New job measures? Perfect, more Keynesian economics that will fail.

Spot on comment JoAnna!

Lack of demand was not the reason for the market collapse and subsequent recession. It was a classic "Hayekian bubble". Extended periods of low interest rates by the Fed combined with Federal regulations on the financial sector created a situation where the market was getting incorrect pricing information. A classic mis-allocation of assets.

What Obama means is that he wants to print more Money to throw at his failed policies and put the American people more in debt.

He is recommending idea's R's should support-watch them obstruct then tell me that they want the country to succeed-these guys are really against America.

Rob-Lack of demand was not the reason for the market collapse, but lack of demand is the reason for the slow recovery.

An excerpt from Paul Krugman’s article in the NY Times:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/03/opinion/03krugman.html?_r=1

“Critics in the second camp were particularly worried about what would happen this year, since the stimulus would have its maximum effect on growth in late 2009 then gradually fade out. Last year, many of us were already warning that the economy might stall in the second half of 2010.

So what actually happened? The administration’s optimistic forecast was wrong, but which group of pessimists was right about the reasons for that error?

Start with interest rates. Those who said the stimulus was too big predicted sharply rising rates. When rates rose in early 2009, The Wall Street Journal published an editorial titled “The Bond Vigilantes: The disciplinarians of U.S. policy makers return.” The editorial declared that it was all about fear of deficits, and concluded, “When in doubt, bet on the markets.”

But those who said the stimulus was too small argued that temporary deficits weren’t a problem as long as the economy remained depressed; we were awash in savings with nowhere to go. Interest rates, we said, would fluctuate with optimism or pessimism about future growth, not with government borrowing.

When in doubt, bet on the markets. The 10-year bond rate was over 3.7 percent when The Journal published that editorial; it’s under 2.7 percent now.

What about inflation? Amid the inflation hysteria of early 2009, the inadequate-stimulus critics pointed out that inflation always falls during sustained periods of high unemployment, and that this time should be no different. Sure enough, key measures of inflation have fallen from more than 2 percent before the economic crisis to 1 percent or less now, and Japanese-style deflation is looking like a real possibility.

Meanwhile, the timing of recent economic growth strongly supports the notion that stimulus does, indeed, boost the economy: growth accelerated last year, as the stimulus reached its predicted peak impact, but has fallen off — just as some of us feared — as the stimulus has faded.”

******************************************

Paul Krugman is a Nobel Prize winning economist--he says it better than I can. We need more stimulus we need more infrastructure jobs...jobs that pay a living wage!

Krugman is a Keynsian. 'Nuff said.

Of course spending boosts short-term growth, but at what cost? In his last paragraph he argues for rmore "stimulus".

Where does this money come from? It needs to come from someplace. Where it is coming from is the private sector. Evidence suggests every $1B the public sector spends takes $1.76B from the private sector. The private sector is far more produtive and responsive to consumer needs.

Once again, this is the great debate. I've seen this movie before and I know how it ends.

and let's all remember how many jobs were created with the Bush tax cuts......."Not Many"..... but the unemployment figure did go up from 2000 - 2008! Thats how well tax cuts work.

so what ideas does the GNOP have? Tax Cuts, Tax Cuts...more...more...let them eat cake....and oops almost forgot that infamous dose of 9/11.....

Rob-459463, a non-economist calling a Nobel prize winning economist wrong.

Nuff said.

Krugman's a Keynsian. I'm not a Keynsian.

Al Gore won a Noble prize. 'Nuff said.

Rob: l Gore won a Noble prize. 'Nuff said.

So did some guy named Obama, for doing nothing. They're just giving them away lately. Kind of demeans the spirit of the award, don't you think?

Rob, you and JS1 are a hoot. Just because you do not like who got a Nobel Prize, then the prize must mean nothing. Jealous much? Mad that your hero Bush (or Reagan? or that other Bush?) didn't get one? Reality sucks, doesn't it.

OK, he's wrong because you say he's wrong. Beautiful circular logic and a perfect example of the Conservative drive to destroy reason in any argument. Facts don't matter because Conservatism isn't a philosophy, it's a PR campaign designed to get people to support an agenda that funnels wealth to the top and effectively creates an aristocracy.

Conservatives are just mad at the Nobel committee for refusing to succumb to the campaign that wished for GW Bush to receive a Nobel Peace Prize -- for going to war!

Well, Krugman's not necessarily right because you say he is, either. I believe that there is a Nobel prize for Economics that has been won by multiple individuals, all with differing economic theories.

Usually they win due to a PR campaign designed to get people to support an agenda that funnels accolades to liberals and effectively creates an impression that they deserve credence.

Economics, the miserable science.

Ronald Reagan gave us voo doo economics, how did that work out? Savings and loan crisis, decreasing middle class, stagnant wages, and huge deficits--the debt grew 189% under Reagan.

I'll take Keynsian, thank you very much.

Of course Richard, anything that burnishes the credentials of a Liberal must be discredited. It's part of the Conservative method and tactics. The PR campaign marches on. As you were.

Jody, Iowa-

What happened to inflation and interest rates after Reagan became President in 1981, Jody?

Jimmy Carter left Reagan a 14% inflation rate; a 20% prime interest rate; 18% home mortgage interest rates; auto loans and other consumer credit, 20% or higher.

Can you imagine?

I don't have to.

I was there...I remember.

I was there too. In fact I was there when President Ford was unveiling his "Whip Inflation Now" buttons because all of this was starting to explode as early as late Nixon Administration. What's your point?

John B, Des Moines, IA-

Thanks for stepping up to the plate, John!

To refresh your memory...the question was:

What happened to inflation and interest rates during the Reagan Administration, John?

There's a clear track record for Reagan in that regard.

What can you retrieve from your memory about Reagan's efforts to lower inflation...and the interest rates we all paid as he left office, compared to when he began?

I'm prepared to help you out, John...if your memory is no longer reliable.

Try to focus, friend...

You can do this.

Wow...

MSNBC has pre-empted its regularly scheduled programming ("lockup"...you know, MSNBC's prison documentary?) to cover President Obama's event in Milwaukee, WI...

Of course...Democrat, and U.S. Senator Russ Feingold (running for re-election, unlike his colleague, Herb Kohl), regrettably, couldn't be there to honor the head of his party, and the President of the United States, Barack Obama.

What's up with that?

I know...do you?

It's quite simple MB, after years of stagflation the Federal Reserve Board clamped down hard on the money supply in 1979. Interest rates soared for a time, but the dramatically tightened money supply dropped the economy into a deep recession, breaking the hold of stagflation. Once the recession began they once again eased interest rates.

What Reagan did was to be in the right place at the right time.

dangerfield

She also said we need a bigger stimulus would you agree?

The economy lost government jobs and gained private sector jobs. This should make Republicans happy. Yet they spin negatively. Just negative haters with no ideas of their own. Nothing but lets go back to the failed system of George W. Bush. I'm over the idea that they are the fiscal conservatives. They aren't. They simply redistribute wealth from the middle class to rich. Vote them out of office come November.

I've give the Republicans more credit if they had any suggestions that could actually amount to a plan. For each of them that stands up and proclaims, "this is not the way to do it!" I hear none of them making any comment about what can be done. I am not the largest fan of the Democrats, but they're the only party presenting any kind of strategy.

"I know it sounds crazy, Doc, but Hank has the only idea."

From the following site: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/09/02/BU2I1F7N64.DTL

---------

However, [outgoing Obama economic advisor Christine] Romer remains unbowed in her belief for even more stimulus. "The only surefire ways for policymakers to substantially increase aggregate demand in the short run are for the government to spend more and tax less," she said in the National Press Club speech.

---------

Isn't this what the liberals accuse Bush of doing?

But I'm sure in private meetings Obama's frustration with the economy is clearly evident when he blurts out "But, but, it all worked out fine when we drew it up on the chalkboard?"

The Liberals keep squawking like parrots to the Republicans: "What's the plan?! What's the plan?!".

Too bad they didn't ask the same of Obama. They had drunk too much Hopey and Changey Kool-Aide to bother asking.

Actually she says;

"...some new policies should be viewed as emergency measures, most should be paid for with future spending cuts or revenue returns...."

Attention Geniuses who see EVERYTHING in this ridiculous us vs them scenario...Roemer is suggesting exactly what the Bush administration was doing...Cut taxes and increase spending

"WASHINGTON — Departing White House economist Christina Romer says the government has the tools for bringing down unemployment, but policymakers need to find the will and wisdom to use them.

Romer called on officials Wednesday to move forward on policies that will increase government spending and cut taxes. She also called for investments in infrastructure and new trade agreements."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/09/01/christina-romer-departing_n_702351.html

I don't know if I agree with her, but I also don't see a big difference between the Bush "don't tax and spend" policy that contributed mightily to our current predicament...

Romer had two characteristics that got her fired. She was honest. And she was clueless.

Most other Obama economic advisers only have one of the above characteristics, and that's why they can continue to tell us lies while keeping their jobs.

JoAnnaSmith1 -- which economist would you recommend to President Obama? And on what would you base the recommendation?

On another thread "Illusionist David Copperfield" was suggested...

kate-1855079: JoAnnaSmith1 -- which economist would you recommend to President Obama? And on what would you base the recommendation?

He could pick one randomly from the Yellowpages and it would be an improvement.

JoAnnaSmith1

The Liberals keep squawking like parrots to the Republicans: "What's the plan?! What's the plan?!".

Too bad they didn't ask the same of Obama. They had drunk too much Hopey and Changey Kool-Aide to bother asking.

Asking people who presume to pass themselves off as leaders for actual leadership is not an unwarranted thing deserving of disdain.

Are you trying to suggest it's unfair to expect anyone, Democrat or Republican, to provide a direction? Don't you think people might be a little less paranoid if there was something remotely resembling intelligent debate between the parties about actual strategies instead of finger-pointing and name-calling?

I don't see how another stimulus would help. When Cash for Clunkers was implemented, car sales went up for that period and then crashed. Mortgage assistance. Sales went up and then crashed. To me, it's not a stimulus; it's more like playing with Monopoly money. Those two programs created nothing but false demand.

Yes, businesses are being conservative because they don't know what's coming tax-wise or the full impact of health care. Banks are being conservative because they don't know if the businesses will survive what's coming. Somehow, that log jam needs to be relieved. If businesses can get some certainty about upcoming costs, then they can have the confidence to move ahead. Until then, I don't see them changing much.

To me the stimulus has not been effective in large part because much of it went to pork barrel type projects. In Oklahoma, a city used $90K timulus money to revamp a sidewalk on a street where there's no housing, no school, no business. Sidewalk ends at a ditch. Now, how did that the stimulate the economy? The City didn't hire anybody new, they didn't create a new permanent job.

Or, how about the $300,000 for a study chimps smoking weed? You know that chimp isn't going to work, especially if you give him enough weed! Hey, though, might create some demand for brownies and munchies! The money was spent again for existing personnel in a time-limited project. Where's the long-term stimulus in that?

I believe it was $350,000 spent to study the impact of smoking weed after drinking alcohol. Another existing, time-limited research project that didn't create one new job. And, sadly, I think we already know the answer to the hypothesis! You're drunk and stupid instead of just drunk!

It is debatable if some of the things FDR did during the Depression were hurtful or helpful. Two projects of success, though, were the WPA and CCC. People in those projects were thankful for some income and they had some dignity of not taking "welfare" type monies. They made fabulous contributions to society, too. Also, people learned some skills, got some experience to put on their resume.

Some would say there's no WPA/CCC type jobs out there. Oh, yes, there are. Good example. I'm a genealogist and have benefitted many times because, during the Depression, some WPA workers were tasked to enumerate headstone information from cemeteries. Today, those hand-written records need to be digitized. Many counties/states want to make various types of paper records available on line but they have nobody to do it. Look at the skills somebody could learn doing something like.

Yes, those are projects I'd like to see done for personal reasons but we have to think out of the box. We need to think about how we help people who need work today, provide new skills for many who need re-training, create some demand for goods because people would have cash? Until you get "real" money into the hands of the people, there will no increase in demand.

I hear people say to cut taxes. Well, we know about 40% don't pay any taxes to start with and cutting taxes lowers govt revenue. So how does that help? On the other end you can't over-tax on the other end of the spectrum or they quit developing. Their reasoning is pretty simple. Why create more income when you're going to keep even less? Yes, those so blessed need to pay their fair share, but what's fair and why doesn't everybody pay their "fair share"? And, one of the most confusing programs is "Unearned Income Tax Credit"? If they didn't work and didn't pay taxes, why are we paying people a tax credit? It sort of defies logic!

Just my two cents worth. Thinking out loud. Trying to think where and how we make things better.

Hope everybody has a safe, wonderful holiday weekend.

R's would not let anything else through. I do hope they come out with more money for infrastructure and targeted help for more clean energy as that is what will reallyt help.

Exodite Dragon

Asking people who presume to pass themselves off as leaders for actual leadership is not an unwarranted thing deserving of disdain. Are you trying to suggest it's unfair to expect anyone, Democrat or Republican, to provide a direction?

See my post to w bush below.

Providing direction is one thing. Dictating the governments terms to the people is another. The balance has shifted to the latter.

Liberals trust in the government.

Conservatives trust in the people.

Which are you?

@dirt-303814: I'd kill to see WPA/CCC-style made jobs available to the able-bodied unemployed instead of endlessly extending jobless benefits. I can understand granting unemployment payments to those incapable of certain types of labor, of course, but there are plenty of us out there who would've (or would still!) kill for the chance that sort of program.

Regarding tax returns to the bottom percentage of wage earners, my take is this: most everywhere one can work, one takes home net versus gross pay. Tax deductions are already automatic and we're all tasked with making financial decisions minus those taxes. Since we already live assuming that money doesn't exist for our individual pursuits, why do we need to continue granting an annual windfall?

@JoAnnaSmith1: Joanna, I really don't know what planet you live on if you think the modern-day Republican party is striving for the common man. Last I checked, declaring that which gender one prefers to love should bar one from benefiting from legal rights and de-regulating industry to the financial detriment of millions certainly doesn't seem to jive with the notion of trusting in the people.

As for what I am, Joanna, I'm human - plain and simple.

Somehow 54,000 jobs lost is better than 700,000 jobs lost each month under Bush.

I find it interesting that the reason given for banks not lending to businesses is that they are unsure whether the businesses will be able to pay back the loans (due to uncertainty about this or that). How come that was not a problem when they were giving mortgages to people who were quite likely to not be able to pay them back? Somehow that undermines the credibility of that excuse.

Elise: Somehow 54,000 jobs lost is better than 700,000 jobs lost each month under Bush.

Is Obama running $160 billion dollar deficits per month compared to $52 billion dollar per month deficits for Bush better too Elise? That would calculate out to be about $170,000 per job. You getting your money's worth on that Elise? Would you like a job that paid you that much Elise?

You really are dense, aren't you JS1. The Bush administration spent more money off of the books than were spent on the books. The Obama administration has put all of that spending that they did not create and can not stop back on the books. Your example is specious and disingenuous.

"The economy lost government jobs and gained private sector jobs. This should make Republicans happy. Yet they spin negatively."

Right on target, Ana. Consistency of thought is of no importance, the only thing that matters is constructing a narrative to spin every situation. When the Census workers were hired it was a negative because "look how bad it would've been without those temporary jobs", ignoring that they not only were part of a Constitutionally-mandated purpose but stimulative to the economy. Now that those jobs are coming to an end they're ignored completely because it makes the numbers worse than they would have been. Either way it fits the Conservative narrative of the moment and that's the only thing that's important.

Heartlight -

I find it interesting that the reason given for banks not lending to businesses is that they are unsure whether the businesses will be able to pay back the loans (due to uncertainty about this or that). How come that was not a problem when they were giving mortgages to people who were quite likely to not be able to pay them back? Somehow that undermines the credibility of that excuse.

That's called trying not to make the same mistakes over and over again -- the same mistakes and loose policy that got us into trouble in the first place.

Matthew, Houston, TX

You really are dense, aren't you JS1. The Bush administration spent more money off of the books than were spent on the books. The Obama administration has put all of that spending that they did not create and can not stop back on the books. Your example is specious and disingenuous.

You're the dense one Matthew. You struggle with simple math, don't you? Here, I'll keep it simple for you. During Bush's 8 years, about $5 trillion was added to the debt. First, do you know the difference beween the debt and the deficit? That will go along way to helping you understanding what is going on. Divide that by 96 months (that's 8 years Matt), and that $52 billion on average of deficit spending per month. Nothing "hidden" about that Matt. Clear now Matt? Or do you need additional training to understand this concept?

Matthew, you seem the type that gulps down anything a Leftwing so-called news-source will tell you. You may want to think about what you say before you shoot your mouth off next time. It will save you a lot of embarrassment.

jomama -

Anyone that relies on either Fox or Medimatters is not getting a proper picture of anything.

Excellent post Jomama72. Thanks!

kirby in idaho

Anyone that relies on either Fox or Medimatters is not getting a proper picture of anything.

Fox lies deliberately lies and Medimatters uses facts to deliberately expose Fox. Did you miss any of that on Fox; for example Death Panels,

I seldom watch Fox Beverly and I don't pay attention to juryrigged info by other media outlets.

Both Fox and Mediamatters have their own agendas. Fox on the right and Media on the left. But I do appreciate you assuming I watch Fox. It is good to know that you can make that quantom leap without knowing me.

"Death Panels" was not a lie. It was political rhetoric.

Dangerfield: Of course you know that it's really "Tea Partiers". The prolifieration of the term "tea bagger" was initiated by enlightened and experienced liberal posters as a pejorative.

Of course, demeaning history is a favorite pastime of the left anyway.

Your last sentence in the 1:28 post is a bit awkward after addressing Beverly in the line above it.

Richard - can you explain the difference between a lie and political rhetoric? Does calling it "political rhetoric" make it any less a lie?

Richard, thanks for your admission that telling untruths is part of the Conservative agenda. It's corrosive to the level of reason necessary for a democracy to function properly, but at least it works to the advantage of the wealthy benefactors of the party.

"political rhetoric" is completely bi-partisan. So, if we call it a lie, everyone is a liar. You, John, for example say all kinds of things about conservatives that are highly debatable. Are they lies? I tend to think so, but that's just my opinion. You simply appear to believe you are truthful.

In fact you lied in your post. Despite whether you believe it or not.

At least I believe you did.

“They spent over a decade driving the economy into a ditch,” President Obama.

“This war is lost,” Harry Reid

“They're carrying swastikas and symbols like that to a town meeting on healthcare."

Nancy Pelosi

“I don't take a dime of their [lobbyist] money, and when I am president, they won't find a job in my White House.” President Obama

“It's time to fundamentally change the way that we do business in Washington. To help build a new foundation for the 21st century, we need to reform our government so that it is more efficient, more transparent, and more creative. That will demand new thinking and a new sense of responsibility for every dollar that is spent.” President Obama

Political rhetoric or lies?

We have a great shot by having a clean energy policy. There are trillions in private equity funds waiting to create jobs and business. They want to create business and manufacturing here as there is a great need. We need to stop trade inequities in China. It should be noted manufacturing is growing. Also there has been tariffs placed on steel and aluminum from China so there is progress.

I hate to say it, w bush, but you are correct. Watching a great country self destruct is very sad.

I think his bio. That's were I read it. The correct word is not "did". He is still "doing" it.

AnaBanana

The correct word is not "did". He is still "doing" it.

I never thought of it that way. Thanks, Murdoch is definitely into sensationalism.

Hi Bev......he makes a great case for selective immigration, doesn't he? he only became a citizen so he could spread his empire and be allowed to acquire newspapers and tv.

Pat, Boston, MA

John Boehner and Mitch McConnell are useless, absolutely useless. The worst possible Minority Leaders at such a moment in our history.

So true, I rather have people listen to our Weiner instead of the right wing's Boner.

Raw Video:
Anthony Weiner Rips Apart Republicans on 9/11Health Bill

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W4zwCMf8dsc&feature=related

The cowardly, hypocritical, Republicans scream about insensitivity toward 9/11 yet they still will vote against their own causes.

Raw Video: N.Y. Rep Weiner's Anti-GOP Rant
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_O_GRkMZJn4

Remember that the 9-11 bill was loaded with crap that had nothing to do with helping first responders. If they had removed the extraneous things from the bill and the repubs had voted no then I would agree with you, but the dems refused to change it.

I would love to see either party just bring a bill to a vote with just the thing the bill is supposed to be about.

Weiner was being disingenuous because he knew that. It did make for good political theater though, didn't it?

If it weren't for the economic crisis in Greece, Biden's predictions could very well have been close.

Joanna, another lie, now back up that 300k number with facts so I can respond.

JoAnnaSmith1 please explain the Republicans ingenious plan to put everyone back to work, let me grab a pencil and paper so I can take notes, I'm ready, do tell.

If it weren't for the economic crisis in Greece, Biden's predictions could very well have been close.

Yeah, it Greeces fault. And hurricane Earl. And Arizona's illegal immigration laws. And the oil spill. And the people that are against the mosque being built. And of course it's mostly Glenn Beck's fault.

But Obama's economic plans are sound. Sure they are.

JoAnnaSmith1 please explain the Republicans ingenious plan to put everyone back to work, let me grab a pencil and paper so I can take notes, I'm ready, do tell

Still waiting for Obama to come up with his. He "won" you recall.

JoAnnaSmith1

JoAnnaSmith1 please explain the Republicans ingenious plan to put everyone back to work, let me grab a pencil and paper so I can take notes, I'm ready, do tell

Still waiting for Obama to come up with his. He "won" you recall.

• 1
• !

#10.5- Fri Sep 3, 2010 12:30 PM CDT
=================================================================================

JoAnnaSmith1 I will go out on a limb here and assume the reason you refuse to divulge the complex and elaborate master plan the Republicans have laboriously created to put everyone back to work is because one DOES NOT EXIST. Since the Republicans work 24/7 obstructing this and that no time is left to actually work on any "real" solutions for anything, but don't dispair JoAnna they have taken obstructionism to levels that have never been witnessed before by man, a real feather in the ol' hat there huh JoAnna. Have a great weekend.

Oh, a plan very much exists w bush, but not with a politician, a political party, a president, or a Speaker of the House. It exists with the American people, the people that want to work hard, the ones that want to put in the 80-100 hour weeks to build their businesses, create new and better products, and provide innovative services to consumers. And those American people will be happy to build the buildings, hire the workers, make their weekly payrolls, and expand their business just as soon as the pinheads in Washington DC, who haven't even run a lemonade stand business in their sorry lives, get the governments foot off of the business peoples necks!

But you liberals will never get it. You'll never understand that the government should not control the economics of the country. That's why you think Obama, or some other politician, will come up with this magical plan. Obama is a clueless dolt that could never run a business if his life dependent on it. But yet you want him to come with a plan? In case you didn't get the message from the first paragraph, it's the working people that come up with the plan, not Washington DC. And that plan will be different for everyone in every segment of the country. What works for one persons company will be a failure for another's.

There is no master plan w bush. There can't be one.

JoAnnaSmith1 lets put the Republicans back in power so that they can get back to work shipping jobs overseas for their Corporate masters and blowing up things, what true American wouldn't be brought to tears at a nation saving plan like that. As I mentioned in a earlier post the time to correct course was passed by long ago when it was decided America doesn't need a strong middle class, I mean everyone knows that money the middle class was making would be better off in the wealthiest 2%'s hands, and the dispair will keep working it's way up the food chain and people like you JoAnna that think you are above it all will be gobbled up and you to will get to feel all the benifits poverty has to offer.

Joanna, that's all very well and good in theory - but have you attempted to run a small business in recent years? Have you tried obtaining a business loan or saving what you make for a start-up?

This isn't about wanting the government to institute a command economy. This is about crafting an overall financial environment to ensure the little guy has as much a shot and as many opportunities as established giants of industry. The plan we're all looking for is one that makes it easier to become employed, to self-employ or otherwise help move America to a state of greater productivity.

The only thing I get out of your post is that you equate American liberals with dyed-in-the-wool Russian or Chinese Soviets. That's a stretch, a huge stretch and smacks of either willful ignorance or a penchant for propaganda.

ED - "This isn't about wanting the government to institute a command economy."

Ed - "The only thing I get out of your post is that you equate American liberals with dyed-in-the-wool Russian or Chinese Soviets."

ED, name one thing Obama and the Democrats have done in the last 20 months that has allowed less government control of any area for any economic segment of the country. To my knowledge, there isn't one. In every spending bill, in every law, in every regulation, Obama and the Democrats have created more government control, regulation, and spending over everything they have bothered to touch. It's kind of looking to a lot of people that Obama and Democrats are trying to implement, as you say, a command economy.

And how has that worked out for us?

w bush: I mean everyone knows that money the middle class was making would be better off in the wealthiest 2%'s hands,

Well WB, I've given you my plan. Still waiting to hear what Obama's and the Democrats one is, one that works anyway. What are we on, Version 6.7 of ObamaNomics now? You'd think they'd have a few of the bigger bugs worked out by now, but yet they don't. Times running short for them I fear.

Joanna, what did de-regulation get us, hmm? The MMS literally in bed with the industry it was meant to regulate. Lax inspection of aging infrastructure that's been the cause of everything from bridge collapses to explosions of refineries and oil rigs.

That last part is especially close to home for me: do you have any idea how often something calamitous takes place down here in Pasadena and Texas City?

This is something you've GOT to understand: you're dealing in absolutes and you're assuming that there's only Path A or Path B. A complete lack of regulation on business generates the kinds of industrial disasters we've seen in the past decade, as well as the financial ones. Consider the passage of Sarbannes-Oxley as a response to the Enron scandal (again, another issue that hit extremely close to home with me); this was a law meant to ensure that company accounting records were retained and set standards on verifying their authenticity. Its enforcement since the de-fanging of the SEC has been sparing at best.

Human proclivities where business is concerned unfortunately trend towards abuse of power in the greedy pursuit of profit. Without anti-trust laws, the free market you so champion would consist of little other than an oligarchy of corporate interests modelled after Standard Oil. Without basic labor protection laws, workers might still risk being fired for being injured by inherently unsafe conditions. Children might still be tasked to the factory floor instead of committed to higher education. The economic disparity between the upper and lower class may be exorbitant in the present day, but without minimum wage and overtime laws it would be astronimical.

All the prosperity and success Americans have enjoyed is because we've historically struck a balance where the regulation of industry, in concert with protectionist policy, and the freedom of the market is concerned.

You cannot declare that all regulation is bad, Joanna. Doing so implies you'd be complicit in the exploitation of labor and the consolidation of wealth in the hands of a slim upper eschelon - just try running that proverbial lemonade stand with a corporate hegemon waiting for the chance to crush your venture.

Likewise, entirely too much regulation yields a stagnant business environment that carries no incentives towards innovation, employment or market expansion. That is not what I want to see when I discuss the need for regulation to stymie corporate abuse.

The big problem lies with the fact that we regulate to protect our workers at home while marching to the tune of market globalization. I'm in favor of protectionism for domestic markets, an admittedly unpopular position in the modern age. But our problems do not stem from an illusory at-home Communist conspiracy: to think so is ludicrous.

If you want to know what one of the biggest elements of the problem is, Joanna, take a look at the country of origin for every product you put in your shopping cart the next time you're out and about.

Exodite, brother I live just down the road from you in Webster. Thank god there are others in Texas with a brain!

JS1, gee, do you think that if the Republicans hadn't been obstructing the bills designed to create jobs we might have had that 'summer of recovery'?

Here is the scenario: 1) a plan is proposed that has ideas from both sides (remember, there are small business tax breaks, things you keep saying you want), 2) the other side says they don't like the plan and block it's passage and 3) when no jobs occur the Republicans say see, we told you your policies wouldn't work.

ED - What the Left of the country is pushing is two lines of attack. 1) The Bush tax cuts caused the massive debt and 2) De-regulation by Bush caused the recession. Those explain things nicely for the bumper sticker Leftists of the world, but one would hope that most people would understand that things are much more complex then that. One of them is that government spending that is trying to create a demand-side economy has both failed and added trillions to the countries debt, much more then any tax cuts Bush created a decade ago.

There is nothing wrong with, as you call it, "greed in pursuing a profit". If it's greedy to supply a better good or service at a better price then the competition, then there is nothing wrong with that. A lot of hard work goes into making that good/service available at a low price, and that work in a capitalistic society should be rewarded. What would you propose otherwise, mandated pricing from limited vendors? Sub-par products for a higher price? This notion that corporations are greedy is getting a little old. It is their job to make money, for both their stock holders, and for their employees. If they don't, they will not be there for long. That business design has worked well for generations, but for Liberals it would appear, it's pure evil.

BD - If you want to know what one of the biggest elements of the problem is, Joanna, take a look at the country of origin for every product you put in your shopping cart the next time you're out and about.

ED - go buy a BMW. Foreign car right? No, no it isn't. Assembled in South Carolina. Good American jobs assembling those cars. Now go buy a Chrysler product. Domestic car, right (or was)? No, no it isn't. Engines are made in Canada. The notion of Buying American is over ED.

And I never said all regulation is bad. In fact, it is the governments job to implement a regulation scheme that puts all players on a level playing field. The US government though has to accept the grim realities of a global market in that it cannot over regulate less it create a significant disadvantage in competing with foreign companies.

Also, you keep pushing this notion of that the Right is accusing Obama of pushing Communism. You're not getting any takers on that ED.

JS1, gee, do you think that if the Republicans hadn't been obstructing the bills designed to create jobs we might have had that 'summer of recovery'?

What bills were "obstructed"? The $787 billion stimulus? That got passed. All the unemployment extensions, you know, the ones Pelosi said were the "Best kind of stimulus"? They all got passed. The $26 billion to bail out the state govenments (again) that Pelosi just had to bring Congress back to town to get done? That got passed. Or that trillion dollar health care bill that was going to reduce our deficits? That got passed. All the TARP bail-outs? They got passed. The government buyout of GM? There wasn't even a vote in Congress on that one, Obama just did it. So he got that too.

Or do you mean the $30 billion small business bail-out? You know Matt, even some Democrats are getting tired of passing $20-$30 billion dollars so called "stimulus" bills every other week, and not seeing any results, other then record deficits.

And for some reason Matt, you think if for some reason Obama and the Democrats don't get everything they want that somehow excuses the poor results they have produced. In the 234 years of the country Matt, no pol from any party has gotten everything they wanted, and for some reason they were able to manage. Yet Obama can't seem to manage and be responsible for his failures unless he gets everything he wants. Why is that?

So Obama needs to stop being a baby about getting everything he wants before he takes responsibility for his poor performance. He may have got away with that line when he was a Community Organizer, but that doesn't work with the job he has now.

Joanna, to begin - when you deign to debate with me, do not peg me as either liberal or conservative in the way you understand the definition of either. By doing so you put yourself at an extreme disadvantage.

Now, some things:

ED - What the Left of the country is pushing is two lines of attack. 1) The Bush tax cuts caused the massive debt and 2) De-regulation by Bush caused the recession. Those explain things nicely for the bumper sticker Leftists of the world, but one would hope that most people would understand that things are much more complex then that. One of them is that government spending that is trying to create a demand-side economy has both failed and added trillions to the countries debt, much more then any tax cuts Bush created a decade ago.

How does this have any relevance to my post? Where did I mention anything about Bush's tax cuts in my examination of the need for limited and appropriate regulation? Are you trying to imply I'm somehow unaware that the problem at hand is a thoroughly complicated one and is the product of anything other than decades of conflicting fiscal policy from administrations on both sides of the aisle?

There is nothing wrong with, as you call it, "greed in pursuing a profit". If it's greedy to supply a better good or service at a better price then the competition, then there is nothing wrong with that. A lot of hard work goes into making that good/service available at a low price, and that work in a capitalistic society should be rewarded. What would you propose otherwise, mandated pricing from limited vendors? Sub-par products for a higher price? This notion that corporations are greedy is getting a little old. It is their job to make money, for both their stock holders, and for their employees. If they don't, they will not be there for long. That business design has worked well for generations, but for Liberals it would appear, it's pure evil.

You're correct. The business of business is...business; thank you for stating the obvious.

Yet, nowhere did I equate greed in the pursuit of profit with 'evil.' You made that connnection on your own; my point dealt with the abuse of power in that pursuit. Please STOP and please THINK about what I'm saying before you hammer out a response. Yes, hard work, innovation and better service in a capitalist structure should be rewarded. How on earth you came to conclude I'd be in favor of price-fixing remains a mystery to me. When I speak about protectionism and being opposed to globalization, I mean to say I favor (among other things) tariffs and the cessation of trade agreements with nations that artifically fix their currency.

What's mind-boggling in your rebuttal is your naïveté about the modern-day modus operandi of American business. Your original argument professed that the solution to all our economic woes could be found in the untapped creative energies of the common man, yet you turn a blind eye to the fact that the prevailing wisdom is to shed employees for the sake of boosting profit margins quarter-over-quarter in order to appease the shareholders.

ED - go buy a BMW. Foreign car right? No, no it isn't. Assembled in South Carolina. Good American jobs assembling those cars. Now go buy a Chrysler product. Domestic car, right (or was)? No, no it isn't. Engines are made in Canada. The notion of Buying American is over ED.

Last I checked, an automobile wasn't something you put in your shopping cart. However, that's an inconsequential observation - you missed my point entirely.

And I never said all regulation is bad. In fact, it is the governments job to implement a regulation scheme that puts all players on a level playing field. The US government though has to accept the grim realities of a global market in that it cannot over regulate less it create a significant disadvantage in competing with foreign companies.

Then what was all the bluster at the beginning about Obama's regulatory policies being the bane of industry? Are you aware of the fact that you basically counter your own, original argument with this statement?

Also, you keep pushing this notion of that the Right is accusing Obama of pushing Communism. You're not getting any takers on that ED.

...are you kidding? Do I need to ennumerate each time I've seen as much come from your mouth?

EDIT: That's it, I'm done, no more posts until after Labor Day. Ciao~

@Matthew, Houston, TX: I like to think I can positively aid in dispelling the popular notion of the stupid Southerner. See? I'm not all bad. XD

Joanna Smith - This thread began with this exchange:

JoAnnaSmith1 please explain the Republicans ingenious plan to put everyone back to work, let me grab a pencil and paper so I can take notes, I'm ready, do tell

Still waiting for Obama to come up with his. He "won" you recall.

w bush asked for details on the Republican plan to put everyone back to work, and you say you are waiting for Obama to come up with it. Why would Obama come up with the REPUBLICAN plan? I hear you all complaining that Obama's plan is not working, but I haven't heard what you think WOULD work (except to cut taxes for the rich, which has had 10 years to work and hasn't started working yet.) Do you HAVE a plan? If so, would you please share it with those of us you are asking to vote for your candidates? My guess is that NO ONE knows what to do. I would be more inclined to go with those who are trying SOMETHING, rather than those who are proposing NOTHING (except what already has not worked.)

Well, I may get 'collapsed by the community' for this but JoAnnaSmith1, you have got to be one of the stupidest, most uninformed idiots I have ever known of. You ignore anything that doesn't fit your preconceived notions, when you are caught being wrong you either deflect the conversation or insult the person who proved you wrong. You present unfounded and debunked theories, get history wrong and talk about things that you even admit you know nothing about.

I've been nice to you and have refrained from saying what I really feel but no more. To me you are nothing but a mean, arrogant little girl who knows nothing about what you pretend to know about. You get mad at people who prove you are wrong and never, ever answer questions asked but insist that everyone answer your questions.

Did you get under my skin? Yes, but from now on I will totally ignore your stupid, misinformed, idiotic rants and any reply you make to this post. Now go away, you stupid, obnoxious little girl.

Matthew, Houston Tx: I've been nice to you and have refrained from saying what I really feel but no more

Matt you are such a hoot! Good gosh you are funny! You play the "Angry Liberal" part so well!! Little bit of the edgy Howard Dean loose-cannon thing going with you. Personal attack away Matt. Oh and please don't censure Matt. We need to hear what he has to say.

Luv'ya Matt.

Jomama

Beverly, is this what you were talking about?
Hackers 2 starring Rupert Murdoch & Co.?

Thank you I do remember reading that too. Last year though I read something about him and his relationship to his son. It also mentioned not only his son not like him but so do many Australians.

Yes Pat, we know how loving and kind Boston was about integrating their schools. Racism in New England was virulent and pervasive in the 60's and 70's. The Roxbury riots didn't just happen in a vacuum.

The South has much to atone for, but they have made great strides in the way they handle races issues.

kirby, I'm well aware of the racism up here. That's my point. We need to be open and honest about it moving forward. We ALL do. That's what history books are for. More people need to read history. I am seeing a great deal of racism still to this day, especially where it concerns President Obama. When does it stop?

Pat, I just see a lot of baseless accusations that opposition to Obama's policies constitutes racism. Democrats have turned Obama's election into an opportunity to play the race card against Republicans at every turn, as if they needed another reason.

Don't like health care reform? You're a racist.

Don't like Obama's policies? You're a racist.

You're a conservative Republican? You're a racist.

We're a racist country because we never had an African-American president. Now that we have one, you're a racist if you criticize him.

The only reason that you don't love President Obama is because you're a racist because otherwise, what's not to love?

It goes on and on from the fringe whackos on the left that to me are the equivalent of the potential fringe racists on the right.

I see it right here from said whackos on a daily basis.

When does it stop?

Ahh, yesss!!!!! Keep it coming pal !!!!!!!!!!!!

Yes, we disagree with this President's policies so we are racists!!! Keep believing that.

Yes, disagreeing with "policy" is code for "we are racists".

Evidence of that, Richard?

Evidence, Richard?

That's the difference between "fact" and "message", and remember, you've already claimed on this thread that it's OK to lie.

John:

It's just my opinion.

And I've never seen evidence as part of your opinions.

Disagree if you will.

You don't seem very interested in the fact that by your definition, you lie all the time.

Evidence can be found in your 6:02 post above.

Round and round and round we go.

You're an idiot John.

No Richard, I've repeatedly provided you with back up for my positions, something which you consistently refuse to do. You just reject anything that doesn't back up your own position. The Conservative narrative is more important to you than the facts.

Yes, Mr. President, thank you for helping Ramboet.

Beverly in Chicago: While you're at it Anthony Weiner could teach you a few things too.

It's doubful Weiner could teach a dog how to bark.

Beverly in Chicago: listen to what those on Wall Street said. It was said... "It is a sigh of relief".

Obama campaign slogan in 2008: "Yes We Can!!"

Obama campaign slogan in 2012: "It Could Have Been Worse"

But, Lady Smith, you are still acting like an "old harpy" the glass will always be half empty for you!!!

Let you tell everything is doom and gloom and the President's fault. I'll bet you wear everything black-- all black-- slips, dresses, blouses, skirts, stockings, and shoes .

Bev, I'm always surprised your comments don't get collapsed. But, then, I realize most people skip over your comments because they're so predictable. Name-calling, denigrating remarks and making outlandish, undocumented accusations against folks diminishes your arguments.

Where's Tyler when we need him? Why do we have to put up with this behavior over and over?

DIRT

Bev, I'm always surprised your comments don't get collapsed. But, then, I realize most people skip over your comments because they're so predictable. Name-calling, denigrating remarks and making outlandish, undocumented accusations against folks diminishes your arguments.

You mean like

Dangerfield's

You are absolutely right Beverly on all points.

And your name means putting testicles in your mouth, so why don't you change it to something less disgusting and offensive?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I could have dignified dangefield's remark; but I didn't. That's because I know you can't peg all people the same way even though Glenn Beck and Fox does it to you on the right everyday all day.

Where's Tyler when we need him? Why do we have to put up with this behavior over and over?

Here Beverly, try this one, hope it brightens your day!

Democrats campaign slogan for 2010: "Don't Worry. Be Happy!"

They'll sweep the elections with that one!

And how's those secret meetings with the Chicago police negotiating with the Chicago gang leaders going? Can't see how that can't be productive.

JoAnnaSmith1

Democrats campaign slogan for 2010: "Don't Worry. Be Happy!"

They'll sweep the elections with that one!

And how's those secret meetings with the Chicago police negotiating with the Chicago gang leaders going? Can't see how that can't be productive.

That Jo Anne, is much more optimistic. You're right you know if negotiations can happen with the Taliban, I see no difference there.

You should have listened to yourself when you said you can't peg people because if you "peg" me as being on the right, you're wrong. Just because I'm not uber left doesn't mean I'm uber right either!

To address yet another of your unfounded statements, I don't watch Glenn Beck. Furthermore, I don't need anybody or any party to tell me what I believe. I don't vote for a party; I vote my conscience and for the person I believe best for the job. Sometimes, the candidates and policies I support are from both sides.I believe that's how we get better government.

Once again, you've proven that hurling around unproven accusations does nothing but promote acrimony and mis-information. I heard a long time ago that if you can't make your case without using expletives and ugly names that shows ignorance. What an accurate statement that was.

Beverly in Chicago: That Jo Anne, is much more optimistic. You're right you know if negotiations can happen with the Taliban, I see no difference there.

I'm sure the Chicago police and the gang leaders are doing team building activities, like playing Twister.

Dirt-303814: Once again, you've proven that hurling around unproven accusations does nothing but promote acrimony and mis-information.

You know why the Left does that Dirt? It's the template they have for anyone that disagrees with them. It's easy to dismiss people that the Left disagrees with by calling them "Haters", "Tea Ba**ers", "Fox watchers", "Racists" and to say the people on the Right are just reciting "talking points". What it does is break it down to the lowest common denominator for them so they can easily dismiss any and all points that they disagree with. Demonize and dismiss, you see it everyday here. Yet, there are some on the Left here that are above that. Not many though.

dangerfield: Sad...

Isn't it? You dangerfield have just received a dose of the liberal double-standard. Some of the leftists that post here using that phrase, I doubt they even know they are being offensive, it's become part of their (limited) vocabulary. And what's worse it's entered the vocabulary for many of the talking heads that give us our news. So why would the Leftists around here bother to think of it as offensive?