get him one too, you say "No way man! I could never get in there! They won't let me!".

Healthcare was passed using reconciliation which avoids the filibuster. You do not know what you are talking about.

What I said is, Obama and his economic policies are THE reason the Dem's got bashed in the 2010 election!

Obama BAILED OUT THE WEALTHY, and BANKS, passed Obamacare, then found out, oops, those wealthy people bailed out, did not invest in America, but in emerging economies. Hence a jobless recovery!

There should of been some oversight, "limitations, and guidelines" on the taxpayer bailout money, not a carte blanche to the wealthy!

This Obama Bail Out of the RICH was NO DIFFERENT, than Bush's, except worse, because America was looking for help and answers!

Obviously, entitling and bailing out is not the correct fiscal path!

America's government has plenty of revenue, government should control spending, cut government waste, stop entitling, bailing out, war mongering, invest in America!

Obama = Failure!

Mike - Shhhh don't point out WHO bailed out the wealthy.... you are just supposed to be mad at wealthy individuals for being wealthy. Turn off your brain, read the rhetoric and be upset and reactionary, forget about using thought and reason, presidents should be selected based on emotion dictated by agenda driven U.S. media. (sarcasm)

No, it's called using a technicality to get your agenda passed, then refusing to use that same technicality to get anything else done so that you can play the blame game. It worked out real well for the Democrats in the 2010 elections.....

You can only use reconciliation once in a congressional session

Irish

So true. But the Dems and Obama misused it. Look up the Byrd Rule,or look up Sen. Byrd and Reconciliation. He said the the use of RECONCILIATION IN THE HEALTHCARE BILL WAS AGAINST THE SENATE AND HIS RULES.

And....

It's the Inequality, Stupid

Read it and weep.

so your answer is to steal from one group and give it to another? That's a really stupid idea and one that doesn't work - never has, never will.

WE're the ones being stolen from, vol. And your answer is that calling the police or saying the word "thief" is class warfare. Fine, bring it on. Your side lost badly last time around, remember.

Side......lmao.....what side are you talking about?

Real - "Your side lost badly last time around, remember."

Are you referring to the Dems massive losses last November?

He's referring to what actually happens with real class warfare (not your meaningless right wing talking point)

When the wealthy pushes the divide between themselves and the poor too far. Have you read about the French Revolution? It's what happens when the 2% take too much from the 98%.

But keep spewing lines from Faux News. It's just like saying "Let Them Eat Cake".

Dangerous Mind,

Oh yes, use the French Revolution as an example. Lots of people butchered because of the mob mentality, not because they really did anything wrong. Whole families massacred for no legitimate reason except uncontrolled outrage. The French Revolution was responsible for the rise of Napolean. Yep it accomplished a lot.

You might want to use a better example next time.

Well Hannah, the article's blatant attempt to fire up good old class warfare sure worked on you! There will be many more attempts to come, as it's the only hope the Dems have to divert attention from their miserably failed attempts to improve our economy.

It has been said that coprporate profits are good because they create jobs. This is true, but the jobs that our corporations are creating are almost all overseas. Our tax breaks are mailly subsidizing our competitors, such as China, India, etc.

spider - At one time, we called robber barons what they are.

This time around, people like you hope that flinging around words like "class warfare" will protect you.

Good luck.

people aren't hiring because of the uncertainty and the debt....and who in their friggin right mind would hire now? I wouldn't. I won't even start my company right now until the Obama economy improves...and it won't improve until the one who has done more to destroy it than any president since Jimmy Cauta is gone.

Well said, Hannah. Ignore the smoke and mirror cries of "class warfare". Republicans have waged class warfare ever since Reagan.

Rich are getting richer, not due to harder work or smarter effort, but due to buying congresspersons. Subsidies, bailouts, and less taxes, along with zero interest loans to the Too Big To Fail banks. That is what is concentrating wealth in America.

Capitalism is supposed to work, but will only work with rules, like any other activity. Eliminate the rules, and you have a rigged game.

...Dems miserably failed attempts to improve our economy.

Ah yes -- it's a failure because in 2 years, Obama has not fully reversed what it took Bush & the GOP 8-10 years to destroy.

There's some great thumb-sucking logic for ya!!

bernitch, Umm who had control over the congress during that period?

http://politicalirony.com/2010/02/06/jobs-lost-bush-v-obama/

Hmmmm....who took control of congress in 2006......

Then lost it 2010.......

Weird.

When President Obama took office two years ago, the national debt stood at $10.626 trillion. It now stands at $14.071 trillion — a staggering increase of $3.445 trillion in just 735 days (about $5 billion a day).

To put that into perspective, when President George W. Bush took office, our national debt was $5.768 trillion. By the time Bush left office, it had nearly doubled, to $10.626 trillion. So Bush's record on deficit spending was not good at all: During his presidency, the national debt rose by an average of $607 billion a year. How does that compare to Obama? During Obama's presidency to date, the national debt has risen by an average of $1.723 trillion a year — or by a jaw-dropping $1.116 trillion more, per year, than it rose even under Bush.

http://www.npr.org/2011/01/25/133211508/the-weekly-standard-obama-vs-bush-on-debt

Weird. Even NPR sees it. Wonder why liberal zealots can't.

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo5.htm

Hmmmm.....from 2006 to 2010, the debt almost doubled.....wonder who was in control of congress then.

These aren't hard figures to find......perhaps before you blame everything on the GOP, you actually look at facts and not just what MSNBC preaches as "news".

The Republicans did and the Democrats cooperated with them on almost everything! Unlike now where the Republicans say NO do everything that the Democrats and Obama want to do to help the middle class. Bush and the Republicans are nothing but Corporate ass kissers. They may take from us middle class Americans for just so long, eventually we will come take it BACK!!

@!$%#! Rich people......that in general is the middle class opinion. People who have served their country and worked all their lives to have a little something. Let the rich keep stealing from us, we will get it back one way or the OTHER! Hasn't history taught you stupid sob's anything! F'n greedy thieves!

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.-- "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government".

I think it may be time for a new Government which is our right to do since the present government has become destructive by only caring for the rich!

......the Democrats controlled congress from 2006 to 2010, braintrust.

Stevarino,

You have a right to a new government every 2 years and every 4 years. It's called a vote.

That is what you meant right?

I know you weren't suggesting revolution. Only the ignorant and the insane advocate such madness.

I am getting sick of the class warfare BS. You realize 3/4 of you people crying about the middle class shrinking never were truly middle class. 100K + in Credit Card Debt and 500K in house and car loans DOES NOT make you Middle Class. The middle class is BETTER off with the loss of the "bloated" class because now the price of houses are not inflated.

Still laugh pretty hard at "supply chain" people making 120-130K a year..that is just hilarious. Same jobs being done in India for 5-8K a year because there is no true education required to perform the work.

To the French Rev comments. There is a revolution coming. It will not be what you think. Know those roving mobs smack dab in the middle of Chicago now? That is your Social Revolution. Enjoy being the newest monkey cage at the zoo.

Tom in NH-294381, goes deeper than most know but it is time to for Americans to wake up and see what has been going on and how we got where we are today.

http://www.brasschecktv.com/videos/war-is-a-racket/they-love-war.html

"The old Federal Democratic Republic is dying"

Is the US turning into a National Security State?

Army colonel, former Chief of Staff for Colin Powell and Bush-Cheney administration insider, Lawrence Wilkerson says "yes."

"This is crazy. This was what we do today. We do war. The old Federal Republic is dying."

It's a shame you idealogues on the left are as blind as you are. Kind of like your counterparts on the right.

I hate to tell you this, but the Republicans didn't deliberately increase the national debt anymore than the Democrats did. And please don't try and say the Democrats didn't increase the debt, because that's factually untrue.

Both sides are responsible for this mess. Both sides are responsible for failing to act to get this crisis under control. Both sides are responsible for reckless spending without regard for consequences and BOTH SIDES are responsible for all the antagonism and hatred between their supporters.

Here's a thought. How about BOTH SIDES grow the F up and act like adults instead of children and WORK to fix the problem????

What am I thinking? Pigs will fly before idealogues will give up their finger pointing.

I'm glad you're doing well but I think you're an exception to the rule. I know of people who lost good jobs and after a long unemployment period, were able to get lower paying jobs as "contractors" (meaning no benefits whatsoever) or had their hours cut. The economy is still in deep doodoo.

Maybe the "higher end" is doing better because they invested some of their money toward surviving tough times, instead of spending all of it on overpriced homes, overpriced cars, iPods, big screen TVs, and other unnecessary items.

Spider, I dont' think you know what you are talking about. I know many people who have scrimped and saved for years - not out buying everything that moves - and who have been severely affected by the current economic conditions. Don't blame peoples' desperate situations on some stupid spending spree. Get real!

The continuing cheer-leadingof the media is an effort to delay or prevent the destruction of the actual Thieves and Scoundrels in Washington and Wall Street that stole the American dream from the middle class and left us all working poor.

As soon as the revolution starts and the the guilty finaly meet their makers America will thrive again. It doesn't have anything to do with party politics the Republicrats and the Demopublicans are both guilty.

can't argue with that post, Keith...

When Obama took over we were losing jobs by the millions. We are gaining a few now, only slowly. The problem isn't who is president, it's the loss of jobs to low wage factories overseas spurred mostly by corporate America's never ending quest for higher profits each quarter. Corporate America and their shareholders can't be content with a nice profitable factory in America returning 5 percent and employing American workers at a decent wage. They want a never ending upward spiral of profits, dividends, and share prices and will do whatever it takes to get 'em. All of this comes at the expense of citizens of the USA. That is unless you are among the top 2 percent.

Keith,

As soon as the revolution starts and the the guilty finaly meet their makers America will thrive again

And exactly what kind of revolution are you advocating huh? Hmmmm one where the "guilty finally meet their makers" sounds violent to me.

If that's what you're advocating, then you're an idiot.

That kind of revolution can only lead to the destruction of our nation and the entire collapse of our economy, and would probably drag down the rest of the world's economies as well.

Save the madness for the funny farm dude.

mikeljhn--- I suggest you do some independent reading, turn off Fox News, and throw out the koolaid and drink coffee. The recession occurred under the GOP's watch, due to GOP policies. As I posted above, this debt crisis is a deliberate creation of the GOP ( starve the beast) so they privatize them entitlements--- that is take benefits AWAY from the least fortunate, the elderly, poor and sick and give the money to the MOST fortunate--corporation, banks and Wall ST. I suggest you're intellectually dishonest if you post is to be taken at face value becuz what you say has little to do with the truth! People who are willing to see the country destoyed just to win a political battle are traitors to this country!

"People who are willing to see the country destoyed just to win a political battle are traitors to this country!"

Couldn't agree more Tom.

Exhibit A: Suing Americans simply to attempt to gain the votes of foreign criminals.

Exhibit B: Continuing unsustainable borrowing and spending just to mask the true state of the economy in the short-term(for political purposes) with a total disregard for the long-term consequences.

Tom, you do not know what the hell you are talking about. Your assessment is just far left garbage put out by Media Matters and other left wing heresies. The roots of the recession began in 1994 when Clinton got Congress to enact a bill to increase home ownership in the US. The regulators and the lenders got into bed together to increase Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in size and political power. With Congress as the rulemaker, our loan business was changed totally and anybody with 2 cents could get a home loan, without reporting their income or ability to repay the loan. The housing bubble burst in 2008, after Clinton, Bush, and Obama fostered this whoredom to total fruition. Obama has continued this prostitution, and we are still going down, as the housing market has not bottomed. Until the housing market recovers, the US economy will not recover. So, if you want to go really down the tubes, vote for the failed incompetent Obama. The only people who support Obama either pay no taxes or else they are on the government dole in some way or the other.

Here we go again with the blame game. There is ENOUGH blame to go around to both parties. How about REAL suggestions. Wouldn't that be breath of fresh air

It makes perfect sense to me; it's called building an economy through private enterprise, and minimizing government involvement. I'm certainly not in the top 1%, but it has made me quite comfortable in my retirement (which, by the way, is not dependent upon social security).

Gee, spider, it would be a terrible thing to bring overseas jobs back home, huh? Why don't people get this stuff -it's not that hard.

which, by the way, is not dependent upon social security

And although you dont need it, i bet you still cash the SS checks, don't ya!

No none of those make sense, nor are they fair.

It isn't fair to even have capital gains taxed at 15%, much less cut. If a corporate CEO or a hedge-fund manager gets profits or stock options from capital gains, usually for amounts much more than they get in wages, or that anyone gets in wages, what sense does it make to pay a lower tax rate or no tax at all? That's totally insane.

And by the way, I make a lot of capital gains, so I actually benefit from lower capital gains tax, but I still think it is unfair and harmful to the economy.

Inheritance taxes can be reformed, but should not be eliminated. If they are eliminated, then I think we will wind up with a wealthy elite class that will, over generations, amass financial resources that will cause the economy to stagnate. For example, if rich families, and I'm talking billionaires, amass ever-increasing wealth (for example, with no capital gain tax, see above), from one generation to the next, they will control so much wealth that they will be able to buy and sell the rest of us.

It will once again be feasible for more and more people to have a household full of servants. I personally don't think there should be a large number of households that can maintain a large staff. This is the way the third world works.

Dr..... it is a longtime plan by the GOP, starting under reagan, to mortgage this government to the hilt in order to create a debt crisis. In that way, the GOP could try to convince the people that privatizing the entitlements is the ONLY solution!!

Republicans want a corporatist state, where state and corporate power merge. That is the very definition of economic fascism as espoused by Mussolini!

We ordinary american MUST take back OUR country!!

"We ordinary american MUST take back OUR country!!"

We started during the 2010 midterms, we will finish it in 2012.

Actually it's not, it's the bureaucracy and government waste.

Look at China, their inequality is still far worse than that found in America, yet they are surpassing us in every way.

hmm, well how is it EVERYBODY got a tax cut then?

Because the vast majority of those cuts went to the top 2%.

"Super rich pay a lot less in federal taxes than they did decades ago

The Internal Revenue Service tracks the tax returns with the 400 highest adjusted gross incomes each year. The average income on those returns in 2007, the latest year for IRS data, was nearly $345 million. Their average federal income tax rate was 17 percent, down from 26 percent in 1992.

If, as we keep hearing, all Americans have to "share the pain", what are the top 2% sharing?

Amen to that. Ever see a poor republican politician in congress that lived in a apartment or trailer park. McCain has about 6 different homes. And these are the people chosen to represent and do whats right for the rest of the country. hahahaha

Looks like they won the lottery and couldn't give a rats a$s what happens to the average citizen. Always the wealthy getting to represent the poor.

Yes damned if they do and damn if they don't. Stocks are soaring. Obama points to it every chance he gets to show the economy is coming back. Obama bitched that they were sitting on thier money.

People who have money are risking it again and OH MY GOD the risk paid off and they made money. Every American who works and has a 401K benefits when stocks rise. Who owns the most 401K's? THE MIDDLE CLASS!

Nothing makes you people happy for God's sakes make up your minds.

YOU HAVE GOT TO BE KIDDING ME!!!!

Well, Republicans are at it again. Recently they blocked a bill titled ‘Economic Development Revitalization Act of 2011′, which would have extended funding to an incredibly successful job creation program. Republicans unanimously filibustered the bill.

The Republicans, Teabaggers in 2010 they ALL campaigned on JOBS, oh sure their a few jobs here and their, that pay like crap. As ususal they are for only themselves and the American People, well the American people will not FORGET come 2012 ELECTIONS!!!!

You mean the job program where the government basically paid the payroll of certain companies so they could hire people? And what happens when that money runs out? Oh wait, it has, and people bitched they lost their jobs because of it.

You cannot buy jobs, no matter how much Obama tries.

The only reason stocks are up is due to corporate america moving to low wage countries to make higher profits and banks paying only 1 percent on savings, CDs, etc. Where else can you get a return on your money that equals or exceeds inflation. That is exactly what QE1 and 2 were designed to do. Keep interest rates down, and force people to invest in the market which is somewhat more risky than putting your money in a bank. Problem is the unemployed and minimum wage workers aren't helped at all. Just people with the better jobs (those with 401k plans) and a little cash.

Laura - "Recently they blocked a bill titled ‘Economic Development Revitalization Act of 2011′,"

Are you really that gullible? Remember the "stimulus" that became "jobs bills" that became "investment"? They are all the same, they just get renamed for political purposes after their failure and wastefulness becomes apparent.

I hear the next Dem -sponsored bill will be named the "By not voting for this I admit I kick puppies and steal candy from babies" bill. A.K.A. "stimulus part 4".

No great economic expansion in our history has occurred without government investment

1797-The National Road, 1816-The American System, 1825-The Erie Canal, 1862-The Homestead Act, 1869-The Transcontinental Railroad, 1890's-Urban Mass Transit, 1900's-Panama Canal, 1930's-Dams, Bridges, The Lincoln Tunnel, Belt Parkway, 1944-The GI Bill-entitlement of all entitlements, 1950-1970-Federal Highway System, 1960-1990-Space Program. All these created massive amounts of jobs and would not have been possible without government involvement. A government that transfers wealth upward as ours has done for 30 years no longer serves the interest of 98% of the population

rawr class war! gimme yo money because i don't wanna work for it!!!!

lol.

You mean the job program where the government basically paid the payroll of certain companies so they could hire people? And what happens when that money runs out? Oh wait, it has, and people bitched they lost their jobs because of it.

You cannot buy jobs, no matter how much Obama tries.

Our local school system passed on one of those jobs. Apparently, we were offered funding through TARP, as it was called then, to hire a grant-writer for our school system. The federal government would subsidize the salary, but for one year only. By accepting the funds, we agreed to keep this position permanently on the payroll. The school board looked at their previous years' payroll, and decided they couldn't have supported such an extra employee before the recession started, and certainly couldn't after.

Using tax money to create jobs which then have to be paid for with tax money. Not sustainable.

"The bigger donors get the laws they want."

True, just look at the Unions.

"The chances of a poor person or middle class person ever becoming one of them is very, very small."

Labeling companies "Too big to fail" defiantly makes it more difficult for entrepreneurs to get the products in the market. Imagine the potential for new entrants into our auto market had GM been allowed to die.... but that was not about to happen thanks to your other point (The bigger donors get the laws they want) GM and Unions got saved at huge consequence to the little guy.

U.S. politicians are owned... it is their fault for being for sale, and Obama is about buying any vote he can.

Only a few % of the rich are born rich. The majority wore born poor but made sacrifes and worked hard to get where they are. Thats the great thing about our country we all have the chance to suceed in life if we choose to make sacrfises and work hard.

80% of the wealth in this country is handed down to heirs.

Redskin,

Learn to spell or at least hit the spell checker and have it done for you. No, the lucky sperm club is very large.

Redskin,

Where are you getting your figures? The vast majority of the wealthiest Americans are to the manor born; the entire Horatio Alger thing is an urban myth (basically put into place as the worm on the hook with which to bait the poorest into working that much harder). Don't take my word for it - look it up.

pjam,

Where do you get your take? The entire attempt to equate unions with the uber-wealthy is flawed beyond belief, and really isn't fooling very many at this point. If you want to suck up to the wealthy, just get on your knees and pucker up, but you may have to wait in line a bit. Hope the aftertaste suits you....

Where did the people who handed down the wealth get it from? Did that not have to work hard to get it?

you mean like George Soros???!!! hahaha the union owning liberal king pin!!!

Does the fact that someone inherits their wealth make you more entitled to it than them?

Funny thing is you'll hear people on here screaming only 2% of the population are wealthy or rich. If thats true then only apparently 2% make the laws and don't have toabide by them and that same 2% decides whats good for everyone else in the country.

So I think the 2% figure is BS. And if it was 2% then this isn't a democracy, so no wonder 2/3 of the world hates us and our form of Democracy.

There's a difference between working for your money and money working for you.

How many people on here have some kind of retirement fund that is invested in the stock market? IRA, 401k, 403b, SEP, SIMPLE, etc. ALL of those people have money working for them.

I am with you. let's take theirs away.

No kidding! How can there be a recovery when the graphs are going down? That's the spin for you, that's the old kool aid working! At this rate they'll have to set the tables on end and say, "See! Economy still going up!".