Hello:

I'm a businessman. You SHOULD listen to me. I make sense. Instead, you listen to politicians. I don't know why.

I HIRE people when I can't meet the demands of my marketplace... It's no more difficult than that. I DON'T hire because somebody gave me a tax break to hire somebody. If I did, what's he going to do? Sit around?? If I don't have work for him, I'm going to go broke and won't be ABLE to file a tax return to claim my credit...

Does "uncertainty" have anything to do with it? NO! When I have a customer clamoring for service, I don't look into the tax code to see if I should HIRE somebody... NOBODY does. Really - NOBODY! Certainly, you can SEE the logic in what I say, even if you're NOT a businessperson...

That's not to say that lower taxes won't be beneficial in the long run, but it has NOTHING to do with hiring people NOW. Demand is what will cause me to HIRE, just like DEMAND will cause every other employer to hire.. Demand is NOT created by lower taxes. Demand is created by putting cash dollars in the pockets of consumers... If that means EXPANDING unemployment, then DO it. If it means EXPANDING the distribution of food stamps, then DO it.

Cutting the deficit doesn't cause me to hire either... Can you imagine?? Somebody comes looking for work, and I tell him that I need to see how much the country owes before I can hire him... Nahh... That don't happen in the real world.

excon

You make great points and I agree completely. I don't know anyone that hires someone simply for a tax break... are you kidding? That is a joke, isn't it? Tax breaks are not the answer but then again, I don't think the government really has any answers or cares if they do... just as long as it looks like they're trying.

Hello:

I'm a businessman. You SHOULD listen to me. I make sense. Instead, you listen to politicians. I dunno why.

1) I HIRE people when I can't meet the demands of my marketplace... It's no more difficult than that. I DON'T hire because somebody gave me a tax break to hire somebody. If I did, what's he gonna do? Sit around??? If I don't have work for him, I'm gonna go broke and won't be ABLE to file a tax return to claim my credit...

2) Does "uncertainty" have anything to do with it?? NO! When I have a customer clamoring for service, I don't look into the tax code to see if I should HIRE somebody... NOBODY does. Really - NOBODY! Certainly, you can SEE the logic in what I say, even if you're NOT a businessperson...

3) That's not to say that lower taxes won't be beneficial in the long run, but it has NOTHING to do with hiring people NOW. Demand is what will cause me to HIRE, just like DEMAND will cause every other employer to hire.. Demand is NOT created by lower taxes. Demand is created by putting cash dollars in the pockets of consumers... If that means EXPANDING unemployment, then DO it. If it means EXPANDING the distribution of food stamps, then DO it.

4) Cutting the deficit doesn't cause me to hire either... Can you imagine??? Somebody comes looking for work, and I tell him that I need to see how much the country owes before I can hire him... Nahh... That don't happen in the real world.

excon

On the original quote I have added line numbers to make it easier to understand what Im addressing.

1) Maybe I missed something. When I listened to the speech the other night I didn't hear that the tax credit was specific to new hires in general. Only to those that had been unemployed for more then 6 months.

Again maybe I missed something.

2) Uncertainty has to do more with investment then it does with hiring on a short term. If you need the extra help I don't think as has been the case you jump right out and hire someone right away. The norm has been to work your existing workforce a little more as in overtime until a certainty that the business can support a new worker. That's not to say that hiring someone right away is bad practice. But until certainty is achieved there is really no place for a new position.

3) Demand is created by revenue. And the more in the consumers pockets the more likely they are to spend it. Tax breaks have the advantage of giving the money back to the source rather then to some giant company that won't make it past the 2 year mark.

4) Cutting the deficit can be a good thing. It strengthens the dollar and provides confidence in the marketplace. A weak dollar leads to inflation and can cause uncertainty. We need that strong dollar. Then as consumers return to the marketplace via jobs and personal spending everyone has a shot at making it in the marketplace.

Hello:

I'm a businessman. You SHOULD listen to me. I make sense. Instead, you listen to politicians. I don't know why.

Ex we listen to those who say something, politicians speak to us through the media, businessmen get on with doing what they are doing. It doesn't mean we agree with politicians


I HIRE people when I can't meet the demands of my marketplace... It's no more difficult than that. I DON'T hire because somebody gave me a tax break to hire somebody. If I did, what's he going to do? Sit around?? If I don't have work for him, I'm going to go broke and won't be ABLE to file a tax return to claim my credit...

You are right, tax shouldn't drive the business, how many times have I said it. A government only has so many tools available. Tax, subsidy, Interest rates, leglislation. So how does it create jobs? Mainly by adding to the government workforce. A government uses tax breaks to put more money in the hands of the public in this case an employer, hoping that they will use this money to expand their business, but what is really happening is that business are cutting their losses and expanding their profits. This is what uncertainty does.


Does "uncertainty" have anything to do with it? NO! When I have a customer clamoring for service, I don't look into the tax code to see if I should HIRE somebody... NOBODY does. Really - NOBODY! Certainly, you can SEE the logic in what I say, even if you're NOT a businessperson...

That's not to say that lower taxes won't be beneficial in the long run, but it has NOTHING to do with hiring people NOW. Demand is what will cause me to HIRE, just like DEMAND will cause every other employer to hire.. Demand is NOT created by lower taxes. Demand is created by putting cash dollars in the pockets of consumers... If that means EXPANDING unemployment, then DO it. If it means EXPANDING the distribution of food stamps, then DO it.

So what you are telling us is you want the government to use subsidy as a stimulus, problem is that uncertainty you disregard works against the government because the consumers apply the same philosophy, they are uncertain, so they keep the money to protect themselves from an uncertain future. There's that word again you want to ignore.


Cutting the deficit doesn't cause me to hire either... Can you imagine?? Somebody comes looking for work, and I tell him that I need to see how much the country owes before I can hire him... Nahh... That don't happen in the real world.

Excon

Cutting the deficit isn't about you, excepting that someone has to pay for this mess sooner or later. Putting another billion or two in the hands of consumers won't soak up the excess capacity that exists in the economy. That's the problem, business won't hire until demand increases substantially. Something structural has to happen. It may be that your currency has to take a real dive so that those cheap goods from China aren't so cheap anymore, then what you make will be more competitive and when you sell more overseas production and jobs will expand. How do you do this? Well, you sell off the currency instead of spending trillions supporting it and use the money to pay down the deficit. Adjust your equity ratio that is what a business man would do.

Fact is too many politicians have never actually had a real job in their lives... much less ran a business. They don't have a clue about what it takes to do that and turn a profit... and if you can't turn a profit... you certainly won't be hiring others.

Its not about a temporary break this year... its about what you can count on being obligated to for the next 5 or 10 years...

Ex I couldn't agree more. I hire only when I need employees and for no other reason. We have been able to at least maintain around 150 people average so far but I am worried, very worried. Sometimes it is hard to clear my mind and go to sleep. Why, other than the obvious reasons I worry about my people.

Stringer

Fact is too many politicians have never actually had a real job in their lives....much less ran a business. They don't have a clue about what it takes to do that and turn a profit...and if you can't turn a profit...you certainly won't be hiring others.

Its not about a temporary break this year.....its about what you can count on being obligated to for the next 5 or 10 years.....

Smoothy many startup business fail for the same reason and I think this is forgotten in the rush for stimulus, sometimes those who are subsidised have no business acumen.

Politicians don't have the answers, they don't even have the right questions because we are all sailing in unchartered waters. It has been seen before when the population apply reverse psychology to a government policy, the government stimulates and expects spending, the public say no way and save. I recall a long time ago in my own nation when the government put the breaks on and applied a credit squeeze, very different times, but the people said borrow now, it will be harder later, and the sales of new vehicles skyrocketed.

What it comes down to is expectations and confidence, the crisis we have now isn't so much a financial crisis as a crisis of confidence, business doesn't have confidence and so isn't hiring, isn't building inventory. Tax incentives used to be a way of attracting an investment, investment implies a market and the market has tanked. Investors aren't stupid, they can see this and business sees it in their order book

Smoothy many startup business fail for the same reason and I think this is forgotten in the rush for stimulus, sometimes those who are subsidised have no business acumen.

Politicians don't have the answers, they don't even have the right questions because we are all sailing in unchartered waters. It has been seen before when the population apply reverse psychology to a government policy, the government stimulates and expects spending, the public say no way and save. I recall a long time ago in my own nation when the government put the breaks on and applied a credit squeeze, very different times, but the people said borrow now, it will be harder later, and the sales of new vehicles skyrocketed.

What it comes down to is expectations and confidence, the crisis we have now isn't so much a financial crisis as a crisis of confidence, business doesn't have confidence and so isn't hiring, isn't building inventory. Tax incentives used to be a way of attracting an investment, investment implies a market and the market has tanked. Investors arn't stupid, they can see this and business sees it in their order book

True... some business owners don't have the instincts they need to be successful and would fail even in a booming economy, but succeeding in a poor one requires both good instincts, and good business sense, along with a lot of good luck. But politicians essentially set the rules for the game to be played... and those rules in and of themselves can make it easier, or impossible to be successful in business. And recently with all the blame business for everything that has been going on in this country... they have been making it impossible for business.

There is a degree of interrelation... but you have to look at it from the business owners perspective... you aren't going to hire someone if you can't reasonably expect to be able to keep them long term for whatever reason. Between the expense of finding and hiring, there is the training and learning curve to be productive... and the outlay of benefits... including the cost of what you pay into the unemployment fund when you have to let them go... its cheaper to hunker down and wait it out... eventually things will improve. How long that takes politicians do have a major influence in.

The move to cut regulation is sensible, there are many barriers and disincentives for business, but it still takes the willingness to take a risk and some people are not risk takers, particularly in the face of poor economic conditions.

Banks are only going to lend with certainty so instead of tinkering the government should be willing to guarantee business loans for a time to assume some of the risk. Such incentives don't cost money, at least not immediately, and are no worse than the incentivising of housing which got us into this mess or the semi-nationalisation of the auto industry

Hello again,

Here's some more of what you should listen to me about... Politicians talk about bringing the jobs back... But, they AIN'T coming back, no matter WHAT the politicians do. They ain't coming back because it's cheaper to manufacture stuff over seas... After WWII, and the worlds factories were destroyed, we were the only ones who could make stuff - and we did. When the world caught up, they were willing to work for a lot less than our guys would, so the jobs left.. The only jobs that stayed were the ones that foreigners couldn't do.

So, if we're going to create jobs, we need to create some in a NEW industry, cause we can't compete in the old ones anymore... It's not like we've never done it before. When the Japanese started taking our car manufacturing, we turned to chips and high tech stuff.

We need to do that again... Space? Green technology? I don't know. Yup, it's going to take some MASSIVE government investment... Don't be disturbed by my use of the word "investment".. That's how you get ahead - by investing in stuff.

excon

Hello again,

So, if we're gonna create jobs, we need to create some in a NEW industry, cause we can't compete in the old ones anymore... It's not like we've never done it before. When the Japanese started taking our car manufacturing, we turned to chips and high tech stuff.

We need to do that again... Space?? Green technology? I dunno. Yup, it's gonna take some MASSIVE government investment... Don't be disturbed by my use of the word "investment".. That's how you get ahead - by investing in stuff.

excon

Ex perhaps you haven't heard of globalisation. That is where your american companies opted to take their technology and manufacture in a low labour cost country and the process goes on endlessly. When China becomes too expensive they will move to Pakistan or Africa. As far as the Japanese taking your car industry goes, you did that to yourselves along with all the other industries you poured into the reconstruction. I hope you don't expect me to have sympathy for you.

You have lost the race already in green technology, the smart solutions are out there already because your politicians weren't willing to recognise the changing environment. Want a new industry, invent fusion power generation, hover cars, modular housing, something that isn't there right now, not some incremental change to existing technology. Find something that has to be sold in volume. The biggest change you have to make in your economy is to abandon the idea that your minimum wage should remain low as an incentive to employ. No, you pay more and demand productivity, this will get your economy moving again, when you get your workers above subsistence level.

Well, we can't invest in shovel ready jobs because they don't exist. Give a half a billion dollars to a "green job" creator and they'll just file bankruptcy. How about guitars? Nope, might harm a tree. Passenger jets? Not in South Carolina.

What do we have left? Ah yes, unions. Let's invest in unions.

What do we have left? Ah yes, unions. Let's invest in unions.Hello Steve:

Stop being snarky! They'll close this thread too. What do YOU think our next big industry should be?? Unless, you think they're going to reopen that refrigerator plant down the road... We're in a NEW era. Ideas?? (Don't say fire extinguishers)

excon

LOL, if we have to worry about them closing threads for being snarky then AMHD is hopeless.

First let me correct something, demand isn't created by putting cash in our pockets. Well, to those who have no concept of finances it might create some demand, but if you put cash in my pockets I'm gong to pay some bills. How much did we spend on "stimulus" and how much demand did it create?

Nor is demand is created by mandate or wishful thinking i.e. "green jobs" (see Solyndra). Demand is created by offering a service or product that people need or really want. I don't NEED compact fluorescent bulbs nor do I want them. I don't need an electric or hybrid car and I can't picture people around here trying to pull a horse trailer with a Chevy Volt. I may want solar panels but I don't need them or the cost associated.

I don't know what the next big thing will be but you can't just put more government dollars in people's hands and hope for the best. People are still tightening down and hanging on to their money precisely because of the uncertainty of the economy. More expensive wishful thinking by the feds is not going to change that.

Hello again, Steve:

Investment is one thing. Stimulus is another we need BOTH. I opt for space. I mean we got lots of NASA unemployed rocket scientists... We got those unused launching pads..

Hey... Want to go into business with me... We could use fire extinguishers as rocket motors to save money. You got an in there... How about it?

excon

Your garden variety extinguisher only holds 195 psi charge and makes a terrible mess. We could bump it up to CO2 which could be around 850 psi, but that would be a climate disaster. Either would take a lot of extinguishers so you might bump up production slightly. But hey, as soon as all states adopt the latest NFPA standard my industry (and the scrap metal industry) will see a boost because we won't be able to service anything made before 1984.

Regulations are a pain but in our case they do help us stay in business... while driving up the price of everything from food to gas to those plastic baggies you store weed in.

Business people don't care about regulations or taxes. They care about money. They don't care about people and jobs. They care about money. They aren't creating jobs, because they are making money.

Its crazy believing they want anything but more money. Calling a business man a job creator is crazy, since they want to make money whether you do or not, and with or without you, whatever is cheaper.

If they need a few more bucks, then you get laid off. Ever notice that stocks go up when workers get canned?? Wonder why that is?

If they need a few more bucks, then you get laid off. Ever notice that stocks go up when workers get canned???
That's why Bank of America is laying off 30,000 employees.

That's why Bank of America is laying off 30,000 employees.

Good example, they have to raise some attorney fees quick.

Hello Steve:

Stop being snarky! They'll close this thread too. What do YOU think our next big industry should be??? Unless, you think they're gonna reopen that refrigerator plant down the road... We're in a NEW era. Ideas??? (Don't say fire extinguishers)

excon

Just my opinion. If you could kep the enviromentalists away and get a mass of land in the desert. You could start an algae farm. They look fairly proising and you can create bio fuel from it. Imagine what you could do with a few square miles of it growing.

Just in case you never heard of the idea before.

Algae and Energy Independence (http://www.americanenergyindependence.com/algaefarms.aspx)

Business people don't care about regulations or taxes. They care about money. They don't care about people and jobs. They care about money. They aren't creating jobs, because they are making money.

Its crazy believing they want anything but more money. calling a business man a job creator is crazy, since they want to make money whether you do or not, and with or without you, whatever is cheaper.

If they need a few more bucks, then you get laid off. Ever notice that stocks go up when workers get canned??? Wonder why that is??

Isn't the entire purpose of a job... and a business... to make money and a profit?

Isn't the entire purpose of a job....and a business........to make money and a profit?
But not to create more jobs?

Isn't the entire purpose of a job....and a business........to make money and a profit?

Yes it is, but to rely on them or even pass them off as job creators is a fallacy and no excuse to cater to them as something other than what they are.

Hell they have had tax breaks and loopholes and a free ride for over 10 years and haven't created jobs for all the profits they have made. Hey just keep it real, job creators my arse. Profit makers is what they are and what they will be no matter who gets paid.

Just ask your boss why YOU are there.

Answer, to make him money>

Stop making him money, and you are out of there with a quickness.

But not to create more jobs?

If you don't make money and a profit... you can't hire more workers to make more money and profit. Unless they are willing to work free until there is a profit to pay their wages from.

Yes it is, but to rely on them or even pass them off as job creators is a fallacy and no excuse to cater to them as something other than what they are.

Hell they have had tax breaks and loopholes and a free ride for over 10 years and haven't created jobs for all the profits they have made. hey just keep it real, job creators my arse. Profit makers is what they are and what they will be no matter who gets paid.

Just ask your boss why YOU are there.

Answer, to make him money>

Stop making him money, and you are out of there with a quickness.

Its falacy? How many jobs are project dwellers and welfare rats creating? How many jobs are the people that pay no federal taxes now thanks to tax breaks and deductions creating. The answer is simple... NONE. They aren't the job creators... they are the leaches on society.

You get kicked out of your job, and you will be a leach on society too.

Poverty is the problem, not the people in it.

You get kicked out of your job, and you will be a leach on society too.

Poverty is the problem, not the people in it.

SO... the lazy bums in the projects with a dozen kids from as many women and men that never worked a job in their life or finished high school are looked up to in the liberal world ?

What excuse exactly is sufficient to quitting high school? Besides cutting into the dope dealing time at night?

Dealing dope is a full time paying job, and a part of the underground economy. Its been that way for centuries, in many cultures, and governments.

I don't have to agree with it to acknowledge its existence. You didn't answer my question, what would you do with no job??

And a new one, what would you do about the poor folks? And don't say shoot 'em.

You are dodging MY point and trying to deflect the fact I commented on people that specifically made the lifestyle choices to be project dwellers. By dropping out of high school because it impacted their desire to sleep in and not break a sweat.

The temporarily unemployed have NOTHING in common with the chronically lazy high school dropouts. The former will be back to work shortly after Obama gets his butt whooped the next election... the latter will still be doing what they always did.

You are dodging my question.

New report cites 'regulatory tsunami' under Obama
(http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/new-report-cites-regulatory-tsunami-under-obama)

The number and scope of federal regulations, along with the costs of those regulations and the number of federal regulators, are all growing despite an executive order from President Obama that was touted as a measure to curb over-regulation, according to a new report by the House Government Oversight and Reform Committee.

The report says the Obama administration has "imposed 75 new major regulations costing more than $380 billion over ten years." In addition, the report says there are 219 more "economically significant regulations" in the works which will cost businesses $100 million or more each year -- for a minimum cost of $21 billion over ten years. The number of pages in the Federal Register, in which such rules are recorded, is increasing rapidly, the report says, and "pages devoted to final rules rose by 20 percent between 2009 and 2010, and proposed rules have increased from 2,044 in 2009 to 2,439 in 2010."

"The Obama administration has created a regulatory environment that is suffocating America's entrepreneurs' ability to create jobs and grow business," writes committee chairman Rep. Darrell Issa, Republican from California. "The result has been a regulatory tsunami that has stifled productivity, wages, job creation and economic growth."

Just sayin'

I would have to see the regulations before I took Darrel Issas word for it.

Regulations.gov (http://www.regulations.gov/#!home)

Fouling the Air at TXI (http://www.txpeer.org/toxictour/txi.html)

There is regulation, then there is regulation. How soon we forget the BP oil spill, or the battery plant in Plano, Texas.

You are dodging my question.

I answered it... read what I wrote again.

I would have to see the regulations before I took Darrel Issas word for it.

Regulations.gov (http://www.regulations.gov/#!home)

Fouling the Air at TXI (http://www.txpeer.org/toxictour/txi.html)

There is regulation, then there is regulation. How soon we forget the BP oil spill, or the battery plant in Plano, Texas.

You do realize it is not just a bunch of Republicans on the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform (http://oversight.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1079&Itemid=2)? Did the Dems sign off on the report, (http://oversight.house.gov/images/stories/Reports/9.13.11_Broken_Government_Report.pdf) too?

Hello Steve:

Regulations AREN'T a partisan issue. Rules work for right wingers too. Or, maybe they don't. Nobody has answered my earlier question, so I thought I'd ask it again...

Obviously, right wingers don't like regulations/rules for business. They say that businessmen have an INCENTIVE NOT to poison somebody, because they'd go out of business if they did, so they don't need no stinkin regulations about poisoning people... Sheesh... What is it about business that these pinko liberals don't understand??

But, when it comes to personal behavior, you seem to lose your faith that PEOPLE will act in themselves interest... So, you enact LOTS and LOTS of regulations/laws governing personal behavior and enforce them with vigor...

Now this is where my confusion comes in... Seems to me, that PEOPLE are running corporations, aren't they?

excon

And you keep throwing up that straw man that I believe regulations are inherently evil for corporations. No, there has to be rules. But I think we both agreed that trying to discern and comply with government regulations is burdensome enough, now we have 20 percent more incomprehensible nonsense to deal with? Not good, unless you're a lawyer, an accountant or government employee.

But I think we both agreed that trying to discern and comply with government regulations is burdensome enoughHello again, Steve:

True... But, we need to discern WHO is telling us that too. It SHOULDN'T be that way. But, political objectives get in the way of good governance... For example, some on your side with to do away with the EPA. You might even be one of those.. I don't know.

excon

Hello again, Steve:

True... But, we need to discern WHO is telling us that too. It SHOULDN'T be that way. But, political objectives get in the way of good governance... For example, some on your side with to do away with the EPA. You might even be one of those.. I dunno.

Contrary to your often mistaken opinion, I don't like trash in my air. Or in my water, my yard or flying in my trees. But you do know the EPA has turned one of our most productive agricultural areas into a desert because of some stinkin' little fish don't you?

All I know is that I'd hate to be a small business owner trying to get the credit necessary for day to day operations ;let alone expansion.
The European banking crisis prolongs the problems that began with the unwise bailout of the "banks too big to fail ".

President Obama is correct in saying (ad nausium) that he did not cause this freezing of capital . But his policy of printing money and giving it away to prop up states budgets and "save" state jobs was a complete failure ;which he foolishly plans on duplicating .

Regulations ? No... it's excess regulations that are a problem . The way I see it in my industry is that the more burdensome regulation get , there is ,the more consolidation of the industry into fewer hands. My bosses rented a modest factory and worked it with their families. With today's rules that is an impossibilty .I will never have the opportunity to open a shop the way they did.

It sure would help if you stop making blanket statements. What rules are there that stop you from owning a shop? What's your definition of excessive regulations? Why are they excessive?

And tell me about the fishys that turned the oasis into a desert.

If you mean letting the job creators write there own rules, are you crazy? That's what got us in deep do-do in the first place.

FACTS, not theory.

It sure would help if you stop making blanket statements. What rules are there that stop you from owning a shop? Whats your definition of excessive regulations? Why are they excessive?

And tell me about the fishys that turned the oasis into a desert.

If you mean letting the job creators write there own rules, are you crazy?? Thats what got us in deep do-do in the first place.

FACTS, not theory.

The battle intensified back in August 2007 when Federal Judge Wanger ordered as much as a 50% reduction in water allocated to serve the rest of the state (like Los Angeles) and protect endangered fish populations -- and likewise the commercial and recreational fishing industries.


Ref:

The Water Update - News21 (http://blogs.uscannenberg.org/news21/spring09/2009/03/the-water-update.html)

And tell me about the fishys that turned the oasis into a desert..

Thanks to the EPA and the Endangered Species Act, most of the water used to irrigate the central California valley has been cut off from farmers to protect the Delta Smelt. Look it up. Better yet, here it is in pictures (http://beetlebabee.wordpress.com/2009/06/01/dead-and-dying-californias-central-valley-dust-bowl/).

Hello again,

Yeah, sometimes those tree huggers get carried away... But, I'm FOR smoke stack scrubbers, aren't you?? That's why we shouldn't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

excon

Carried away ? The unemployment rate of farm workers in the San Joaquin is about 40% . They turned one of the most productive agricultural areas of the nation into desert .
Scrubbers to eliminate sulfer dioxide emissions by contrast are logical regulations ,and you won't find anyone except perhaps the Ronulans who object to them .

What regulation stops you from owning a shop? Making regulations based on safety concerns is one thing, but making policy decisions based on how to allocate limited resources is quite another. Somebody is sure to lose in that fight. And don't they always go with the economics? Sort of like downsizing, by laying workers off. A business decision, about the money. Evidently fishing is a greater business interest than poor farmers are.

What regulation stops you from owning a shop?
There are a number of Federal and State agencies overseeing my industry. Some of the regulation is absolutely necessary ;others are overkill and burdensome. As I mentioned... smaller operations are opting out because of it.

If you are a banker, you need all the regulations you can get, the same goes for wall street.

I'm not ;but the same situation applies. There are some community banks that are giving up their charter over Dodd-Frank . All that will be left is banks"too big to fail" .

These were the banks that traditionally makes loans to small businesses. The system thus spirals downward
Small banks say new mortgage regulations too onerous - USATODAY.com (http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/banking/2011-08-15-small-banks-fear-new-mortgage-regulations_n.htm)

Community Banking & The Impact of Financial Regulations - Guidon Performance Solutions (http://www.guidonps.com/ideas-and-resources/articles/financial-services/regulatory-overload-is-community-banks-next-big-hurdle/)

Community Banking & The Impact of Financial Regulations - Guidon Performance Solutions (http://www.guidonps.com/ideas-and-resources/articles/financial-services/regulatory-overload-is-community-banks-next-big-hurdle/)


If Dodd-Frank has a silver lining, it will be in greater transparency for consumers.

Part of the regulatory burden, Wince said, entails revamping documents for products such as mortgages to make them more understandable for the public.

“Banks are feeling the pain and burden of trying to absorb it,” he said. “But, ultimately, the customers are going to be better off.”

Regulations can be quite beneficial for protecting people like you and me... consumers. Mortgages are rip offs, banks having been making 3 times what a house is worth for longer than I can remember.

Was that you that made the argument that WE should live within our means, and not borrow from another country, and get in debt? Why shouldn't banks do the same, not borrow OR lend, more than they have?

Dodd-Frank doesn't go far enough.

The remedy to the banks was to hold them responsible for their actions . If there was malfeasance (and I believe there was ) then why no prosecutions ?
You don't have to answer that .I know the reason... too many lawmakers would go down with the bankers.

I think its more likely that letting the banks fall in anything but a controlled way is a global catastrophe, and I think that eventually the will fall and be replaced.

But that's what deregulation bought us over time. Economic catastrophe, and since we didn't learn from the last time, we repeated the same mistake.

I've made the case more than once that the banking problem was caused by government mandates and not over regulation. I'll again refer to NY Times columnist Gretchen Morgenson's book 'Reckless Endangerment ' and the left wing Village Voice expose on then HUD boss Andrew Cuomo.

Also the guarantee of a gvt bailout influenced their behavior . It's called eliminating moral hazard .

The banking problem was caused by greed and failure of regulation. The government created the environment in which it might happen but it did not direct the bankers to act in the manner they did. What the bankers did was a ploy to remove questionable assets from their balance sheets

but it did not direct the bankers to act in the manner they did
The heck it didn't . The government almost left the financial institutions with no choice but to bundle crappy housing loans they forced them into making ,into investment instruments . In hearing after hearing Sen Chris Dodd and Rep Barney Frank examined the activities of the banking industry (especially Fannie Mae and FreddieMac ) and found they were acting in a proper manner.

''These two entities, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are not facing any kind of financial crisis.. 'The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.''[Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, at the time ,the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee]

Frank was arguing for an increase in the size of their combined $1.4 trillion portfolios in sub-prime holdings right up to the day they were bailed out.

That hardly gives license to the deception of selling junk, with gold platings, and saying its solid gold, and the ratings firms were as complicit in this scam as the banks. As bad is the pricing controls that speculators perpetrate on the world markets, another clear case of greed, and deception.

While speculation is necessary for stability, just like selling houses, greed, and over reach has there own consequences, as we have seen.

Tom why defend the indefensible? The bankers were culpable, the government niaive and the regulators out to lunch. It is all very academic now as we face a crisis brought on by failure of government of a different kind. Obama is not responsible for the GFC anymore than Merkel/Sarcozy are responsible for the shambles in Greece but we are all going to feel the impact. You think things are bad now, let's revisit it in 12 months time

I defend nothing .Malefeasance needs to be prosecuted . Ialready said that... Ask yourself why these hated bankers walk free today in an Obama America? He's the one who defends them . He told them he was the only one between them and the mob with the pitch forks .
He has retained their operatives at the highest levels of the White House . This week he told them the price of his protection.
A new book about the inner sanctum of the Administration reveals that the President ignored the advice of some of his closest financial advisors because the President runs the White House like a 'good ole boys club' . Perhaps we wouldn't be in such a sad shape if Christina Romer had some input .
http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2011/09/offices-can-be-sexist-even-when-theyre-oval/42712/

As far as the Europeans ;the EU is a failed and flawed construct that is only as finacially sound as it's weakest links.. If they were going to unify then they needed more than a colorful paper currency as a bond. We of course have seen the continent united before... but that was at times when Empires imposed their will.

As far as the Europeans ;the EU is a failed and flawed construct that is only as finacially sound as it's weakest links ..If they were going to unify then they needed more than a colorful paper currency as a bond. We of course have seen the continent united before ... but that was at times when Empires imposed their will.

There are empires on both sides of the Atlantic Tom. What is the US other than an empire with a common currency? The EU idea is flawed because they have allowed the currency to be used by countries who don't possess a common fiscal system.

The US$ and The AU$ are used in some countries as their currency but there is no attempt at fiscal integration. The EURO was a backdoor takeover bid by the stronger nations. What they could not achieve by conquest they attempted by other means. I say let the Greeks fail and withdraw from the EU. They are a basket case economy anyway

What is the US other than an empire with a common currency?
Common language ;common culture , common national identity... there are other things..
We did not start that way . But the US changed from 'these' united states to THE UNITED STATES .

common language ;common culture , common national identity ...there are other things ..
We did not start out that way . But the US changed from 'these' united states to THE UNITED STATES .

Don't get mad with me, Tom, I'm only pointing out the obvious. Yes, the US has some semblence of a common language and the EU hasn't yet had 200 years to acquire an identity so give them time, the east is like that west you had to conquer before it could be integrated.
I have great hopes that Europa will one day be united, it will take more than a common currency. As to my own fair land we have all you have, common language, common currency, common culture, common identity and all forged out of all the nations on Earth so there is hope fpr us all yet. What I like is we don't feel the need to SHOUT!

What I like is we don't feel the need to SHOUT!

You're so far down under we couldn't hear you if you did.

Yes we know you are not listening

Originally Posted by tomder55
Common language ;common culture , common national identity... there are other things..
We did not start that way . But the US changed from 'these' united states to THE UNITED STATES .

Well said Tom. We are still stirring the pot, but we are getting there.

Yes we know you are not listening

What am I supposed to be hearing?

What am I supposed to be hearing?

Can't you hear the Didjeridu?

Can't you hear the Didjeridu?

Not over all that slurping.

Not over all that slurping.

Damn Slurpee's

Well I hear they are having G'day in the US we came to you because you are a little deaf

Don't worry y'all The Fed is pulling a 50 year trick out of their arse guaranteed to turn our currency into toilet paper.

Exon is a genious.. I could've retired by now if I had taken his gold advice when he first started giving it here.

Not to late, the price of everything is falling as we speak. I would invest in toilet paper, or bridge building material.

Yes the President is going to a bridge to speak about bridge builiding jobs that won't begin until 2015 .
I wonder how much bridge building material could've been purchased with the half a trillion dollars he gave to that California solar energy company ?

Poli speak, it is wonderful to behold. If it could be bottled and sold the GFC would be over

So pass the bill so we can get started.

Ah there in lies the rub, more politicians, more poli speak, nothing done

Yeah... just what we need... throw MORE money down the drain because what he already threw down the drain wasn't enough already. He won't stop until he brings a total collapse, which incidentally, is exactly what he has been trying to do. There is no other logical reason or proof what he has done so far could or would ever work or accomplish anything else.

Yeah.....just what we need...throw MORE money down the drain because what he already threw down the drain wasn't enough already. Hello again, smoothy:

I don't know.. I see a broken bridge over there, and an unemployed bridge fixer over here. Government is eventually going to spend money to fix the bridge and the longer we wait, the more it's going to cost.

So, I'm for hiring the bridge fixer and let him start fixing bridges... From MY perspective, I don't see fixing bridges as money thrown away... I drive over a bridge that needs fixing. I'll bet you do too. It never worries you, huh? It SHOULD!

I AIN'T SINGING MY NAME UNTIL THEY FIX IT...

Hello again, smoothy:

I dunno.. I see a broken bridge over there, and an unemployed bridge fixer over here. Government is eventually going to spend money to fix the bridge and the longer we wait, the more it's going to cost.

So, I'm for hiring the bridge fixer and let him start fixing bridges... From MY perspective, I don't see fixing bridges as money thrown away... I drive over a bridge that needs fixing. I'll bet you do too. It never worries you, huh? It SHOULD!

I AIN'T SINGING MY NAME UNTIL THEY FIX IT....

So... exactly what did the last huge stimulus help? Not a damn thing except cause a HUGE bill that needs to be paid for...

They could have given every man woman and child their taxes back for an entire year and actually accomplished something. It didn't create a single job... it didn't fix anything that needed fixed... in fact it made things far worse.

But then, Obama has never worked a real job. He's never ran a business, in fact he doesn't have a clue... and is so arrogant, he won't even listen to his advisers who might not be the smartest people, but at least they still know more than he does about work, business and jobs..

What happened to all those shovel ready jobs? Did you run out of shovels? Now BO wants to invest in more shovel ready jobs, pity he didn't want to invest in shovels.

What happened to all those shovel ready jobs? did you run out of shovels? Now BO wants to invest in more shovel ready jobs, pity he didn't want to invest in shovels.

"Shovel ready jobs" was just another in a long line of lies from BO.

All that money went on liberal pet projects, NO permanent jobs were ever created, and in fact few people can even point to anything that money actually built.

For that same amount every man and woman with a job could have had their entire tax bill for the entire year fully reimbursed. THAT would have actually done something good for the economy.

Rebating tax won't get you out of your problem. What it might do is buy more Chinese goods.

Rebating tax won't get you out of your problem. What it might do is buy more Chinese goods.

Well, it would have done far more than giving it to just the liberal program wish list that they did waste it on, and waste was the correct word..

Actually it wouldn't have all gone to the Chinese, much of it would have gone to retire personal debts, mortgages etc... and actually helped the housing crisis. People would have had work done on their houses, bought cars, etc.

As it was it went on things nobody I know has ever seen the results of... or pissed away at places like Solyntra, etc...

Hell if people just went to the local bar (pub for the non-USA readers) and drunk it all, it would have done more good than it did.

Breakdown of Funding (http://www.recovery.gov/Transparency/fundingoverview/Pages/fundingbreakdown.aspx#Entitlements)

Contracts (http://www.recovery.gov/Opportunities/Pages/Federal_Contracts.aspx)

Economists agree: Stimulus created nearly 3 million jobs - USATODAY.com (http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/2010-08-30-stimulus30_CV_N.htm)

Perry says stimulus didn't create jobs; CBO says it did | Front Row Washington (http://blogs.reuters.com/frontrow/2011/09/12/perry-says-stimulus-didnt-create-jobs-cbo-says-it-did/)

Just to guide you to some facts so you don't have to pull them out of your butts.

Well the Democrats have a great new idea, sue employers who don't hire the unemployed (http://dailycaller.com/2011/09/23/lawyers-eye-jobless-as-clients/).

If there is a class of victims to be found, Democrats will find it and sue someone's a$$ for it. And if there's a way to force employers to hire those victims, they're bound to create a law for it. Dang it, government really is the solution to everything.

Well the Democrats have a great new idea, sue employers who don't hire the unemployed (http://dailycaller.com/2011/09/23/lawyers-eye-jobless-as-clients/).

If there is a class of victims to be found, Democrats will find it and sue someone's a$$ for it. And if there's a way to force employers to hire those victims, they're bound to create a law for it. Dang it, government really is the solution to everything.

Well... THAT will certainly make employers want to hire. :rolleyes: In the USA anyway. Talk about incentive to move more operations offshore. The dems are making that more attractive by the day.

Well we already know that Republicans don't want the unemployed to get jobs. They want more poor people.

Well we already know that Republicans don't want the unemployed to get jobs. They want more poor people.

Bit of false logic there, Tal, no one wants more poor people, they just don't want to pay for the ones you have

Well we already know that Republicans don't want the unemployed to get jobs. They want more poor people.

Really Tal? Republicans want everyone to have conditions favorable to being successful and self-supporting. Democrats want more people dependent on government. Democrats think it's fair to punish the successful, even if it means ruining the economy for us all.

I want fewer poor and fewer dependent in government, and the right to hire whoever I want. Given the choice to hire someone with a good work history or someone with a lot of employment gaps I'll hire the former every time. I'm not in business to be fair to everyone.

Really Tal? Republicans want everyone to have conditions favorable to being successful and self-supporting.Hello again, Steve:

I don't believe that AT ALL... What I BELIEVE is, that Republicans are WILLING, or even worse, making a conscious ATTEMPT to DESTROY the economy, simply so they can beat Obama...

Your senate leader said as much... The limp one did too - "I want this president to FAIL". What? You think they value the country MORE than they HATE Obama?? I don't.

excon

QUOTE by speechlesstx;
Really Tal? Republicans want everyone to have conditions favorable to being successful and self-supporting. Democrats want more people dependent on government. Democrats think it's fair to punish the successful, even if it means ruining the economy for us all.
Helping poor people eat, work, and raise kids is ruining the economy? Providing a safety net against republican tyranny is ruining the economy. Come on Steve, you guys did the ruining stuff a while back, so don't blame us for trying to clean up the mess. Grab a mop and help why don't you! Then I might believe you.


I want fewer poor and fewer dependent in government, and the right to hire whoever I want. Given the choice to hire someone with a good work history or someone with a lot of employment gaps I'll hire the former every time. I'm not in business to be fair to everyone.

You already have a right to hire whomever you want. Because someone suggest you hire those that the government has to help doesn't mean you have to, and since the government still has to help, those you don't want to hire, I think that speaks for itself.

You guys think paying taxes is a punishment, but its okay to use what the rest of us pay for like police, fire, trash, roads, and services that help you make money. You may not be in the business to be fair, but that is government job, to make sure those you make money off get a fair shake, and fair treatment.

And tell me why you can't be fair, and make money? As long as you can't, we need government, to keep you republicans honest, don't we?? Heck without government, you guys would run your own kingdoms, and we would all be slaves, and pheasants begging for bread. Bad enough you don't want us voting, never have, but now you don't want us poor slaves reading, riting, or anything else without the permission of the "job creators"!!

The last 10 years are evidence of those facts, and what's funny, you blame it on everyone and his mama, and take no responsibility for anything other than YOUR right to make money, the rules of money, and the distribution of money.

You think its all yours, and you are entitled to it all. Yeah right!!

I point to the last 10 years as evidence of fact.

Hello tal:

I know I just gave you one, but I CAN'T stifle myself..

**greenie**

excon

Helping poor people eat, work, and raise kids is ruining the economy? Providing a safety net against republican tyranny is ruining the economy. Come on Steve, you guys did the ruining stuff a while back, so don't blame us for trying to clean up the mess. Grab a mop and help why don't you! Then I might believe you.

Tal, as I have noted over and over again (and not for my own glory as it were), I give out of my own time and resources to help others - I don't wait for the government to take YOUR money to help someone else. I've had the mop in my hands long before theses discussions ever came about.


You already have a right to hire whomever you want.

So there's no such thing as affirmative action and no need for any discrimination lawsuits, right? Suing an employer for not hiring the unemployed is basically telling the employer the feds don't give a rat's a$$ if your company is successful or not, as long as it's "fair." No one goes into business to be fair, Tal. Making money is the name of the game, and if you don't make money you have no business - see Solyndra for example.


You guys think paying taxes is a punishment, but its okay to use what the rest of us pay for like police, fire, trash, roads, and services that help you make money. You may not be in the business to be fair, but that is government job, to make sure those you make money off get a fair shake, and fair treatment.

Apples and oranges. Ethics rules so businesses don't cheat or harm their customers is one thing, rules on who they have to hire is another.


Bad enough you don't want us voting, never have, but now you don't want us poor slaves reading, riting, or anything else without the permission of the "job creators"!!

Oh the drama. Proving you're eligible to vote is just common sense AND fair. What, you want rules for business but no rules for elections? Dude!


The last 10 years are evidence of those facts, and what's funny, you blame it on everyone and his mama, and take no responsibility for anything other than YOUR right to make money, the rules of money, and the distribution of money.

And Bush warned that Fannie and Freddie were in trouble what, 17 times (http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/barone/2008/10/06/democrats-were-wrong-on-fannie-mae-and-freddie-mac) and Dems said there was NOTHING wrong them.

Hello again, Steve:

I don't believe that AT ALL... What I BELIEVE is, that Republicans are WILLING, or even worse, making a conscious ATTEMPT to DESTROY the economy, simply so they can beat Obama...

Your senate leader said as much... The limp one did too - "I want this president to FAIL". What? You think they value the country MORE than they HATE Obama?? I don't.

excon

Oh, let's go to what Obama said in 2008 (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/DemocraticDebate/story?id=4670271&page=1&singlePage=true):


GIBSON: All right. You have, however, said you would favor an increase in the capital gains tax. As a matter of fact, you said on CNBC, and I quote, "I certainly would not go above what existed under Bill Clinton," which was 28 percent. It's now 15 percent. That's almost a doubling, if you went to 28 percent.

But actually, Bill Clinton, in 1997, signed legislation that dropped the capital gains tax to 20 percent.

OBAMA: Right.

GIBSON: And George Bush has taken it down to 15 percent.

OBAMA: Right.

GIBSON: And in each instance, when the rate dropped, revenues from the tax increased; the government took in more money. And in the 1980s, when the tax was increased to 28 percent, the revenues went down.

So why raise it at all, especially given the fact that 100 million people in this country own stock and would be affected?

OBAMA: Well, Charlie, what I've said is that I would look at raising the capital gains tax for purposes of fairness.

Gibson told him the records show that when capital gains taxes are decreased revenue goes up, and when increased revenue goes down. He didn't care that raising the capital gains tax would affect 100 million people negatively, he wanted to do it anyway out of "fairness."

And what's he doing now? He wants to soak the "rich" again out of "fairness" in spite of how it will affect the economy and government revenues - just to get reelected - by doing exactly what even his own party rejected earlier. He also himself said "you don’t raise taxes in a recession." So tell me again who doesn't care about negatively affecting the economy?

Oh, let's go to what Obama said in 2008 (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/DemocraticDebate/story?id=4670271&page=1&singlePage=true):



Gibson told him the records show that when capital gains taxes are decreased revenue goes up, and when increased revenue goes down. He didn't care that raising the capital gains tax would affect 100 million people negatively, he wanted to do it anyway out of "fairness."

And what's he doing now? He wants to soak the "rich" again out of "fairness" in spite of how it will affect the economy and government revenues - just to get reelected - by doing exactly what even his own party rejected earlier. He also himself said "you don't raise taxes in a recession." So tell me again who doesn't care about negatively affecting the economy?

Pure Rhetoric, he is going to soak the rich. You have representative government and polls have indicated that many more than the simple majority are in favour of raising tax on high income earners. Even some high income earners are in favour. In the current economic conditions the idea that less tax promotes jobs has been shown for what it is, pure and unadulterated B/S. Someone tried to suggest that less tax means more government revenue. If you or anyoneelse truly believes that try a zero tax regime and see how high government revenues climb. What is needed is a simple tax regime, where there is no way to get out of it, that is fairness.

Don't argue against more tax, argue for greater transparency and effective use of funds.

. If you or anyoneelse truely believes that try a zero tax regime and see how high government revenues climb. What is needed is a simple tax regime, where there is no way to get out of it, that is fairness.

Don't argue against more tax, argue for greater transparency and effective use of funds.

I do believe it. And I would like to see a zero tax for companies. It's a proposal called the fair tax (imagine that). And the businesses would hire like mad and people would be working and buying again. Its already been studied.

Americans For Fair Taxation: Americans For Fair Taxation (http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer)

I do believe it. And I would like to see a zero tax for companies. Its a proposal called the fair tax (imagine that). And the businesses would hire like mad and people would be working and buying again. Its already been studied.

Americans For Fair Taxation: Americans For Fair Taxation (http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer)

Balance, dad, balance, if you have zero tax for companies you will have to raise tax for individuals and there is a business axiom, tax shouldn't drive the business. If you want people to hire get rid of the imposts like health care, such things are barriers in times like these. Thing is Tax on individuals is what controls demand so you want people to hire create demand but you can't do it with just one tool. This is the fallacy of the economic system we have, the idea that tax alone is the key.

Where did they study this marvel of modern economics, in the bottom of a glass? Sounds like an idea some think tank thought up

And I would like to see a zero tax for companies. Its a proposal called the fair tax (imagine that). And the businesses would hire like mad and people would be working and buying again. Its already been studied.Hello again, dad:

I've studied it too. No MATTER how low my taxes are, if I don't have DEMAND for my product, I'm not going to hire anybody... That's just so. What is it about supply and demand that right wingers don't understand?'

excon

Hello again, dad:

I've studied it too. No MATTER how low my taxes are, if I don't have DEMAND for my product, I'm not gonna hire anybody.... That's just so. What is it about supply and demand that right wingers don't understand?'

excon

Thank you Ex ,you have confirmed my argument. Business isn't going to invest in people or inventory or anythingelse until it has confidence it is going to get a return and to do that they need to see growth in the order book. Calling for reduced tax is just the politics of self.

Tell me, Ex, what do you think people would rather have, a reduced salary or a change in tax scales to increase tax on higher incomes? I'd be betting they will take a chance on the tax scales option, but politicians love to buy support with reduced tax scales, it is just a confidence trick but it answers your question about what is not understood. Tax is very secondary in the mind because it doesn't represent 100% of income. But not having a take home pay is 100% of income. Tax only becomes important when other stress factors are present.

Supply always follows demand, demand is what drives the equation

You have a point Clete, but how do you create demand without putting people to work? How do you create demand by laying off more people? Does it matter who creates the jobs as long as people are working?

Forget the gobble de goop. JOBS< JOBS< JOBS, and millions of them. Who will create them NOW!

Hello again, dad:

I've studied it too. No MATTER how low my taxes are, if I don't have DEMAND for my product, I'm not gonna hire anybody.... That's just so. What is it about supply and demand that right wingers don't understand?'

excon

So what your saying is that everyone that has more money in their pockets is going to buy gold? Otherwise I believe they will buy goods and services and that will drive demand higher. That will generte more consumption tax which will increase the governments coffers. Isn't that what they are trying to do anyway? Create jobs so people have money to spend to grow the economy ?

So what your saying is that everyone that has more money in thier pockets is going to buy gold? Hello again, dad:

I didn't say that, but the idea behind it is solid... You're talking about apples and oranges... Clearly, lower taxes will spur economic activity over the LONG RUN - IF the economy doesn't PLUNGE into DEPRESSION first. The "job creators" won't realize the benefit of the tax cuts for MONTHS at best, and if there STILL no demand, they're going to do SOMETHING with their money other than HIRE...

Ultimately, there IS demand. It's just not where the demand used to be. When NOBODY is buying stuff, real smart people are, so there's going to be fortunes made.. It's just NOT enough to stimulate the economy.

But, the government can create a HUGE demand, RIGHT NOW, by spending money on repairing the infrastructure. It's money that government is going to spend anyway. The longer they wait, the more expensive it'll be... Plus, it's ain't going to be good for you if it's YOUR bridge that collapses. These are REAL jobs. That work will CREATE jobs in the cement business, rebar, steel, tools, trucks, petroleum, shoes, uniforms, and on and on...

Yes, it'll ADD to the deficit... Ok, we'll pay it BACK when things are rolling again... I agree with D1ck Cheney... Deficits don't matter.

excon

No wages=No demand=No growth.

So the real issue is putting money into real peoples hands in an honest way. Taxes alone won't do it. And no body spends on uncertainty that they won't have a permanent JOB/CAREER.

Steady INCOME=Certainty= Demand=GROWTH.

Keeps coming back to good paying jobs. Just like it always has through out our history. We can argue taxes after we get to working, and growing. Training, and education are some keys to pay attention to.

8 bucks an hour hardly meets that demand. For taxes, or growth, and does nothing for your confidence or needs.

You have to have more than a few bucks to buy gold, or anything else. Its not like there isn't enough work to do. Why aren't we doing it??

Hello again, dad:

I didn't say that, but the idea behind it is solid... You're talking about apples and oranges... Clearly, lower taxes will spur economic activity over the LONG RUN - IF the economy doesn't PLUNGE into DEPRESSION first. The "job creators" won't realize the benefit of the tax cuts for MONTHS at best, and if there STILL no demand, they're gonna do SOMETHING with their money other than HIRE...

Ultimately, there IS demand. It's just not where the demand used to be. When NOBODY is buying stuff, real smart people are, so there's going to be fortunes made.. It's just NOT enough to stimulate the economy.

But, the government can create a HUGE demand, RIGHT NOW, by spending money on repairing the infrastructure. It's money that government is going to spend anyway. The longer they wait, the more expensive it'll be... Plus, it's ain't gonna be good for you if it's YOUR bridge that collapses. These are REAL jobs. That work will CREATE jobs in the cement business, rebar, steel, tools, trucks, petroleum, shoes, uniforms, and on and on...

Yes, it'll ADD to the deficit... Ok, we'll pay it BACK when things are rolling again... I agree with D1ck Cheney... Deficits don't matter.

excon

Sure that's a nice thought. But what is different then the last time they had those shovel ready jobs? They squandered billions. And what do we really have to show for it? That's why now more then ever we need the fair tax. As you have said it may take months to see the result. Right now with what this administration has done they are looking at years down the road before any sort of recovery can happen.

So what is the better choice? Years or months? People know how to spend money. They do it when they have it. And when the certainty of the tax structure kicks in industry can reinvest in itself. That will create jobs and those jobs will bloom into others. WHo really pays coporate taxes anyway? It's the consumer. So if those are eliminated then that leaves room for spending on the business. That ball gets rolling. Also businesses will return to the U.S. as its profitable to do so again. It's a win win for everyone.

Months and years down the road. We heard that 5 years ago when the infrastructure for pipelines and drilling was blocked . Instead we invested a cool half billion in a "greens job "company who's execs plead the 5th before Congress last week.

Next you know we'll sink money in an 'InterContinental' Rail Road.

Sure thats a nice thought. But what is different then the last time they had those shovel ready jobs? They squandered billions.
No, not squandered. The states sat on the money they got from the federal government or used it to pay their bills. The shovel-ready jobs that were listed for my state were never done because the state did something else with the money.

It's like when I gave my poor friend money to buy food for her cats. She was so happy that she used the money to get a body part pierced instead.

Same thing with the banks. They are sitting on (i.e. investing) the money they were given to help with the mortgage situation.

The problem is that there was no accountability. The federal government trusted the states and the banks to do the right thing. They didn't.

How can they be sitting on the bailout ? Last I heard, TARP was paid back with interest with $20 billion in profit to taxpayers. Where is the money ? Why no accounting for the TARP money returned ?
BTW... I agree many states misappropriated the funds and added them to the general revenue. Did it make the states more financially sound ? No. All it did was delay the Wisconsin type debates a year.

Also don't bother answering my 1st question... the answer to that is that the banks paid back TARP with very generously borrowed Treasury notes.

Makes you wonder why defunct bridges and roads are NOT shovel ready when they have been in bad shape for years. I mean the one from Ohio to Kentucky has been talked about for 10 years.

I presume that would be the business of Ohio and Kentucky... just like the Triboro Bridge and Tunnel Authority handles NY and NJ bridges.

They both want their bridges fixed, they said so, so whose stopping that from happening??

Not my problem... I am paying $12 to cross the George Washington Bridge . Let the users pay for the maintenance.

The truth is that the political ploy of the President of picking a bridge between Speaker Bonehead's and Sen McConnell's State is just that ;a ploy. It is the Brent Spence Bridge and it doesn't qualify . It has many good years left before any real repair is needed .

What they want to do is construct another bridge there to ease some congestion. That will happen in another 4 years according to the plans . So it is not one of those so called 'shovel ready' jobs the President is touting and would not get a dime of the next bucket list .

But it's good politics to have that photo op in the district of your political opponents ;so the truth be damned .

No worse than calling a fat cat a job creator, or a poor man a lazy bum, or a teacher greedy.

Zero for 3 if that is directed at me.

No not directed at you, Tom, but at the ones above us both who lie and play on us. For their own greed and purpose.

The Obama administration has finally found another way to create more jobs (http://dailycaller.com/2011/09/26/epa-regulations-would-require-230000-new-employees-21-billion/). Government bureaucrat jobs that is, and what's interesting is that even the EPA where these jobs would be added says the rules requiring 230,000 more people are '“absurd” in application and “impossible to administer”'.

Really? The private sector keeps bleeding jobs while the public sector added close to a million jobs from January 2008 to the middle of 2010, and we need another quarter million jobs to enforce "absurd" and impossible" rules that are probably going to cost more private sector jobs as businesses spend billions on struggling to comply.

You have got to be kidding me.

And speaking of " rules that are probably going to cost more private sector jobs as businesses spend billions on struggling to comply.

You have got to be kidding me.

And speaking of " rules, the administration is set to ban OTC asthma inhalers (http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/obama-administration-ban-asthma-inhalers-over-environmental-concerns_594113.html) to save the planet.

Sigh...

You guys still have inhalers that contain chlorofluorocarbons... for inhalation? Weird. I guess this is another case of big pharma winning over the people... again.

What's wrong with power, and oil, and drug companies actually investing in clean, safe, effective technology? What's wrong with clean, air and water? For the taxes they pay, big business should guarantee safe and efficient medicines, and drugs, and power. Until then I suggest you police them, rather than trust them for doing the right thing.

Exxon hasn't cleaned up Alaska yet. Nor BP the Gulf. Until they do, I wouldn't give a rats patoot what they have to spend to protect us from their products. What they spend in lobbyist, and campaign contributions, can be used to pay for as many Environmental police as we need.

How's that for an offset. Sounds fair to me.

Why should they when we have enough oil under our own ground to last several hundred years... but OH... thats why Global Warming hoax was dreamed up... as another way to stick it to big oil.

Never mind the fact the Federal excise tax is magnitudes larger than the profit they make per gallon. But I don't see any outrage over how much the government is making off every gallon sold.

Why should there be outrage? They make big bucks and are subsidized by government. They make more money than anyone in the freakin' world, and you feel sorry for them?

Pretty obvious science AIN"T your strong suit. Or you have already sucked to many fumes. Come on guy, they spend big bucks investing in politicians and PACS, to get even more money, with no responsibility.

Here is where we agree . No energy company should get subsidies... be they oil companies ,or solar.

Oil companies have been around a long time, and can stand on their own, as will other alternative energy sources... eventually.

I know, I should have left it while we were in agreement. :( Sorry Tom.

What's wrong with power, and oil, and drug companies actually investing in clean, safe, effective technology? What's wrong with clean, air and water?

You too? Why do you and ex think we don't want clean air and water? That's one of the silliest straw men I've ever seen. Who doesn't want clean air and water?


For the taxes they pay, big business should guarantee safe and efficient medicines, and drugs, and power. Until then I suggest you police them, rather than trust them for doing the right thing.

Why trust the government to look out for my best interests? Why ban something that's been used safely and effectively for asthma sufferers for decades that will likely have zero impact in carbon emissions? It's just plain stupid.


Exxon hasn't cleaned up Alaska yet. Nor BP the Gulf. Until they do, I wouldn't give a rats patoot what they have to spend to protect us from their products. What they spend in lobbyist, and campaign contributions, can be used to pay for as many Environmental police as we need.

How's that for an offset. Sounds fair to me.

Ain't going to happen, you and I will pay for those 230,000 new bureaucrats. And did I mention Obama's own EPA said the rules are "absurd" and “impossible to administer”? Why should ANYONE have to pay for something we already know is "absurd"?

Yeah that half a bil to Solyndra Inc really worked out.

Why should there be outrage? They make big bucks and are subsidized by government. They make more money than anyone in the freakin' world, and you feel sorry for them??

Pretty obvious science AIN"T your strong suit. Or you have already sucked to many fumes. Come on guy, they spend big bucks investing in politicians and PACS, to get even more money, with no responsibility.

Really... how are they subsidized? The excise tax is what, $0.75 a gallon... profit to the oil companies far less than $0.10 a gallon.. The Government does exactly what for find, produce and sell that oil?. and the oil company is the bad guy? That's like Calling the Mafia a legitimate insurance company.

Quote:

Originally Posted by talaniman
What's wrong with power, and oil, and drug companies actually investing in clean, safe, effective technology? What's wrong with clean, air and water?
You too? Why do you and ex think we don't want clean air and water? That's one of the silliest straw men I've ever seen. Who doesn't want clean air and water?
You ain't gonna get it by wanting it, you better make sure they do it. Learned nothing in Alaska and the Gulf did ya! Ask the gulls that they still are cleaning up. You want clean air and clean water, then DEMAND it, not just talk about it.
Quote:

For the taxes they pay, big business should guarantee safe and efficient medicines, and drugs, and power. Until then I suggest you police them, rather than trust them for doing the right thing.

Why trust the government to look out for my best interests? Why ban something that's been used safely and effectively for asthma sufferers for decades that will likely have zero impact in carbon emissions? It's just plain stupid.
They used asbestos, and lead paint, for years too, guess how that worked out. Go with the new stuff. It might not effect the ozone, but could help your lungs. What are you stuck in the last century? You don't have to trust government, but you don't have to trust big pharma either.

Trust but VERIFY!!!!


Quote:
Exxon hasn't cleaned up Alaska yet. Nor BP the Gulf. Until they do, I wouldn't give a rats patoot what they have to spend to protect us from their products. What they spend in lobbyist, and campaign contributions, can be used to pay for as many Environmental police as we need.

How's that for an offset. Sounds fair to me.

Ain't going to happen, you and I will pay for those 230,000 new bureaucrats. And did I mention Obama's own EPA said the rules are "absurd" and “impossible to administer”? Why should ANYONE have to pay for something we already know is "absurd"?
Tell congress to make it so. Duh, make 'em pay for clean up, instead of YOU!!! That is your money too, ya know. What you are really saying is that we can't make them pay for their mistakes and its okay if they buy and use the congress you voted for to work for YOU, to work for them. Thats whats absurd!!!!

yeah that half a bil to Solyndra Inc really worked out.

One investment out of 144? Bush thought it was a great idea, so did Wall Street.

What The Press Is Getting Wrong About Solyndra | Media Matters for America (http://mediamatters.org/research/201109190020)

Chinese and U.S. Politics and the Solyndra Bankruptcy | Renewable Energy News Article (http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2011/09/chinese-and-us-politics-and-the-solyndra-bankruptcy)

Five myths about the Solyndra collapse - The Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/five-myths-about-the-solyndra-collapse/2011/09/14/gIQAfkyvRK_blog.html)

http://olddogg.com/politics/3-facts-republicans-won’t-tell-you-about-solyndra-1

Really....how are they subsidized? The excise tax is what, $0.75 a gallon....profit to the oil companies far less than $0.10 a gallon..The Government does exactly what fo find, produce and sell that oil?..and the oil company is the bad guy? Thats like Calling the Mafia a legitimate insurance company.

Its more like insurance companies are legitimate criminal organizations. Premiums gone up for you lately??

Tal, I have clean air and water. The question remains, why should ANYONE have to pay for something we already know is "absurd"?

You have clean water good for you, and wonder what you tell someone in the gulf who can't fish anymore? You should count yourself lucky and instead of taking someone else word for what is absurd, get the facts, as one person absurdity, may be another's reality.

To not recognize, or acknowledge the needs of another, is what's absurd, don't you think? As I read your link, it was obvious they were pushing for something that was needed, but absurd to think it could happen in the current climate of conflict.

The president who visited 57 states can't find Colorado (http://whitehouse.blogs.cnn.com/2011/09/27/oops-white-house-fails-basic-geography-test/) on his jobs tour. He sent everyone to Wyoming instead.

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2011/images/09/27/t1larg.badge.jpg

I reckon that's what you get out of our liberal education system, people running the country who don't know anything about it.

Tal, as if I'm opposed to BP cleaning up their mess? No, and I'm only taking the word of the very agency tasked with enforcing those "absurd" and "impossible" rules. What, I shouldn't take trust the government to be right any more? I wish you'd make up your mind today.

These new regulatory efforts are not likely to succeed, the EPA admits, but it has decided to move forward regardless. “While EPA acknowledges that come 2016, the administrative burdens may still be so great that compliance … may still be absurd or impossible to administer at that time, that does not mean that the Agency is not moving toward the statutory thresholds,” the EPA wrote in a September 16 court briefing.

Read more: 230,000 Employees | Green House Gas | Clean Air Act | The Daily Caller (http://dailycaller.com/2011/09/26/epa-regulations-would-require-230000-new-employees-21-billion/#ixzz1ZBhOezic)

It's a big job, and they might not be able to do it all is what I read. Not that the regulations and standards they are pushing for are absurd!!

Just because I had a heart breaking loss to Tom, Sunday, doesn't mean I lost my edge when it comes to comprehension of facts, and logic. But I am grumpy about it. :( :o

Good thing I'm crushing y'all in baseball because so far this year my football teams generally suck.

Teams!! :eek::confused: Only a few days left in Baseball, thank Gosh!! :mad:

Teams!!!!:eek::confused: Only a few days left in Baseball, thank Gosh!!!:mad:

Yes, teams. I don't have the allowable limits though, you can have 10 teams on ESPN alone (I don't). Did you miss where me, tom and Spit have been playing each other for a few years now in another league? I'm 1-0 against tom in that one, 0-2 after that. In fact Spit just crushed me this week... I think he's paying me back for the last couple of years.

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHH!!

I can't wait for next spring, man have I been missing some fun.

And how 'bout them Cowboys? Romo has earned some respect these last two weeks.

Tell me does baseball and footbal create jobs because if they do there should be no unemployment by now.

Tell me does baseball and footbal create jobs because if they do there should be no unemployment by now.

Funny you should say that, just yesterday California governor Jerry Brown signed a bill to help get a new NFL stadium built in LA for the team they don't yet have, to "get people working".

Even in my small county there is a professional team in an independent league. There was a bit of a controversy about the public /private funding used to get the ball rolling and I generally agree with the critics as I think team owners should build their own stadiums like the Cowboys did. But I believe overall it will be an economic plus for the town .
Ball players were hired.. They need a place to live so they rent .It provided some jobs for students during the summer ,and provided a place for me and others to part with some entertainment dollars.

Steve ,Romo has always had my respect for toughness ,leadership ,and skill. I have questions about his judgement ,and playing with a punctured lung does not change that opinion... it confirms it.

So to make the pun, it's the only game in town

I miss ex... I gues this is a preview of things to come.

Do you know something I don't ? Ex is still making moves on the baseball league and contributed here 2 days ago.

Look under his name where it used to say Expert. Can't say any more.

Well that doesn't sound good.

One week.

Steve ,Romo has always had my respect for toughness ,leadership ,and skill. I have questions about his judgement ,and playing with a punctured lung does not change that opinion ...it confirms it.

Supposedly the lung puncture healed before he played Monday, but I'm still undecided on whether he can take it to the next level. Obviously not with the receivers he had Monday and a center that keeps hiking the ball early and off target.

one week.

Ah, well he'll make up for that. Meanwhile we have you to stir the pot. :D

look under his name where it used to say Expert. can't say any more.

When did that happen? I just talked with him Via PM last week. What did I miss since then?

Ridiculous... what is this Jr High School ?

rediculous ...what is this Jr High School ?

What, you haven't received an "infraction" yet? I imagine I'll be the next to get suspended for not holding my tongue.

Actually the city of Arlington, and jerry Jones built the new stadium, and the highway, and road improvements for traffic and the small shops and businesses are growing for sure because of it. That was after Dallas baulked at the costs. That was a bit sad, but the stadium is part of the Rangers complex, and there is always an activity besides football going on as well as college, and high school games.

No telling how much revenue is tied up in contracts for maintenance and up keep, especially during the season, and the vendors and providers, and my gosh the parking!!

During the Super Bowl, every shop, church, and business was selling parking places, and shuttling people all day long for the game. Its big bucks for sure during a down economy, and I can see where the owners want to not only make the bucks a new stadium brings, but also not share some of the profits, hence the strike threat by the players. Glad that's over.

Ex is a good dude and I think he is busy, but will be around. I know what you mean Steve, about being deleted and threads closed LOL, been down that street a few times myself. And Miles Austin will be back Sunday... I hope. Him, Dez, and Whiten at the same time should help Romo against the Lions.

But we better start arguing again on subject or this one will get closed... AGAIN :eek:

Ex is a good dude and I think he is busy, but will be around.Yes he's a good dude but he would very much like to be around but he's not allowed to.

What!! :eek: :confused:

During the Super Bowl, every shop, church, and business was selling parking places, and shuttling people all day long for the game...

I missed that madhouse but I remember several times parking in some dude's back yard to go the state fair.


Ex is a good dude and I think he is busy, but will be around. I know what you mean Steve, about being deleted and threads closed LOL, been down that street a few times myself. And Miles Austin will be back Sunday... I hope. Him, Dez, and Whiten at the same time should help Romo against the Lions.

He can always take it on us on the league message board. I love some good smack talk. I hope Austin returns and Dez gets that gimpy leg going, they're killing my fantasy season.


But we better start arguing again on subject or this one will get closed... AGAIN :eek:

Ok...

Energy Department approves $1 billion in solar energy loan guarantees (http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/677-e2-wire/184331-energy-department-approves-737-million-loan-guarantee-for-solar-project)

Maybe they can give the ex-Solyndra employees a job until they go belly up.

What!!!!!!!!!!!! :eek: :confused:

Obviously he's been suspended by the principle.

One investment out of 144? Bush thought it was a great idea, so did Wall Street.

What The Press Is Getting Wrong About Solyndra | Media Matters for America (http://mediamatters.org/research/201109190020)

Chinese and U.S. Politics and the Solyndra Bankruptcy | Renewable Energy News Article (http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2011/09/chinese-and-us-politics-and-the-solyndra-bankruptcy)

Five myths about the Solyndra collapse - The Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/five-myths-about-the-solyndra-collapse/2011/09/14/gIQAfkyvRK_blog.html)

http://olddogg.com/politics/3-facts-republicans-won't-tell-you-about-solyndra-1

They are going to frog march the executives eventually .

But the larger point is government chosing winners and losers. They did it with Solyndra when clearly there were better solar energy companies that don't do things like invest government money on spa showers for their top brass. They did it with Government Motors ,who can't sell their electric car in the US market .

But not to worry... The Obots have a plan. Now
Government Motors is going to partner with the Chinese ( export jobs and taxpayer funded technology ) .Eventually the plan will be to build ALL Volts in China even if there eventually is a US market for the pig. (yes it's a pig... it costs $41,000 and what few sales they have had is because the government chips in your tax dollars to the tune of $7,500 in rebates ) .And of course the Chinese demand that if you do business in China you have to surrender to them your propriatary technology to them .

In this case GM's partner is the Shanghai Automotive Industrial Corporation (SAIC) which has already "partnered " with GM before they lifted the technology and began selling their own brand of auto in the Chinese market.

They even are getting another Obama crony involved... Govenment Electric . In return for buying the Volt for their Chinese operations ,GE will partner with GM to create a pilot program to build "charging stations" in China.

And of course the Chinese demand that if you do business in China you have to surrender to them your propriatary technology to them .
Holy crap, I didn't know about that but it seems to be true. It's not policy just yet and GM is fighting it: Chevy Volt's eligibility for Chinese buyer incentives hangs in the balance (http://gm-volt.com/2011/09/08/chevy-volts-eligibility-for-chinese-buyer-incentives-hangs-in-the-balance/)
Looks like Ford has doing the same thing in China as well for years.

It goes further than that. They have a virtual monopoly on the rare earth raw materials and are more and more insisting that instead of exporting it;that companies open up manufacturing there ;where the same terms apply about 'technology sharing ' .
China?s Rare Earth Metal Monopoly Pays Off | Economy In Crisis (http://economyincrisis.org/content/china%E2%80%99s-rare-earth-metal-monopoly-pays)

Of course much of their monopoly is in occupied lands like Mongolia. And of course there is no need for them to have such a monopoly except that nations that also have an abundance of rare earth metals will not permit the mining of them.

That latest government investment in solar energy to the tune of $737 million to create 45 jobs I mentioned? Some interesting beneficiaries (http://americanglob.com/2011/09/28/solyndra-redux-obama-gives-737-million-dollar-loan-to-solar-company-connected-to-nancy-pelosis-brother-in-law/) there. Ron Pelosi, brother-in-law of Nancy Pelosi, is the executive director of one of the investment partners, Pacific Corporate Group.

What a coincidence.

We should try to weed out cronyism from public money (unless the company can show that it's the best bidder) but it has to go deep and both ways. This is not a democrat-only issue for sure.

No it isn't a Democrat-only issue, but a lot of Democrats pretend it's a Republican-only issue. Let them clean up their own house before laying all the blame on the other side.

No wonder Obama is s big on solar energy, the investors are turning out to all be Democrat donors.

More solar companies led by Democratic donors received federal loan guarantees (http://dailycaller.com/2011/09/29/more-solar-companies-led-by-democratic-donors-received-federal-loan-guarantees/#ixzz1ZMXs0mTu)

You mean like Bush was big on oil? But what would you expect from a Texas politician?

.. or <shudder> Haliburton.

This stuff will NEVER stop.

Halliburton ? I'm pretty sure that is Obama's no bid contractor of choice.

He doesn't take bids. Haven't you been following the news? Haliburton and blackwater don't have to submit bids, they just get contracts renewed, by the Pentagon. There is a big stink now because the data said the military has been spending twice the money they would have, had they done whatever they do themselves.

The new guy Paneta is a budget wonk, who specializes in streamlining budgets.

Don't think the military will go back to the old way of having a bloated force full of cooks and truck drivers delivering supplies.

Anne Marlowe writes in the WSJ that the old stereotypes of the military just won't go away. They are a well trained professional organization.
Ann Marlowe: The Truth About Who Fights for Us - WSJ.com (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111903791504576587244025371456.html?m od=googlenews_wsj)

Senate Republicans took Obama at his word and tried to get a vote on his PassThisBillRightNow "jobs" bill, and Harry Reid changed the rules so the minority can no longer do much of anything without the majority's permission.


Reid rewrites Senate rules with shocking move (http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/reid-rewrites-senate-rules-shocking-move)

In a stunning turn of events this evening, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev. used an arcane legislative maneuver to effectively rewrite Senate rules to make it harder for the minority party to force uncomfortable votes on the majority.

The buildup to this point started on Tuesday, when Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky. tried to force a vote on President Obama's jobs bill as well as other Republican priorities by offering them as amendments to the China currency bill. Reid blocked the move.

Tonight, McConnell made what's called a "motion to suspend the rules," to allow a vote on the amendments. Such motions are almost always defeated, because they require a two-thirds majority to pass. But they're another way for the minority party to force uncomfortable votes. Even though the minority party doesn't get a direct vote on the amendment, how somebody votes on the motion becomes a sort of proxy for such a vote. In this case, for instance, if Democrats had voted down a motion for a vote on Obama's jobs bill, it would have put them in an awkward spot.

Though it's been the standing practice of the Senate to allow such motions by the minority, tonight Reid broke with precedent and ruled McConnell's motion out of order, and was ultimately backed up by Democrats.

So, the result is that by a simple majority vote, Reid was able to effectively rewrite Senate rules making it even harder than it already is for the minority party to force votes on any amendments. Should Republicans retake the Senate next year, it's something that could come back to haunt Democrats in a major way.

And just to clear up some confusion, what happened tonight was different than the so-called "nuclear option" to end filibusters. While triggering the "nuclear option" requires a Majority Leader to use the same sort of strategic maneuvers as Reid just did, tonight's move had to do with the amendment process, not filibusters.

The Hill also calls the move "shocking (http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/186133-reid-triggers-nuclear-option-to-change-senate-rules-and-prohibit-post-cloture-filibusters)."

Harry, as they say, payback's a b*tch.

I thought the Dems don't like the nuclear option. Good thing McCain and his fellow RINOs(ooops I mean non-partisans ) helped form the gang of 14 to preserve the Senate rules and tradition of comity and compromise and consensus .

The Dems will do and say anything if it lets them get their way... including burning the Bill of Rights and the Constitution.

THey don't even blink about rules changes...

Of course... Harry Reid will be the first to be screaming like a baby someone took the pascifier from when the Republicans do this after the next election since apparently its perfectly acceptable to do now.

Almost like the repubs screaming at the dems for passing health care, using the very same tool the repubs passed the Bush tax cuts with. They take turns it seems screaming at each other. Of course they are all idiots. One no more or less than the other.

Almost like the repubs screaming at the dems for passing health care, using the very same tool the repubs passed the Bush tax cuts with. They take turns it seems screaming at each other. Of course they are all idiots. One no more or less than the other.

Gee, Obama liked them enough to renew them.

But the Bush tax cuts... I'm not rich by anyone's definition but they helped me... is very much unlike Obamacare which means 50% of the working public will be paying for the health care of 100% of the American population... because that other 50% shouldn't be required to make the sacrifices and choices the rest of us have to make every day because we are the ones paying the taxes they aren't.

But the tax cuts are actually a budget related thing... and Obamacare is nothing like one.

If the Supreme court doesn't render it null and void, then when we take the senate every bill that goes to the White house should include a rider repealing Obamacare... and if nothing gets done it's the fault of the person that refuses to sign it.

If we take both the White house and senate... the first act should be a complete repeal of Obamacare.

And personally making a AMT that applies to EVERYONE equally. The same Percentage for EVERYONE. No exemptions, and then 100% of the workers will pay an income tax again. That should make the people calling for fair happy.

And the second thing should be Bringing Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi up on charges... Pelosi has family tied up in these loans to insolvent "green" companies.

Harry Reid is cleary going senile so he is likely to get off on degraded mental capacity.

QUOTE by smoothy;
Gee, Obama liked them enough to renew them.
That was the only way to get unemployment insurance for those caught up in the rigged economic situation that the banks and repubs had perpetrated.

But the Bush tax cuts... I'm not rich by anyone's definition but they helped me... is very much unlike Obamacare which means 50% of the working public will be paying for the health care of 100% of the American population... because that other 50% shouldn't be required to make the sacrifices and choices the rest of us have to make every day because we are the ones paying the taxes they aren't.
That's an lie not based in facts, and draws no distinctions between a payroll tax we all pay, and how corporate taxes are levied. Most who take this position that you seemly have are not sufficiently knowledgeable to keep repearing the lies of the right wing, which have been thoroughly reputed with real facts. Do the math yourself. You are being lied to.

But the tax cuts are actually a budget related thing... and Obamacare is nothing like one.
Health Care IS a budgetary item, and yet again your facts are erroneous.

If the Supreme court doesn't render it null and void, then when we take the senate every bill that goes to the White house should include a rider repealing Obamacare... and if nothing gets done it's the fault of the person that refuses to sign it.
That's what your herione Michelle Bachmann wants to happen, but trust me, you still will have to explain to many of those who are already benefitted why they have to give those benefits up. Like not being able to get kicked off a policy because you got sick. Can't wait. But the right wing of the Supreme Court has already been bought, but there is a chance it will NOT be ruled unconstitutional as a whole.

If we take both the White house and senate... the first act should be a complete repeal of Obamacare.
And keep the HOUSE, don't forget.

And personally making a AMT that applies to EVERYONE equally. The same Percentage for EVERYONE. No exemptions, and then 100% of the workers will pay an income tax again. That should make the people calling for fair happy.
Yeah cut the corporate welfare before you touch mine, but a regressive tax will shrink the economy, not grow it. Have you done the math?

And the second thing should be Bringing Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi up on charges... Pelosi has family tied up in these loans to insolvent "green" companies.
Okay but start with Bush, the loan program was his idea, and even the repubs all over the country is getting in the green game. Rick Perry borrowed money from China so he could get wind mills in Texas, so good luck with that and I hope the jail is big enough.

Harry Reid is cleary going senile so he is likely to get off on degraded mental capacity.
Reagan did it, why can't Harry? You got any facts I can verify?

Amazing how Democrats with twist and distort reality to be able to expect praise for doing the same thing they just spent years complaining about.

I keep expecting Harry Reid to forget where he is and take a dump on the Senate floor.

What's the big deal we vote every two years. Its ugly, but its ours.

Whats the big deal we vote every two years. Its ugly, but its ours.

And thank goodness we still can.

Had a hard time picking a thread for this one, it could fit under the class warfare thread or the occupiers thread as well, but here you go.

The Obama campaign, expected to raise another billion dollars, is having a design contest (http://my.barackobama.com/page/s/artworks-submission) to come up with posters "illustrating why we support President Obama's plan to create jobs now, and why we'll re-elect him to continue fighting for jobs for the next four years."

He's not going to actually HIRE someone to do his campaign posters, he wants it for free, and then prevent anyone from making a profit on their work.

"All submissions will become the property of Obama for America."

And the goofy Obama cult is going to gladly comply and miss the irony completely.

He's not going to actually HIRE someone to do his campaign posters, he wants it for free, It's called UGC, User Generated Content, it's what all the smart people are doing. Just like you do for this site here. We tap that resource at the enterprise site I help manage. People love to see their work be accepted by others.

He's the perfect symbol for the Bowel Movement's desire to have something for nothing.

What are the Republican's doing for their campaign?

What are the Republican's doing for their campaign?


Stop real job creation by voting down the jobs bill.

Stopping middle class tax cuts by voting down the jobs bill.

Stopping unemployment insurance for the job LESS, by voting down the jobs bill.

Protecting the fake job creators from taxes increases by voting down the jobs bill

Protect the fake jobs creators from contributing to the WARS effort that they created.

Protect the fake job creators from contributing to paying down the deficit that they created when they tanked the global economy by voting down the jobs bill,

Okay, that's unfair, they didn't vote it down, they contributed heavily to it not passing. A majority voted for it, and Harry changed his vote so it could be reintroduced later.

Exactly WHAT in that so called Jobs bill will actually create a job..

I'm curious because nothing I've seen in it will be conducive to creating ANY private sector jobs or stimulate any hiring.

OMG, you really think bridges and roads fix themselves?

It's called UGC, User Generated Content, it's what all the smart people are doing. Just like you do for this site here. We tap that resource at the enterprise site I help manage. People love to see their work be accepted by others.

Exactly, don't actually HIRE someone who can then feed their family and pay taxes while promoting your JOBS bill, do something to make them FEEL good. That's the whole problem with liberalism, it doesn't actually solve anything but it sure makes libs feel better about themselves.

OMG, you really think bridges and roads fix themselves??

No, but I'm sure those jobs are shovel ready.

If they ain't what's stopping anyone from getting them ready?

You have to start some place.

OMG, you really think bridges and roads fix themselves??

In the real world its going to be more jobs like this then the shovel ready that ever happened before. Viva la Mexico.


SunPower: Twice As Bad As Solyndra, Twice As Bad For Obama - HUMAN EVENTS (http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=46761)

Stop real job creation by voting down the jobs bill.Stopping middle class tax cuts by voting down the jobs bill.

Stopping unemployment insurance for the job LESS, by voting down the jobs bill.

Protecting the fake job creators from taxes increases by voting down the jobs bill


Yesterday's Senate vote was a bipartisan rejection of the President's bogus bill. 2 Democrats ,Ben Nelson of Nebraska and Jon Tester of Montana,voted against the blatant political ploy of the President and his flunky Reid.

Not only that ;but the President demanded the bill get passed intact and yet the Dems in the Senate significantly modified the bill before the vote.

In the real world its going to be more jobs like this then the shovel ready that ever happened before. Viva la Mexico.


SunPower: Twice As Bad As Solyndra, Twice As Bad For Obama - HUMAN EVENTS (http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=46761)

Wow ,that's $1.7 billion for 2 failed solar companies. How many pot holes would that have filled ? Well not counting great infrastructure projects like the Dems are known for... the $1.7 would've only been a down payment for the Big Dig
Big Dig - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Dig)

Wow ,that's $1.7 billion for 2 failed solar companies. How many pot holes would that have filled ? Well not counting great infrastructure projects like the Dems are known for ......the $1.7 would've only been a down payment for the Big Dig
Big Dig - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Dig)

If they would only invent shovels that would stand on their own then we could eliminate 1/2 of the government workforce :)

Exactly, don't actually HIRE someone who can then feed their family and pay taxes while promoting your JOBS bill, do something to make them FEEL good. That's the whole problem with liberalism, it doesn't actually solve anything but it sure makes libs feel better about themselves.You mean as opposed to rich republicans begging for money from poorer republicans? That wealth redistribution only benefits the rich but repugs are too stupid to figure it out.

You mean as opposed to rich republicans begging for money from poorer republicans?

Every candidate begs for money, but I don't recall any Republican president begging for free labor and design to promote their JOBS bill and reelection.


That wealth redistribution only benefits the rich but repugs are too stupid to figure it out.

LOL, I have job, a home that's paid for, 2 cars, and retirement accounts. It seems that hard work and being responsible can still get you farther than playing the victim.

P.S. I sent him my preliminary submission.

Every candidate begs for money, but I don't recall any Republican president begging for free labor and design to promote their JOBS bill and reelection.This has proven to be the best way to engage people and get them involved, it creates a sense of community. Once again what are the repubs doing to get their base involved?

High Five Interchange - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Five_Interchange)

We know how to build 'em in Texas.

High Five Interchange - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Five_Interchange)

We know how to build 'em in Texas.

Yes I'm sure it was a uniquely Texas project. Paid for with Texas dollars.
The way to fund infrastructure is to bond it and pay it back with tolls ,highway and gas taxes . The President's bogus plan builds nothing .

The point is the jobs bill can get started best when the locals get the paper work done and get their projects shovel ready.

Many of the bridges and sewers and roads have been in a state of needing work for years, and some for decades. If that's all it took to get them fixed why haven't they fixed them with the methods you have said?

I still haven't seen anything in the Jobs bill that's about jobs...

Lots of the same old Obama class warfare, of tax the wealthy... screw the employers until they want to hire people...

Now in what reality that would work in a desired direction I don't know... but as that bill is written, there are a LOT of incentives to cut back production and move them to countries that actually welcome their money, investment and business.

Yes I'm sure it was a uniquely Texas project. Paid for with Texas dollars.
The way to fund infrastructure is to bond it and pay it back with tolls ,highway and gas taxes . The President's bogus plan builds nothing .

We are still building and fixing roads here in Texas with the stimulus bill money from 2009, so that's a very bogus argument, but how about the tax cuts for hiring veterans, AND the tax cuts to small businesses that hire the unemployed. Guess that's bogus too.

How about a few bucks from the rich to support the War effort that was left out of the budget by Bush, but put on Obamas credit card and OUR deficit? How do rich folks justify not paying for that?

Whose to blame for any of those bridges collapsing under the weight of all those trucks that carry rich guy money making products all over the country?

How about the firemen, and police they use when they need them? NOOOO they can't do that, but the house can take up yet another abortion bill?

Do you really think an unemployed guy is going to vote for Mitt? Or any republican?

Do you really think an unemployed guy is going to vote for Mitt? Or any republican?

Um, why would they vote for this inept administration, the administration that believed their "stimulus" would keep unemployment from going over 8 percent, gave us an imaginary "recovery summer" and "shovel ready" jobs that never existed?

Maybe in the early stages of the recession things may have been underestimated, but just curious, what makes you think the stimulus DIDN'T work, and isn't still working?

Whose fault is it that state projects weren't shovel ready? Facts is they are still moving forward with projects to get them shovel ready as we write. Another fact has been lost is that a third of the stimulus was tax cuts, and you have seen the links I posted, and those are still in effect, which means YOURS too. Secondly, money to the states helped keep vital services going, and now as it winds down, state budgets are feeling the pinch, as you see here in Texas with the scaling back of education, fire, and police.

So what makes you think the stimulus didn't work? And don't tell me about the 8% unemployment, because its held study since some states are harder hit than others.

No it didn't save the world, but it slowed the contraction of the economy, and unlike republicans who seem to not care at the moment, the JOBS Bill would add to that in every state. They rather pass an abortion bill in the house today than create jobs tomorrow.

Maybe in the early stages of the recession things may have been underestimated, but just curious, what makes you think the stimulis DIDN'T work, and isn't still working?

Oh I don't know, all those people protesting instead of working, a stagnant economy, high unemployment, that sort of thing.

Jesse Jackson Jr. doesn't seem to think it's working, he's calling for Obama to ignore the constitution and full government employment (http://dailycaller.com/2011/10/12/jackson-obama-should-declare-a-national-emergency-add-jobs-with-extra-constitutional-action/#ixzz1agAgEqI7) of 15 million unemployed Americans.


Illinois Democratic Rep. Jesse Jackson, Jr. told The Daily Caller on Wednesday that congressional opposition to the American Jobs Act is akin to the Confederate “states in rebellion.”

Jackson called for full government employment of the 15 million unemployed and said that Obama should “declare a national emergency” and take “extra-constitutional” action “administratively” — without the approval of Congress — to tackle unemployment.

“I hope the president continues to exercise extraordinary constitutional means, based on the history of Congresses that have been in rebellion in the past,” Jackson said. “He’s looking administratively for ways to advance the causes of the American people, because this Congress is completely dysfunctional.”

“President Obama tends to idealize — and rightfully so — Abraham Lincoln, who looked at states in rebellion and he made a judgment that the government of the United States, while the states are in rebellion, still had an obligation to function,” Jackson told TheDC at his Capitol Hill office on Wednesday.

“On several occasions now, we’ve seen … the Congress is in rebellion, determined, as Abraham Lincoln said, to wreck or ruin at all costs. I believe … in the direct hiring of 15 million unemployed Americans at $40,000 a head, some more than $40,000, some less than $40,000 — that’s a $600 billion stimulus. It could be a five-year program. For another $104 billion, we bailout all of the states … for another $100 billion, we bailout all of the cities,” he said.

First of all that's abut the most ridiculous idea I've ever heard a Congressman propose, and second of all he's horrible at math. That $600 billion he mentioned is for one year of his 5 year plan. That's I believe, $3 TRILLION.

I don't know Speech, 15 million jobs at an average 40 grand a year would certainly expand the economy by a lot more than 3 trillion I think over 6 years. That's an investment that could create the demand to move the economy forward seems to me.

Actually he talks of 800 billion the first year, and 600 the next four. That's 3.2 trillion in 5 years. That s a good investment in a 14 trillion dollar a year economy and upward of 4% growth, that would be further expanded with a restructuring of middle class debt.

It's a lot more feasible than the 9-9-9 redistribution to the top and creating a social network drain of 75 million people in abject poverty, with no education possible that the republicans leading candidate has proposed.

As to the math, you both were correct, just a different time phase.

Put them to work doing what, and at the expense of who?

This government handing out shovels really is 1930s thinking (and it didn't work then either) .
9-9-9 as most of the candidates pointed out would never make it through Congress... But the concept is sound for those who have actually read the plan instead of making lame pizza and biblical jokes. '
My biggest beef with it is that in the hands of Dems it would become 15-15-15... 20-20-20 and on and on. The thought of a tool like a national sales tax in the hands of the Dems scares me.
I'm for a simplified ;get rid of most deductions flat income tax if I'm told I can't get rid of it all together. Let the States keep the sales taxes .
For corporations ? I'm more in line with Santorum... get rid of Cap gains taxes... I'd even go more than that... I'd have a capital repatriation holiday for 3 years .

Report: Top 15 Repatriating Cos Cut Net 21,000 Jobs After &#39;04 Tax Break | Fox Business (http://www.foxbusiness.com/industries/2011/10/10/report-top-15-repatriating-cos-cut-net-21000-jobs-after-04-tax-break/)

Repatriation didn't work in 2004, it just gave them more money to run overseas with, and it will be the same results we have now, Jobs leaving America, and not coming back.

Cains plan

999 | Herman Cain for President (http://www.hermancain.com/999plan)

Yes it did... it pumped over $200 billion into the economy .

And a 5% reduction would add even more .
Foreign earnings tax break could add 2.9 million jobs, study says - Los Angeles Times (http://articles.latimes.com/2011/sep/08/business/la-fi-foreign-earnings-jobs-20110908)


I already gave my objections to 9-9-9 . However it is a complete distortion to say it is a tax transfer upward. Also as the link shows ;9-9-9 is just a transitional phase to the 'Fair Tax ' .


Edit... looks like there is bi-partisan support for capital repatriation.
Both parties wary of linking jobs plans - TheHill.com (http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/186903-both-parties-wary-of-linking-different-job-creation-plans)

See the President riding a diesel-powered Canadian Bus promoting jobs for Americans... bwaaahaaahaaahaaa!! I wonder if it meets the fuel efficiency standards he imposed on American companies??

Right, on tour again in his Canadian bus right after doing his weekly address "from a GM plant in Detroit" which is actually a green screen.

4CgvaKnGV-g

"From a GM plant in Detroit, President Obama highlights the landmark trade agreements passed this week which will support tens of thousands of American jobs, level the playing field for American workers, and help us meet our goal of doubling our exports."

Maybe the green screen is on his bus.

Canadian bus, refitted in Tennessee, and they have one for the republicans nominee too. The same company made John nominee bus too. But that doesn't count much does it.

LOL, and do you think all those auto workers will vote for the republican that said we should have let 'em fail?

You guys are expecting a lot aren't you??

LOL, and do you think all those auto workers will vote for the republican that said we should have let 'em fail?


I submit that Ford is in much better footing for turning down the bailout . I already documented elsewhere that Chevy is now bailing out on America and its so called cutting edge technology will be a Chinese venture.

I submit that Ford is in much better footing for turning down the bailout . I already documented elsewhere that Chevy is now bailing out on America and its so called cutting edge technology will be a Chinese venture.

Cutting edge technology and the american motor industry in the same sentence? This is what happens when you sell the farm, the machinery moves someplace else, but let them do to chinese industry what they did for american.

Ford took a chance and leveraged all its assets for a loan. They were ahead of the curve, but after the others got rid of the dumbass CEO's they started to operate a lot better and did well given a second chance.

Watch out once the infrastructure on the electric power grid is in place. Then OPEC will get screwed. Invest in popcorn, and watch China implode.

What will fuel the grid ? Windmills ? You ought to listen to your Guv. We are an enegy rich country and we are having a big debate if we should run a pipeline from Canada so we can buy their oil extracted from sand ! Absurd! Drill Drill Drill and watch our economy recover. It's the difference between OWS rage and having water pistol duels with the cops like they are doing in Canada.

We could start with energy efficiency, and then get rid of the junk science that makes a shut off valve for a million bucks, that has never worked.

The Most Energy-Efficient Countries - Forbes.com (http://www.forbes.com/2008/07/03/energy-efficiency-japan-biz-energy_cx_jz_0707efficiency_countries.html)

Drill baby drill will never work either

Oil consumption statistics - countries compared - Nationmaster (http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/ene_oil_con-energy-oil-consumption)

This is interesting as far as what the rest of the world is doing more in the area of efficientcy and dependence.

Energy in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_the_United_States)

We have more untapped oil under our own soil than the entire middle east has tapped or untapped... and that's NOT considering Canada or others in our Hemisphere.

We need more as we are the biggest consumer of oil, and the least energy efficient, and the messiest, as we are slow to clean up our messes, just think Valdis in Alaska, and the southern gulf coast.

as we are the biggest consumer of oil
We are the biggest consumers of energy. That would be because as of today we still have the biggest economy to fuel.
All the more reason to have an 'all hands on deck ' approach to get as close to energy independence as possible.
Are renewables part of that future ? Undoubtedly . However ,I think we are putting the cart before the horse typical of a command economy by restricting existing supplies while simulatneously putting our eggs in some future energy supply that is far from a given .

Nations that have to import their resources have to manage them wisely, and in an efficient way. Think of how far those resources would go if we didn't waste so much of it, in traffic as well as transmission deficiency. Not just talking about home owners, and commuters here either, but businesses, and cities as well. Infrastructure investments in our larger urban areas is crucial to us narrowing the gap between energy production, and actual use.

Improvements to an aging energy grid is key to that and I like what some cities are doing, like New York in replacing old outdated technologies with state of the art equipment, to cut down on waste and improve delivery, and reliability. They have even made some great strides with existing systems such as heating buildings with steam, a lot more efficiently than they were.

A national effort for conservation, and improvements would go a long way towards lowering costs, and make investments even more productive. Wasting more than half the pie is a lose/lose proposition.

We have more than enough oil to get us through the next 100 years, WITHOUT OPEC and by then alternatives will have matured into being practical.

heating buildings with steam, a lot more efficiently than they were.

I had an old steam boiler in my basement when I moved in . I converted from oil to natural gas and the new boiler is about a quarter the size of the previous one. That was my investment and my choice. I did it because it made sense to do so.
I don't know which buildings you are talking about in NYC . I am not familiar with any subsidies or mandates ;or if you are talking about privately or publicly owned buildings.
If I was a landlord however ,I would have to weigh any building improvement against diminishing returns on rent with rent controls imposed . However ;in buildings without ,I'm sure it is an economical benefit to upgrade.

Not if the smarty pants CEO's keep buying stuff that don't work for a million bucks (safety valves) each, and the spill a million gallons, we won't. The loss of 11 lives is 11 to many for no reason, and if we can't learn and do better, we shouldn't be doing it.

Look I would be singing "drill, baby, drill" too, if it was SAFE.

Seems to me that is throwing the baby away with the bathwater .

Are you saying that because a company violated known safety procedures that work ,that the whole industry should cease to exist ?

When there was a Tylenol scare ;procedures were tightened to ensure that the product seal couldn't be tampered with... they didn't ban the use of APAP.

But the oil companies didn't listen. The didn't change a thing. Just put the 20 billion into a fund, fired the CEO (well moved him), and moved to the next well. Same technology, same procedure, same flaws. But to be fair, while we are trying to make changes to the companies we do business with, other countries on the other side of the gulf are not. That's an even bigger problem.

But that's about to change, at least on our side of the water, as private companies are working hard to revamp oil drilling technology, especially the emergency clean up phase. I think its more a matter of slowing down, and letting those technologies catch up.

Good news, Harry Reid said the private sector is rolling along just fine, the real crisis is in government jobs. No, really, he said that (http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/188443-reid-says-government-jobs-must-take-priority-over-private-sector-jobs).

The facts courtesy of Ed Morrisey and the bureau of labor statistics. Public sector jobs over the last 5 years:
http://media.hotair.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/bls-chart-pse.jpg

There are 4 million fewer private sector jobs than 5 years ago, while public sector jobs have shown a net gain of 568,000 jobs in the same period.
http://media.hotair.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/bls-chart-govt.jpg

As long as the Dems can demonize Republicans for opposing Obama's jobs bill how cares about facts? This fits right in with Biden's theme (http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/biden-continues-warn-rapes-and-murders-if-jobs-bill-isnt-passed_598267.html) of late, warning the public of rapes and murders if the jobs bill isn't passed. That's right ladies and gentlemen, Republicans not only don't want you to have a job, they must be for rape and murder because they haven't passed the bill.

Good news, Harry Reid said the private sector is rolling along just fine, the real crisis is in government jobs. No, really, he said that (http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/188443-reid-says-government-jobs-must-take-priority-over-private-sector-jobs).

The facts courtesy of Ed Morrisey and the bureau of labor statistics. Public sector jobs over the last 5 years:
http://media.hotair.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/bls-chart-pse.jpg

There are 4 million fewer private sector jobs than 5 years ago, while public sector jobs have shown a net gain of 568,000 jobs in the same period.
http://media.hotair.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/bls-chart-govt.jpg

As long as the Dems can demonize Republicans for opposing Obama's jobs bill how cares about facts? This fits right in with Biden's theme (http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/biden-continues-warn-rapes-and-murders-if-jobs-bill-isnt-passed_598267.html) of late, warning the public of rapes and murders if the jobs bill isn't passed. That's right ladies and gentlemen, Republicans not only don't want you to have a job, they must be for rape and murder because they haven't passed the bill.


And we STILL need more evidence before they will put him in mental health ward for his own protection?

And we STILL need more evidence before they will put him in mental health ward for his own protection?

Looks like you have what we call a two speed economy over there.

Strange statistics though when it is thought that the democrats mean big government

Looks like you have what we call a two speed economy over there.

Strange statistics though when it is though that the democrats mean big government
Yes... like a Unimog... several reverse gears.