The very idea that Eric Cantor believes his bill becomes law if the Senate doesn't pass something proves that Eric Cantor has no idea how to govern nor does he have any idea of how a bill becomes a law--just saying something or putting it in writing and voting on it in the House does not make anything law. If that were true, Nancy Pelosi would have added that statement to every bill the House passed beginning Jan 2009.

Joe:

the best thing govt can do to foster job creation is get out of their way.

Oh, yeah? I think statistics, and the experience of the past 10 years, tells us otherwise. All too often, getting out of "their" way is merely giving "them" a license to hoard more wealth.

Tax breaks, for example, demonstrably do NOT create jobs. Just one example for you, Joe. This is the answer to those mega-corporations who are arguing for a tax holiday to repatriate their foreign profits because it will create jobs. We tried it, Joe, and it FAILED.

http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2011/03/14/oracles-catz-says-businesses-need-1-trillion-tax-holiday/

As Fortune noted last month, much of the money from the last major repatriation in 2004 was doled out to shareholders, and not, as planned, directed mainly at research and development or new hiring.

Of course, putting money into the hands of shareholders can be stimulative, too, but the repatriation shouldn't be thought of as $1 trillion spewing into the economy as if from a firehose.

According to a 2009 study by the Congressional Research Service, of the top 12 repatriating companies in 2004, 10 cut jobs between that time and the beginning of the recession in 2008. Hewlett-Packard (HPQ), for example, repatriated $14.5 billion, only to then lay off 14,500 workers.

Why did Hewlett-Packard lay off so many workers? Because they used their repatriated profits for merger and acquisition, which historically ends up losing jobs.

I love the title of that bill. Along with other ridiculous GOPTP titles such as "Repeal the job-killing healthcare reform law" bill it illustrates the absurd lengths Conservatives will go to in the name of Orwellian Doublespeak and outright attempted manipulation of the citizenry.

Anna Molly

Tax breaks, for example, demonstrably do NOT create jobs. Just one example for you, Joe. This is the answer to those mega-corporations who are arguing for a tax holiday to repatriate their foreign profits because it will create jobs. We tried it, Joe, and it FAILED.

Like most "cons", Joe is engaging in magical thinking, which is that if you wish hard enough, your dreams comes true. Joe can clap his hands until they're numb, but he's not going to bring this conservative Tinkerbell of back to life.

Agreed, Houston. What we need now is "practical magic."

Poor Tinkerbell. :(

"Oh, yeah? I think statistics, and the experience of the past 10 years, tells us otherwise."

________________________________

Most new jobs are created by small businesses, not multi-national businesses. The repatriation holiday issue does not impact them at all.

Next objection, counselor??

Next objection, counselor??

Lack of foundation. Where is your evidence, and if so, then why isn't small business creating jobs? They got the tax break extensions and the other tax concessions they wanted, didn't they?

Barney Frank was closer to the mark than Lawrence O'Donnell last night. Cantor knows perfectly well that all laws have to be approved by the Senate. Cantor's proposal is just a cheap political trick. If the House passes his "Government Shutdown Prevention Act," it of course will go nowhere in the Senate, and the Repubs will start claiming that the Democrats in the Senate voted against preventing government shutdowns. I don't think Cantor isn't an idiot like O'Donnell said, but he knows there are lots of idiots who will believe him.

All of you did note that the TARP bailout has now turned a profit for the US taxpayers.

I look forward to the 2012 election, when the Tea Baggers -Republicans take a major butt kicking out of office.

America's esteemed MSM (Liberal media i might add)jumped allover Sen, Schumer's OpenMike & put it in Print, yet The Majority Leader Eric Cantor, basically says The House is gonna perform a COUP & takeover the federal Government, & Notta Peep from the MSM.

It is truly SAD!

Who says they aren't??

Move to strike. Non-responsive.

Once again, where's your evidence?

But if you think that more jobs in the economy will "torture" me, you'd be wrong. I welcome that. I will also remind you, however, and since you have no evidence, either, that we are moving into the summer hiring season, which traditionally results in increased jobs. Whether that's enough, and whether it's sustained, remains to be seen. But I doubt it has anything to do with republicans being elected because so far they haven't done anything anywhere to create an atmosphere of anything other than fear and anxiety.

I also wonder how you square your speculation about job creation with the continued complaints by small business owners that they are unable to get financing for business expansion. I just spoke with one client yesterday whose entire industry (construction) is still flat, and who is unable to get any credit at all, without which she is continuing to lay off workers. So, without seeing your evidence, I do have some doubts about what you say, yes.

Heck, you haven't even linked current job growth, anemic as it is, to SMALL business.

Seriously? "provide facts. Here's my opinion with no data to back it up".

The economy went up sharply with the tax breaks. I had been unemployed for 18 months starting in 1999 and the same month those tax breaks went into effect I started getting calls for interviews.

All of you did note that the TARP bailout has now turned a profit for the US taxpayers.

Really? Then where's my check? I remember paying in, but all I got this year was another bill. That comment is like saying the bank took my savings and made a 40% profit on it "for me". Uh, no, that was for them. Obama's speech said something along the lines of "a sudden windfall of cash" when he started deciding how to spend the BORROWED $$ that was paid back. If I take out a loan for $2,000 and loan you $1,500, I'd be a fool to go buy a 50" TV when you paid me back rather than pay off the loan. The sad thing is, the far left is defending this type of behavior and calling for even more borrowing.

Joe, can I toss in an addendum to your point? I am constantly baffled at how the left will on one hand whine incessantly about jobs going overseas while on the other argue for a million new taxes, fees and regulations that increase the cost of doing business in this country which causes more jobs to go overseas. How do you kids reconcile these two diametrically opposite points in your minds cuz I don't get it.

The movement on the part of Congressional Democrats and the White House in the budget negotiations should come as a surprise to no one. The only surprise is that they've managed to stall the inevitable for as long as they have.

In the last couple of days Ezra Klein of the Washington Post and Chris Hayes of the Nation have both appeared on MSNBC to discuss the spin surrounding a possible government shut-down and who will be blamed if one occurs. They conclude there's no political upside for either party.

Both Klein and Hayes believe that Congress generally will be blamed...with Congressional Republicans and Democrats equally sharing condemnation. President Obama may be harmed least by a shutdown, but only because he isn't a member of Congress.

And...the wrangling over the budget for the remainder of the 2011 fiscal year is only the beginning.

Sixty-four U.S. Senators (32 Democrats, 32 Republicans) have written President Obama, imploring him to become more engaged in addressing the U.S. debt crisis, and a bipartisan group of Senators is attempting to craft legislation based on the Plan offered by the President's own debt commission.

This thing is just getting started.

if i am not mistaken the liberals in the senate did the same thing on the health care bill . sorry obama care. the house bill went to commity and that was suppose to be the bill they were to vote on. the senate bill did not go to commity . that was the bill they voted on.what is so funny nancy pelosie said we got to pass the bill to find out what is in it. now who is dumb? i cant believe you liberals believe everything they say .i watch them on c span if i wasnt clear headed i would believe every word they say.they lie so good i just laugh at them. and harry reed talks so softly it is like he is talking to a child.if i wasnt so upset how they are spending are money like it is theres i would think it was funny. but it is not a joke. this is serious . i dont know why you cant see this .is it all the free money you get? do you want to be chinas slaves? right this very moment china is laughing at us. now we are dumb wimps. the tarp bailout has turned a profit for the us tax payers that is a laugh ha ha.

Why is controlling government spending for the good of the country considered "caving"? For years, both parties have spent far beyond our means. Promises have been made to citizens that cannot be fulfilled. Everybody wanted more government projects in their district and state. We have reached a tipping point, and even our legislators are beginning to understand.

Locally, governors of both parties are cutting budgets. Local school boards in every state are trimming funds. Government at all levels has grown too large.

The $6 billion they are talking about is not even a decimal point in the big picture. We must reform entitlements, the military and the tax code. We need grownups in Washington that will make the hard choices. The sooner, the better. Slay all sacred cows now.

Suzy:

How do you kids reconcile these two diametrically opposite points in your minds cuz I don't get it.

Obviously you don't. When I was just a pup 25 or more years ago, I predicted that if you continued down a path where jobs went overseas while profits stayed home, instead of creating a climate where jobs stayed home, even if profits went overseas, you would end up where we are today. This was so easy to predict that it isn't funny.

It isn't "evil" regulation that drives corporations overseas. It's greed and the desire to avoid having to do anything that's inconsistent with that greed, even if doing that would protect the environment, enhance the quality or safety of products, or pay workers a decent wage. They go wherever they can get the cheapest deal, and damn the torpedoes. They will continue to go into third world countries and exploit their workforces and ruin the environment, until the incentives for doing that dry up. And then they will do the same thing here.

How do I know this? Too easy. Look around you. They've already begun.

Move to strike. Non-responsive.

___________________________

The judge: Overruled. Read the whole paragraph, counselor, and then move on.

"we are moving into the summer hiring season, which traditionally results in increased jobs."

The USDOL BLS adjusts the jobs number for seasonal variations like summer or Christmas seasonal hiring based on historical data. it's not perfect, but, it does factor out the wild variations pretty well.

"I also wonder how you square your speculation about job creation with the continued complaints by small business owners that they are unable to get financing for business expansion."

Todays WSJ has an article saying only 7% of the banks eligible to borrow money at 1%-5% from Barry's much touted $30 billion SBA Jobs Act passed last September have done so. Reasons cited by the banks include little demand for loans by small business, difficulty finding credit-worthy applicants due to more stringent govt lending regulations and the bureaucratic paperwork nighmare borrowing from the feds causes.

Even in the best of economies, construction loans are considered near toxic waste by bankers, in this economy, no banker is going to risk the high probability of making an uncollectible construction loan.

If you want to go on believing that jobs are created by the Federal Jobs Bill Fairy instead of businesses, especially small businesses, be my guest.

The teaparty republicans have cried like babies since 2008, they would rather keep kicking and screaming than get Any thing done. You do not raise taxes or cut spending during a economic down turn as survere as this one. Yes both add to the present deficit, but that is better thean a total depression. If the teaparty republicans were serious about the economic health of our country, they would fast track a jobs bill. If everyone is working, paying Taxes and buying, the rich get richer, those that had have again, those without have a little. Caving is not what this is about, and teaparty and the word patriot are a big lie. The teaparty republicans main concern is for the President to fail, if the president fails from digging out from the republican economic collaspe the whole country FAILS.

Anna Molly,

Thought I would help a little.

In February 2011, --192,000 new jobs were created, according to the BLS.

Nonfarm payroll employment increased by 192,000 in February, and the unemployment
rate was little changed at 8.9 percent, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics re-
ported today. Job gains occurred in manufacturing, construction, professional and
business services, health care, and transportation and warehousing.

I look at the last sentence and think, how many of those are from major corporations. Manufacturing & warehousing might be a couple, but a lot of construction, professional/business services, health care, & transportation companies are smaller businesses.

Which in theory means that the small businesses are putting people back to work. Maybe our government should start looking at how Clinton started getting surpluses--great economy, plus cutting of 100K federal employees.

The judge: Overruled. Read the whole paragraph, counselor, and then move on.

Who died and made you judge?

Dismissal of the argument is the last defense of the defenseless. I read the whole paragraph, and it contains nothing responsive to my point. Maybe you should go back and read it without your blinders on.

Reasons cited by the banks include little demand for loans by small business, difficulty finding credit-worthy applicants due to more stringent govt lending regulations and the bureaucratic paperwork nighmare it causes. Even in the best of economies construction loans are considered near toxic waste, in this economy, no banker is going to risk the high probability of making an uncollectible construction loan.

And how does THIS prove YOUR point? Seems to me it proves mine. But you assume a fact that's certainly not in evidence, and that's that I approve everything President Obama has done so far. What you seem to miss is that I'm not happy with BOTH sides of this equation. Making false assumptions about liberals is so typical of conservatives.

By the way, I said my client's industry was construction. I didn't say she was a builder. She's not.

By the way, you've still failed to provide anything linking current job growth, such as it is, to SMALL business.

I rest my case. Really.

if the democrats cave in to tea party demands .. I can see no way for any of them to be reelected in 2012 .. once you turn on the middle class aand working poor you forfeit your chance to win them back .. they may not vote republican .. they may just stay away and not vote at all ... just goes to show you .. were all in this alone

Anna Molly, you seem ignorant as to the makeup of US workers.

52% of all US workers work for companies smaller than 500 employees

20% of all workers work for government entities

Less than 30% of all workers work for companies above 500 workers, and at least a third of them work for privatly held companies

That leaves about 20% working for S&P 2000 companies.

As to why they are not generating new jobs, no growth, too much uncertainty, and high cost of hiring and firing.

I am one of those less than 500ers, and I am NOT hiring until I feel I wont have to fire, because firing someone is VERY expensive and disturbing because in a small business, you not only know them, you know their family and friends too.

You really seem to be completely in the dark as to how this all works.

Suzy - good points, bravo.

Anna - Got the link proving your so called spot on prediction of 25 years ago? I have a prediction of my own, America will experience another recession by 2025.

Since you carried oin so well yesterday on being a "moonbat" how did your dinner party go?

To all...

Obamas dream budget for FY 2012 has included within it $73 billion/year in cuts to discretionary spending. Democrats are worried about the houses $61 billion in cuts to discretionary spending for FY 2011, why? Last i knew the number 73 was larger than 61.

Seems like the democrats are the obstructionists and nay sayers this time around.

Beverly in Chicago

True American-2367375

Bev....you certainly are OBSESSED with Glen Beck.....what's wrong? he speaks so much truth it's making your head explode? (if only)....It's really hard to fight the truth with your progressive propaganda, isn't it? I think i mentioned last week that Mr. beck has 10 people on his staff and mediamatters employees 90 people whos only jobs are to rebutt whatever he says....hmmm.....are you one of them?......

Ahhh, I see Beck is teaching you well. I heard Beck make that statement. Perhaps , if your Prophet of Doom, Glenn Beck, didn't state so many g-damn lies and falsehoods he wouldn't need 90 people fact checking him.

Personally, I think they need more.

Tell me do you really believe Dr. King didn't march with the unions? No single person made greater contributions toward the advancement of both the civil rights and labor movements than Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., who was killed while in Memphis to support striking sanitation workers trying to form a union.

http://www.seiu.org/2009/02/seiu-celebrates-black-history-it-was-march-10-1968-listen-to-martin-luther-king-jrs-speech-at-seiu-1.php

btw...I smell a buzz word there Bev...draconian cuts?..............lol

Well as long as it does not start wit a "b" and end with a "t" I'm in the clear; right?

Dennis, Columbus, Ohio "What the house has not passed, if fact not even proposed is a jobs bill."

The House HAS passed bills that would improve the economic outlook and might lead to more hiring, but Harry Reid in the Senate has declared them "Dead On Arrival", so complain about Harry Reid - the Republicans only have the House, not the Senate. The House seems to be doing their job, but Harry and the Democratic controlled Senate is stalling. The Budget process for fiscal year 2011 started over a year ago, and Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid had complete control of Congress for all of last year, but couldn't get around to their constitutional responsibility to pass a budget before the 2011 fiscal year started on October 1, 2010. Somehow, the Republicans in the House were able to pass a 2011 Budget within weeks of taking over in January, but Harry Reid still has it in his 'pocket'.

Try telling the 'whole story'.

american,

Two reasons: First we are still in economic recovery. Second by the time the fy2012 budget takes effect, in 6 months, the recovery will be stronger and tax receipts will be higher.

I rest my case. Really.

__________________________________

Me: Your honor, the prosecution rests and, based on their not proving their charges, I move for a summary judgement in favor of the defense.

The judge: Motion granted.

Roy,

“The House HAS passed bills that would improve the economic outlook and might lead to more hiring”

Name one!

Dear First Read,

I find your analysis the most insightful, but explain to me this: if the Republicans demand $61B in budget cuts, and the Democrats ostensibly want $0B, and the number reached is $33B, how have the Democrats caved?

How is a 3% cut in discretionary spending a loss, when discretionary spending was increased 17% under Obama?

Wouldn't that be the definition of a compromise? That is almost exactly halfway.

I think you guys need to stop reading Politico.

Um, we have already given millions to corporations via state tax cuts and federal tax loopholes, not to mention the big bank bailouts. Has this created more jobs? NO! The rich keep their riches, while the poorer get poorer. This philosophy does not work!!

Hi Anna,

I read through the posts you have made and I have two questions I was hoping you might answer for me. I suppose they are yes/no kind of questions, but I'd love it if you'd expand beyond that.

First, do you think that higher taxation and regulation of businesses, large or small, tends to cause more hiring all other things being equal?

Second, do you think there has ever been in human history a tax paid by any company, large or small, that wasn't collected by that company from the consumers of its products and/or services?

There is for the second question a possibility that a firm did mismanage its finances, get slapped with a massive tax bill it didn't plan for, and then go out of business without being able to recoup that tax consequence from customers, so if it's okay with you I'd like to exclude that possibility and confine my question to the millions of firms not in that category. But, even in that possible case the tax bill, if paid, would come out of assets likely created from business activity funded by consumers over time.

Regards,

Rich

Fiona, time to grow up and learn how things really work. Rich people do a lot of things with money, but the one thing the almost never do is KEEP it.

They invest it, making it available to businesses and people to borrow, they donate it, they loan it, they spend it, ALL of these things enrich the economy. But don't be surprised if you cut open every rich persons matteress and broke into every one of their safes and you come up empty.

Feisty Redhead Roselle, IL Comment collapsed by the community

Feisty Redhead Roselle, IL Comment collapsed by the community

Uh Oh! Looks like someone flunked ‘School House Rock'!

• The Last Word host Lawrence O'Donnell went after House Majority Leader Eric Cantor for, apparently, not knowing how a bill is made into law. Ever helpful, O'Donnell even opened his show by playing the famous and beloved "I'm Just a Bill" song [...]

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=7&ved=0CEgQFjAG&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.obamatwits.com%2Fpost%2F7828%2Flawrence-o-donnell-skewers-eric-cantor-instructs-him-how-bills-become-law.php&ei=7oCUTc_bNcy-0QGOzYXwCw&usg=AFQjCNEiIVwQWd5g8lj6czrmfXYvzHO3lg

Maybe it’s just me, but, shouldn’t the Majority Leader of the House of Representatives be erudite in the legislative process?

I mean is that TOO much to ASK?

Just a thought…?

It's not the collapses that get me, it's the lack of moderation on this board. Yesterday's comments were not restored, whether they were derogative statements from the Right Wing or facts and analyses of the actual article from us that have a conversation, it's nothing more than a smorgasbord of hatred and envy. Where is the restoration? Are they saying that collapsing comments is a good thing, that nothing matters here? If that's the case, the daily messages of hate from the Right will always be the visible.

I realize the Right act the way they do based on knuckle dragging, but I would think people that operate on a mindful level of forethought would at least consider the opportunity this forum presents and adjust it accordingly.

So do we wade in the mud like the TEA Baggers and begin collapsing? What does it accomplish?

Come on, guys . . . it's like the Repubs and Teabaggers say, we need to cut taxes on big business so that they can create more jobs.

You see, the secret is to cut spending so much that we can lower business taxes, that way the private sector business can hire more . . . What? GE paid ZERO taxes? Huh? They got money BACK from the government?

Perfect, we can use GE as an example. If they paid ZERO taxes then they obviously had the money to hire more . . . What? They laid off 1/5 of their US work force and sent those jobs overseas? So they DID NOT hire more?

Wait . . . I'm confused. The Republicans and Teabaggers told me that cutting the taxes on big business would create jobs. So ZERO taxes should create a ton of jobs. Why did they get rid of jobs?

Oh . . . I know, it was just GE. All the other corporations actually pay . . . What? 2/3rds of all big corporations pay ZERO taxes? Ok, this is getting ridiculous.

If what the Repubs and Teabaggers were saying is true, where are the jobs? If the majority of corporations are paying ZERO taxes, why are they not hiring. Come on, Repubs. You told us they would. So where is the proof? It's time to man-up and put your money where your mouth is.

Joe in Albany

I always have to laugh at the lefty liberal belief that jobs (besides govt do-nothing bureaucrat jobs) are created by govt jobs bills. Jobs are created by private sector businesses and the best thing govt can do to foster job creation is get out of their way.

LMAO Then you should tell your Republican candidates to STFU because all they've been saying is that Obama hasn't created jobs. Then when a jobs report does come out that favorable they try to take credit even though they have done absolutely nothing while they have been in control of the House to help create jobs.

As for your strike at those on the left to justify the stimulus, independent economist have already made the case that the stimulus did in fact save jobs and stopped the recession from going into a depression. It's only the right wing nuts like yourself that insist otherwise. Want to see the article?? Google "stimulus bill saved jobs" and read the first article. But I bet you will call USA Today a leftist newspaper. LMAO It's guys like you that keep comedians working and FOX in business.

THoughts from Cali,

I guess you are ignorant of the fact that I posted above, tha tonly 20% or so americans work for large corporations.

Until small business is confident of a future with less uncertainty, and until the recession is over, dont expect much hiring. Its really not that complicated.

Also, corporation dividends and capital gains are taxed at very high rates, and the losses form the recession are written off based on tax code written by Barney Frank. Talk to him! If a company has no profits to tax or has past losses to write off, and its legal, why would they not do that?

It seems like your thoughts are rather empty and bigoted.

ScoMata -

I guess you are ignorant to the fact that the small business landscape has changed. 20 years ago a small business would employ 10 - 15 people. Today, the majority of small companies are online businesses run by 1 or 2 people.

Trust me, I know PLENTY of small business owners who want their taxes reduced because THEY will make more profit. However, not a single one of them . . . NOT ONE . . . will hire an additional person. Because they do not need to. They can run their internet business all by themselves.

Welcome to 2011 buddy. Try to stay up-to-date with the times.

Larry ne3eds to look up the difference between OPINION and FACT.

He states people opinions as facts almost as much as MSNBC does. Pretty impressive.

Also Larry you might want to look up the difference between objective and subjective, because objective sources and statements seem to elude you.

Cali, you do not know what you are talking about. You can not support that statement with fact because you are simply making things up and depending you your bully tone to force me to accept your BS.

Unless you can provide a source, STFU.

The average annual revenue of a small business is 3.6 million dollars, hardly a web site dominated sector. Also, the term small business DOES NOT include home based or one person operations.

ScoMata1964

Fiona, time to grow up and learn how things really work. Rich people do a lot of things with money, but the one thing the almost never do is KEEP it.

They invest it, making it available to businesses and people to borrow, they donate it, they loan it, they spend it, ALL of these things enrich the economy. But don't be surprised if you cut open every rich persons matteress and broke into every one of their safes and you come up empty.

Yeah. They speculated on the housing market which caused the housing bubble that burst, they speculated on oil which caused the economy to collapse, and stick as much they can in gold which does nothing for the economy. They speculate in the stock market which does nothing to help business in reality. On top of that, they get a lower income tax rate than the guy that has children going to school while working a 9 to 5 job.

Loan the money for businesses to use?? What a joke. The interest rate is not high enough for them to put it in the bank for other people and businesses to borrow.

The only justice from all their speculation was Bernie Madoff.

The ONLY reason that we are spending more than is being taken in is because of the HUGE giveaways to Corporations and Banks and the lowered tax rates that Bush gave us. If we taxed the stock market even 5% per trade we would be swimming in money (some $24TRILLION a year income there) at the Government levels, but, Oh No, you cannot tax the Rich like that

LMAO Sounds like ScoMata has been listening to Glenn Beck. He is critical of other people's opinions but blows out BS with no proof and has the audacity to tell someone else that they don't know what they're talking about. Well. ScoMata, it's you that doesn't know what you're talking about. Every thing that comes from a Republican politician's mouth is an outright lie. How do I know?? Because they change their story every time they get in front of a camera. Another way to tell they are lying is they're moving their lips.

ScottMata:

I am one of those less than 500ers, and I am NOT hiring until I feel I wont have to fire, because firing someone is VERY expensive and disturbing because in a small business, you not only know them, you know their family and friends too.

You really seem to be completely in the dark as to how this all works.

I think not. In fact, I know EXACTLY how all this works, specifically because of my own job. And isn't that just like a republican to assume you know something about me.

Thanks for all the useful information, unsourced, of course, but MY point was, and still is, especially after reading what you wrote, that all the tax breaks in the world still haven't created jobs to the extent that everyone claims they will.

Nothing you have said changes that fundamental point.

Let me say this one more time, slowly. I. know. exactly. how. this. works.

And it's not working for the average person.

Rich:

First, do you think that higher taxation and regulation of businesses, large or small, tends to cause more hiring all other things being equal?

No. But regulation, in particular, provides us with safe and usable products, and when properly done, without too much damage to the environment. Higher taxation doesn't lead to more hiring because business owners, especially nowadays, are too focused on the bottom line and maximizing profit, rather than feeling any obligation to provide decent pay and benefits for employees. This ain't the old days, I freely admit it.

And I miss the old days. What's wrong with that?

Second, do you think there has ever been in human history a tax paid by any company, large or small, that wasn't collected by that company from the consumers of its products and/or services?

Most definitely not. And I get the drift, meaning that we pay higher prices because of corporate taxes. Of course, we do. And I'm even willing to accept that. But nowadays, corporations are trying to escape paying their taxes, too, and I doubt they'll be returning any of that differential to us in lower prices. So either way, we're screwed. Right?

ScoMata -

US Census Bureau . . . buddy boy. Look it up.

The majority of firms and establishments with less than 100 employees fall into the category of 1 - 4 employees. The internet is a wonderful thing, you can run your own business just by yourself, or with a few friends.

Also, look at the statistics under paid employees. Add up the TOTAL of all paid employees for businesses with 100+ employees (large firm or corporation), and then compare that to the TOTAL of all paid employees for businesses with less than 100 employees (small business).

I'll do the math for you . . . 68% of paid employees belong to companies with MORE THAN 100 employees. And 55% of paid employees belong to companies with MORE THAN 500 employees.

This all comes from the US Census Bureau, BEFORE the economy collapsed and people got laid off. So explain to me again how the majority of people are employed by small business?

Oh, but Fox News and the Republicans told you that . . . and they never lie.

It is well established that corporate taxes are passed onto consumers. So what? Consumers are the one's driving businesses out of the country because they want less expensive products, then they whine because the companies are leaving so they can have less expensive products. So funny.

Make it more expensive for compaies to do business and they will either leave of pass the cost onto you. You lose jobs or pay more for goods. Either way, you, the consumer, gets what you asked for.

Anna Molly, by God I think we've found something we might agree on...

Most definitely not. And I get the drift, meaning that we pay higher prices because of corporate taxes. Of course, we do. And I'm even willing to accept that. But nowadays, corporations are trying to escape paying their taxes, too, and I doubt they'll be returning any of that differential to us in lower prices. So either way, we're screwed. Right?

Yes, we are screwed either way. The question is who is screwed hardest and why. The answer is the current system screws those of us who pay taxes the hardest- the poor and middle class who have a zero tax liability benefit the most- they get lower prices on goods and services without having to "pay" for the tax breaks and loopholes the businesses take advantage of. So when you start restricting those breaks and closing the loopholes, it's the poor and middle class who will feel the pain the most- they will now be paying for something they've essentially gotten for free and if jobs are cut because the almighty profit is at stake, they are the ones who lose their jobs the fastest. I'm not saying this is right, it just is what it is, so can we at least agree that we need to be at least as cautious in closing loopholes and ending tax breaks as we do with spending cuts?

Hi Anna,

Thank you for your replies. I'm glad that you comprehend that higher taxes and regulations, in the abstract at least, do not lead to greater hiring by firms. And that firms get their tax payment monies from their customers. My point wasn't to suggest we should have no regulations--this would be just as disastrous as too much regulation, and we clearly are not at a point of no regulation in any event.

I think the debate trap we all fall into, and you see it in numerous posts above, is that companies need to pay, and pay more, so that we can continue to have our free (or freer) stuff without interruption. While you and I seem obviously to be on opposite sides of the political spectrum, it is helpful to me to see you say that higher taxes won't induce more firms to hire people, and that those taxes, if put into place, would be borne out by higher costs. Not just in prices, but there are other ways these costs manifest themselves, like hiring, benefits, wage growth, product quality, and so on.

So, if you don't mind answering another question it would be this: Why do you tend to support a political party, or a genre of political candidate, who promises if elected to do things you freely agree won't help create jobs and will drive up consumer costs? Do you think that the benefit of more governmental involvement that results would be worth the cost to you?

For what it's worth, I think a major reason we have as large and ineffectual government--at all levels really--as we now do is because more people than not think someone else is paying the taxes used to give them the free stuff they want, or they want for others. Yet you dispell this fantasy in your earlier post to me when you say you know costs will go up and hiring won't. So why do you think most liberals, perhaps the vast majority, and seemingly the vast majority of elected democrats, want to "raise taxes" on corporations? After all, you agree it doesn't help you, or me, since we pay it anyhow.

And lest you be tempted, I am not in favor of large corporations, or a defender of them. They exist because we, the voters, have allowed a system to be set up which encourages and subsidizes their existence. I just see no reason to try to hurt or punish them, particularly when, like you and I know, we are only screwing ourselves.

Regards,

Rich

ps--please tell me when that era existed when firms didn't try to maximize profits, or avoid taxes.

IMO, Anything that can be done to lower gov't spending is a good thing...just as long as it does not impact core programs...ie Education.....We cannot afford big gov't...It's not a DEM or REP thing...It's all about money...

ctdad, I don't see education as an enumerated power assigned to Congress, but I agree with you the federal government is too large and should be cut down in size, dramatically. I'm sure the people of your state, I'm assuming from your nickname it is Connecticut, are fully capable of financing their own educational system and in teaching the kids in your state without federal governance. I'm not so sure about my state, California!

I think that without federal involvement, which makes possible for our state leaders a gordian knot of excuses, voters in even my state might pay more attention to what our government is doing with the $300,000 plus we spend on average for every classroom in this state so that our kids can be taught what they are. Can we do this job at this level of proficiency for less money? I hope to heck so. Can we use this amount of money to do a much better job? I think so, again. But so long as our "leaders" in our states can always pawn off to the feds the failure, and the feds pawn it off to the states, then we are getting no where fast.

It could very well be that without a Department of Education that our states would each, individually, have more money to spend on educating kids, and would spend less on hiring administrators to track federal monies. I'm not sure about that, but what I am sure about is that your state, and mine really, can do the job as good or better without federal involvement.

Ditto for the Department of Commerce, and (but for the nuclear facilities it runs) the Department of Energy, and (but for interstate environmental concerns) the Environmental Protection Agency, and the list goes on and on. The problem is that whenever the topic of restraining spending comes up we have people like Schumer that label every idea "extremist", with promises that if not stopped we will all be dead. Remember democrats in Congress standing up to speak about how republicans want people to die?

How about this...we make every federal expenditure have within the bill authorizing it an explanation as to which clause of the constitution allows the feds to do what they want to spend the money on? This could stop, if Rep. Clyburn wasn't mistaken (the dem whip in the House), something more than half of all federal spending. Not a bad start I'd say.

Rich, let's get one thing clear, corporations pay taxes on profit not reinvested. If they reinvest the money it becomes tax deductible expenses. CEOs on the other hand that get multimillion dollar bonuses should pay their fair share. If they hold the stock options for 2 years or more they only pay 15% tax.

My problem is in dividends and capital gains that slip through the tax system at low or no taxes. Why would a billionaire like Warren Buffet, that lives a good life of luxury, pay less taxes than his secretary? (His words not mine) Because of loopholes that need to be eliminated. There's no way a person should dine in the best restaurants, ride in a chauffeured limousine, live in a multimillion dollar home, own a luxury yacht, and pay less taxes than someone working for him as a secretary. There is something wrong with the tax system that allows that to happen.

IMO what they have is a business arrangement where you wine and dine me today and deduct the money and I'll wine and dine you tomorrow and deduct the money. It's not right but it's legal and that is just one example. Middle class America takes the family out to dinner and nothing is deductible. Where is that fair and balanced taxation?

Hi Larry,

I'm not opposed to taxing all personal income, from whatever source derived. This would include dividends, which are currently taxed twice, once when the firm shows a net profit and then again when the stock owner gets the dividend. And it includes capital gains, but unless you truly want a short-term mentality behind every business decision you should want to at least index capital gains for inflation.

The business lunch/dinner deduction went out about 25 years ago, so I'm not sure where you are going with that, but if you mean a meal paid to whine and dine a prospect, then this is a business expense. You could make eating illegal if someone else pays for it, I suppose, but this kind of logical outcome to deny the expenditures you dislike is, I think, how this conversation came about in the first place. That is, knowing that you will pay the taxes for the firm, people of your political bent still want those firms taxed more. It's as if your left foot hurts because you shot it, so why not shoot your right foot to even the score?

No, what I want is a system where you have no say over HOW I spend my money (save for violations of law), and I have no say on HOW you spend your money. And a system where there is no business tax for firms to spend in ways you despise in order to get the deduction. How this idea that a business wants to spend a buck to save 34 cents remains a mystery to me, but I think the genesis of it might be in what you apparently see as a basic unfairness, and I see as basic envy. You want to punish them. Fine, but you are the one who pays the price, either with fewer jobs here, or higher prices here, or lower wages here, or some other negative consequence.

If we had a tax code where the tax payers were the voters (not that all voters must pay taxes) then I think we'd end up with wiser voters who consider the actual cost to them for the actual government they want, and all of this unproductive jealousy could be reduced.

At some point people who invest in businesses want to be paid, just like employees who work there want to be paid. Businesses do not forever reinvest profits in order to avoid taxes, though I agree this is one way to avoid taxes. But do this to excess and the only way to reap the benefits is through capital gains, and you want to deal those a tax rate blow. Why not just end this system where you think you should determine what is fair for other people to do, then you can live your life as you want, and they can waste all their money on lunch, dinner, and drinks for one another?

Hi Larry, sorry but I forgot to reply to one of your foundational points. Buffett has never said he pays less taxes than his secretary, he has said that he pays a lower tax rate. He does, in fact, pay far more than his secretary does in taxes. You do have a valid point about tax equity though. I wouldn't go to the area you were likely headed--that Buffett should pay a much higher rate than his secretary--and would instead argue that a flat rate is the fairest way to go.

If Buffett's claim that he pays a lower rate is true (and it depends on how you calculate this) then there is indeed a problem. I think the fact here is that Buffett is talking about his effective aggregate tax rate, which includes FICA (social security, medicare, and so on). See, what Buffett does is reinvest his profits, thereby avoiding the tax on them, until he takes them out far later as capital gains, where he can pay a lower rate. But isn't this the kind of method you suggested businesses follow in order to help create jobs? So I am not sure which of your comments to put weight in, the one where you want firms to reinvest in order to avoid taxes, and thereby create jobs, or the one where you want that avoidance itself to be penalized with higher taxes.

Either way I think my previous reply remains. Just tax all personal income at a flat rate without deductions, and end this silly, and all too often, petty jealousy fest our "leaders" have helped to instill in us.

Rich:

Why do you tend to support a political party, or a genre of political candidate, who promises if elected to do things you freely agree won't help create jobs and will drive up consumer costs? Do you think that the benefit of more governmental involvement that results would be worth the cost to you?

Are you kidding? Do you truly think that consumer costs are all that matters in life? Don't you think that there are some things worth paying for? Some values worth the cost?

You seem like a reasonable guy, but quite frankly, if you can't see that maximizing personal profits isn't the sole "raison d'etre," then we really don't have much common ground.

There was a time when we at least believed could do things as a society -- build a great interstate highway system or conquer space -- a time when people shared a common vision OTHER THAN lowering their personal tax liability. Those things cost money and people believed they were worth it. And regulations, like OSHA, for example, and wage and hour laws, and collective bargaining laws, and anti-discrimination laws, were considered important to protect average citizens from the excesses of power that we are seeing now. Sure they cost money, but that was when we shared values and cared about each other as much as we cared about ourselves.

You may think that economics is the only thing that matters in any political debate. And you're not alone, unfortunately. Nowadays people who have been polarized by the continuing drumbeat of hate politics have lost the sense of community that allowed this country to do great things, even when they cost money. Since the 1970s, lowering taxes and maximizing profits has somehow become the ONLY political agenda -- if you discount abortion and war. And in my view, neither one of those things is a legitimate political agenda because that agenda is built around the selfishness and greed of the few, at the expense of the many. And lowering taxes never was a political agenda -- it's merely a question of means, not ends.

If you and I agree on anything at all, I think you would have to take a look around at the state of things and agree that we are NOT better off for it. At least not better off as a society.

If you want to be like Brazil, where privileged class lives in gated communities, is afraid to go out, and exploits everyone else, then keep going, by all means.

Because, we're almost there.

Rich:

Just tax all personal income at a flat rate without deductions, and end this silly, and all too often, petty jealousy fest our "leaders" have helped to instill in us.

Easy to say, only it wouldn't, and you know it. The bottom feeders at the top of the food chain would just find new ways -- and plenty of incentive -- to hide their income. And in terms of "fairness," a ten percent tax rate, for example, applied to a person with a total income of $30,000 -- I picked that number because that is the kind of job that Wisconsin's business union touts as being the centerpiece of Walker's economic plan -- is a lot different in net effect from a ten percent tax rate applied to a personal income of $300,000, like the head of that business union (actually $341,000), or even more so to a person with a personal income of $3,000,000. The person who makes $30,000 will miss the $3,000 a lot more than the person who makes $3,000,000 will miss $300,000.

It's exactly that kind of simplistic, and if I may say so, self-serving, argument on which our current inequities in income are built. It sounds so good when you package it, Rich, but some of us see right through to the core of that.

A couple of points.

1. Democrats have done nothing to square the tax inequities - they continue to help rich people get richer.

2. Tax increases do not create jobs, and there is ample evidence that they kill private enterprise. Look up the Kennedy Luxury Tax - I think it was 1999 - another great example of the lie of taxes, and the complete failure of the CBO numbers to jive with reality.

Thoughts from cali, you really do not get it, no suprise. My company has ZERO employees now. How do we operate? We use union labor, and that labor is just an expense to us, not payroll. Temp workers and contractors are the same. You can have on or two employees, but if you are like us, and many businesses are, we employe dozens. Your statistics are meaningless in the real world.

Anna, you are so bitter and partisan i just feel sorry for you. You seem incapbable of discussing anything wouout partisan ranting and insults. Done with you.

Hi Anna,

I think you are ignoring a very powerful force that existed, and really no longer does exist, that allowed all the "shared values" you speak of. You must be talking about, though you haven't specified an era, about the post-WW2 period, up until (as you noted) sometime in the 1970s. It was easier to do all sorts of things we can't afford today when we were the world's almost sole remaining industrial force after that war. Aside from Australia, we were the only intact economy that mattered.

And so corporate management and political leaders, ever willing to take the easiest way out, were less than adamant about rejecting unstable social programs or employee benefits. In other words, the period you seem to think resulted from a common altruism was, instead, brought about by military success and the very vices, like personal greed, that you decry. I started my conversation with you about two very simple, I thought, questions. Do higher taxes help induce more hiring (we agree the answer is no, all other things equal), and do taxes charged to firms get passed along to customers (we agree yes, though the costs manifest themselves in a variety of ways).

What I want is a tax code that doesn't hide what you or I pay, regardless of what that amount is. Poor people who want higher taxes on businesses, you would agree I hope, are supporting a policy which will not lead to increased hiring (which would help them dramatically most people admit), and they are also likely to pay for those tax increases in a way very similar, but obscured by being embedded in prices/wages/benefits, etc, to the very tax code idea you reject--a flat tax. You can prove this to yourself by simply role playing out what you'd do as a "rich" person, or corporation, if your taxes were raised to give free stuff to others.

I think, and I hope I do not insult you by saying this, that you view the world as you wish it would be, that in this world firms sell products/services at lower costs than you are willing to pay, that they give generously and without reservation to the government so that programs you want can be funded, and that all of this, and more, is done because they should want to share your political and policy goals. But this nation was never intended to operate in this way, and in a world where tax rates matter, regulation schemes matter, wages matter, you simply cannot place too large a burden on firms without them altering their behavior.

What I want is for the very thing you claim to want--for us to reach some kind of national decision about our virtues, and our direction. My point is that the kind of arguments you are putting forward do not advance your goal at all, and that in fact what you advance is killing the very things you claim to believe in. Maybe with a direct and clear and visible tax system to finance our government we will decide to cut, and cut deeply. Personally I hope so. But the opposite could result as well, and your vision for the future of America could be effected. That people will vote to pay themselves as much as they can because like you they believe in giving to others.

This reality we live in today pits us against one another and is motivated by the worst instincts of man--jealousy, envy, and as you say greed. At some point the very economics you dismiss will have their say, and at that point I hope you are capable of taking care of yourself. But, until then, I will continue to support policies which actually lead us to that "shared values" vision you say you want.

Dennis of columbus - can't buy your argument of the economy being too weak.

After all $61 billion in cuts is just 4 tenths of the 2010 economy of $14+ trillion and the cuts (republican or obamas proposal) deal with discretionary (as in optional) cuts. It makes perfect sense to me that those being cut re-evaluate on how they spend and what they can do without. Don't even try to tell me that the private sector hasn't had to make adjustments from 2008 forward. Last year I could see the point in waiting. This year and beyond it is more like there is no better time than the present. Postponment just lets the politicians kick it down the road.

Even bernanke last month told congress that $61 billion in cuts would not have an adverse effect on the todays economy.

One can argue that the following will have an adverse effect on the economy...

Civil unrest in North Africa and the middle east

Oil prices due to the above

European sovereign debt issues

Japanese parts shortages due to its recent quake and tsunami

Ending of QE2 in June

FED increasing interest rates

Economies are not perfect mathematical entities, waiting for perfect conditions won't cut it.

The First Read reporting is vague and lacks information. But the MSM has picked their monthly narrative: Democrats are caving. Yet no one has specifics, nor does anyone know what is actually going on in meetings. But let's keep believing the media- which is now nothing more than pure entertainment.

Eric Cantor is a fool. Even my Constitution class laughed at his comment about the bill becoming law without passing the Senate. And the media lets him get away with it, except for O'Donnell.

I am beginning to think that along with the media, there is a majority of Americans who are just dumb.

q

LouisJ

I'll raise the roof to MSNBC caving in!

Raising the debt ceiling is a common practice in tough times however Bush left such a terrible mess in his wake that the waves crashed in so hard that it looked like a financial tsunami washed ashore.

I don't see how anyone could possibly justify not acting on anything short of further facing the Tax Revenue issue in an aggressive manner. The Republicans will say "Hell No!" when in fact it is a necessity. As more our fellow Americans return to work the willingness of the lawmakers to address the issue will be easier.

Republicans are not willing to give their positions up. They love the power they hold and if that means kicking the little guy in the kinickies while handing him an ice pack is the way to do it, then that's what they do. President Obama has been making decisions that may not be the most popular, but then again, being president is not a popular choice.

This TEA tastes bitter

Apparently people don't like the taste of the TEA Bag has to offer. CNN conducted a survey that says "Hell No!" to the TEA Party. They supposedly represent the portion of middle America run by the portion of rich America to placate the portion of extreme Americans. If you ask me, that sounds like a Republican platform to me.

And it seems that MSNBC is let down by Trump... Boo fraggin hoo. You guys give him publicity knowing darn well that he was not serious about running, he knows that the media and the Republican Base eat this Birther nonsense up like catnip. Stop popularizing the unpopular.

United We Stand, Divided We Fall

Beverly in Chicago

We’re Being Scammed

We’re Being Scammed

The Mad, Mad GOP/T-Baggers are all giddy that Schumer was heard on a phone call, unbeknownst to him that the caucus told him to call the T-Baggers extreme. Wow, can you believe that hypocrisy and desperation to the nth decree of the Mad GOP/T-Baggers?

The intelligence coming out of FOX NEWS is a joke beyond farcical proportions.

The second top Republican person in the House, Majority Whip Eric Cantor, told the American public a 'big whopper". Cantor said--- the so-called “Government Shutdown Prevention Act” will become the law of the land". Imagine that second top Republican person in the House, Cantor said the $61 billion budget, which is a joke and won’t go anywhere, that passed the House last month would go into effect even if the Senate rejects it and President Obama vetoes it; it will be the law of the land???

This is the very reason so many people can not take T-baggers seriously; and think the majority of them are dumb and stupid. A bill does not become a law without the 2 bodies of Congress passing it and the president’s signature. This revelation of that second top Republican person in the House is targeted for low information voters.

Oh, , that’s right the righties forgot about theier “Spin Doctor” Frank Luntz who fueled the “Government Take Over Lie”. Or the endless cycles of hearing “socialist” fueled by a Fox News executive, Bill Sammon, who boasted that he lied repeatedly during the closing days of the 2008 presidential campaign when he speculated on-air "about whether Barack Obama really advocated socialism." Sammon used his Fox position to engage in a campaign to tie Obama to "Marxists" and "socialism."

Would you prefer to believe the unrepeated bigoted liar, Sean Sanity about Planned Parenthood? Maybe Megan Kelly's lying obsession about the Black Panthers and Eric Holder is better

Glenn Beck the Prophet of Doom and top cuck conspirator and tells the T-baggers whose pupils can only see Glenn Beck’s chalkboard that the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King

Darrell Issa is channeling his inner Glenn Beck

GOP/T-Baggers are all giddy that Schumer was heard on a phone call, unbeknownst to him that the caucus told him to call the T-Baggers extreme. Wow, can you believe that hypocrisy and desperation to the nth decree.

The intelligence coming out of FOX NEWS is a joke beyond farcical proportions.

The second top Republican person in the House, Majority Whip Eric Cantor, told the American public a big whopper. Cantor said--- the so-called “Government Shutdown Prevention Act” will become the law of the land". imagine that second top Republican person in the House, Cantor said the $61 billion budget, which is a joke and won’t go anywhere, that passed the House last month would go into effect even if the Senate re rejects it and President Obama vetoes it; it will be the law of the land. This is the very reason so many people can not take T-baggers seriously; and think the majority of them are dumb and stupid. A bill does not become a law without the 2 bodies of Congress passing it and the president’s signature. This revelation of that second top Republican person in the House is target for low information voters.

Oh, , that’s right the righties forgot about theier “Spin Doctor” Frank Luntz who fueled the “Government Take Over Lie”. Or the endless cycles of hearing “socialist” fueled by a Fox News executive, Bill Sammon, who boasted that he lied repeatedly during the closing days of the 2008 presidential campaign when he speculated on-air "about whether Barack Obama really advocated socialism." Sammon used his Fox position to engage in a campaign to tie Obama to "Marxists" and "socialism."

Would you prefer to believe the unrepeated bigoted liar, Sean Sanity about Planned Parenthood?

Glenn Beck the Prophet of Doom and top cuck conspirator and tells the T-baggers whose pupils can only see Glenn Beck’s chalkboard that the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King

Darrell Issa is channeling his inner Glenn Beck

• 23

• !

#1.1 - Thu Mar 31, 2011 9:23 AM EDT

Feisty Redhead Roselle, IL

Uh Oh! Looks like someone flunked ‘School House Rock'!

• The Last Word host Lawrence O'Donnell went after House Majority Leader Eric Cantor for, apparently, not knowing how a bill is made into law. Ever helpful, O'Donnell even opened his show by playing the famous and beloved "I'm Just a Bill" song [...]

Maybe it’s just me, but, shouldn’t the Majority Leader of the House of Representatives be erudite in the legislative process?

I mean is that TOO much to ASK?

Just a thought…?

• 31

• !

#1.4 - Thu Mar 31, 2011 9:30 AM EDT

Beverly in Chicago

Apologies editing didn't save

Glenn Beck the Prophet of Doom and top cuck conspirator and tells the T-baggers whose pupils can only see Glenn Beck's chalkboard that the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King didn't march for the unions.

Darrell Issa is channeling his inner Glenn Beck with conspiracy theories.

Thanks Fletch2 - the collapse cowards are putting in some serious O/T around here these days! ;o)

LouisJ

Ironically, the TEA Party is benefitting the Democrats cause all the while crushing themselves. I watch with buttered popcorn.

Giggidy.

:^/

• 15
• !

#1.8 - Thu Mar 31, 2011 9:35 AM EDT

Beverly in Chicago

FR: "Caving in" is what it is alright. If these draconian cuts are passed the T-Baggies will have taken up back to the "hunter gather" Cavemen days.

• 15
• !

#1.9 - Thu Mar 31, 2011 9:38 AM EDT

Beverly in Chicago

Feisty Redhead Roselle, IL

Good Morning GF

Uh Oh! Looks like someone flunked ‘School House Rock'!

Aren't these T-baggers hilarious? They are so funny people could die laughing.

Let's see they want to cut

women's reproductive rights

education

deny school lunch programs

deny health insurance to under privileged kids

repeal/ defund healthcare

To me it seems that these Mad GOP/T-Baggers war on women's reproductive rights is so riddled with hypocrisy. They care so much about an unborn child; but, when the child is born--let it starve to death. They don't care if they deprive the child capacity to grow physically, emotionally and intelligently.

BTW: did you see that stupid @aa poster of the President about abortion on the South side the right wing nuts put up? It's in the Tribune Newspaper.

What a bunch of freedom lovers taking others freedom away

Fiesty....All in a days work : >)

Teachers know they make a difference. Having been there, I can attest to that. It's just too bad everyone else doesn't. Unfortunately, making a difference doesn't pay a mortgage or put kids through college. No one cuts you a break because you make a difference, and many people, like some we see out here, even refuse to acknowledge that you matter.

Ordinary people aren't losing THEIR exceptionalism. Incompetent, selfish, and unfocused government that allows the few to profit at the expense of the many, and cares nothing for what future generations may inherit because of our poor stewardship, is losing OUR exceptionalism.

Exactly Anna Molly Exactly. And good morning to one of the finest examples of Exceptionalism that we have around here

Teachers made the greatest difference in my life... definitely wasn't any old politician. And dag nabbit, I stand by that.

Giggidy

:^)

Thank you for the kind words, IR. I always look to you as one of the consciences of this little community, and so what you say means a lot to me. This was a real treat because I seldom arrive in time to comment meaningfully on your posts. If I could have picked one, it would have been this one.

You are both SPOT ON, today!

Bless you!

Anna Molly Finding myself somewhat tongue-tied all I can say simply is Thank You

And to my other Aces too

Excellent, IR. You hit it out of the park and thank you for reminding us that without teachers, none of us would be where we are today. Success is measured not by how far you've come but the distance from which you came.

We need more teachers like that. The reality is that we have too many who aren't. You can't apply "making a difference" to all of those teachers in New York who are tenured and cannot be fired, yet are declared incompetent to teach and get paid to sit in the "rubber rooms" all day. THOSE are the ones the independants and right are against in the teachers unions. MSNBC just conveniently leaves it out so they can slander more undecided voters and inadvertently repeat the 2010 elections again with all the name calling and childish behavior. If you don't know what I'm talking about, it shows you need to expand your horizons on reading more than just far left media. Your kids are sitting in school with teachers who impregnated students and other types of activities thanks to unions only looking out for their income and job security rather than the quality of education.

When I grew up, teachers weren't in unions and definitely weren't there for the $$. Some of the most influential people in my life were those teachers.

Feisty Redhead Roselle, IL Comment collapsed by the community

Uh Oh! Looks like someone flunked ‘School House Rock'!

• The Last Word host Lawrence O'Donnell went after House Majority Leader Eric Cantor for, apparently, not knowing how a bill is made into law. Ever helpful, O'Donnell even opened his show by playing the famous and beloved "I'm Just a Bill" song [...]

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=7&ved=0CEgQFjAG&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.obamatwits.com%2Fpost%2F7828%2Flawrence-o-donnell-skewers-eric-cantor-instructs-him-how-bills-become-law.php&ei=7oCUTc_bNcy-0QGOzYXwCw&usg=AFQjCNEiIVwQWd5g8lj6czrmfXYvzHO3lg

Maybe it’s just me, but, shouldn’t the Majority Leader of the House of Representatives be erudite in the legislative process?

I mean is that TOO much to ASK?

Just a thought…?

Well isn't that a wonderful, heartwarming paean to teachers. Looking back I do remember teachers just like that - there was one in the 3rd grade, 2 in the 5th grade, none in intermediate school and 3 in high school. All the rest of them I encountered weren't worth spit. And looking at the caliber of kids graduating high school nowadays it appears that there are even fewer teachers in the system today that "make a difference" to go along with their bloated benefit packages.

Allen folks that come around repeating that same old tripe make me tired.

I have been married to a teacher for over thirty years and consequently know many of the profession. Given that fact I would say to you that I don’t have to read anything. I’ve lived with it, slept next to it and had dinner with it.

So please do not come around me with your Bushra pretending that you have superior knowledge just because you can repeat some lines that you have heard somewhere from someone .

Come on back around one day when you can tell me something about a subject that you may have some reason to have that much basis of knowledge in.

All the rest of them I encountered weren't worth spit.

Well, someone isn't -- that's for sure. I highly doubt you could hold a candle to Mrs. IR.

And I sure do pity the teachers who had to put up with your disrespect. I used to encounter that myself, occasionally. Some hotdog kid who thought he knew everything -- usually it was a "he" -- girls tend to show more respect -- would tell me how easy my job was. And a couple of times, I let them try it -- even gave them my lesson plans, and they learned quickly that is isn't as easy as they thought. And after that, I had no more problems with disrespect.

I wouldn't have had any trouble with you, either, after the first five minutes.

Goes for you too C skeptic

Allen:

who are tenured and cannot be fired,

Allen, there IS no such thing. All tenure means is that you have to prove "just cause." There are just lazy and incompetent administrators and school boards who won't do the work. Taxpayers already have control over that.

DO YOUR JOB and stop blaming others for your own failure as a taxpayer to do it.

True Ugly American-2367375

"Some critics are saying that Palin won't last on Fox because she's an over-emotional woman who gets the facts wrong. But I disagree. It's working great for Glenn Beck, so she'll be fine." –Craig Ferguson

True Ugly American

"Fox News host Glenn Beck has lost over 30 sponsors since he called President Obama a racist. And the latest sponsor that he just lost is Clorox bleach. That's amazing. Even a company whose sole purpose is to make things whiter thinks Glenn Beck has gone too far." --Conan O'Brien

Fascinating the extent to which the entire Conservative Movement is just a big PR campaign. When you lift the hood you find a wheezy old 4 banger and a speaker that bellows V8 sounds. Why are so many of their prominent people liars? Because they HAVE TO BE. Death panels, secret Muslim, Birthers...it just goes on and on. GOP--the party of no credibility.

IR - You are quite the character trying so hard to discount anothers opinion and viewpoint, didn't your wife ever teach you about exceptionalism and how it come in many flavors. Independent indeed!!

Anna - did like your following comment but I cut off the last nine words, you got a little confused or I did. Regardless...

Ordinary people aren't losing THEIR exceptionalism. Incompetent, selfish, and unfocused government that allows the few to profit at the expense of the many, and cares nothing for what future generations may inherit ...

Since you stated it in such an open ended way, may I say that I agree with you to the following extents.

Our politicians (L&R), government if you will, has ignored our k-12 educational systems structural faults probably since the 70's by thinking that $$$ would solve all problems. Our decline in worldwide rankings have shown that ever increasing $$$ has done little to nothing.

As you say, exceptionalism is by individual choice and can never be taken away unless we choose to lose it or buy into the idea that we let others do our thinking.

Neither political party or president since eisenhower and in part kennedy and reagan has given the American public the desire to excel and achieve. Eisenhower had the interstate system, Kennedy the goal of a man on the moon and one up manship of the soviets in the race to space and Reagan for giving Americans hope in a better future after the malaise of the 70's.

Our future generations will inherit our debt or see the destruction of what we once knew to be America. To me the biggest lies today are "I am from the government, and I am hear to help you" and that "money is the root of all evil"

JohnB - good one...

When you lift the hood you find a wheezy old 4 banger and a speaker that bellows V8 sounds

It keeps our minds focused on what we wish to have without government interference or handouts. better to earn the prize than have someone from the government say "oh you poor thing, let me give you a $ for some bread and water". You sound like someone who has never set goals before.

It is so refreshing that you still consider yourself as a god and that liberalism is the one true path.

Good thing obama has finally followed the republican lead in realizing that business is the only one that can generate private sector jobs and that business is the taxpayers friend.

The ONLY reason that we are spending more than is being taken in is because of the HUGE giveaways to Corporations and Banks and the lowered tax rates that Bush gave us. If we taxed the stock market even 5% per trade we would be swimming in money (some $24TRILLION a year income there) at the Government levels, but, Oh No, you cannot tax the Rich like that

Anna Molly As long as we continue to think ALL teachers are wonderful we will never address part of the problem in the educational system today. I am in a position where I interview and hire quite frequently. I am continually astounded at the high number of college graduates (mind you some from the top schools) who can't spell properly or perform basic math. Yes there are wonderful teachers and professors but we can't ignore that the tenure situation and unions protect a lot of bad apples.

ksw,

Actually, instead of laying it at the feet of the Unions, why not lay it at the feet of the actual administrators who are not doing the firing that they should because if they fired people on their watch it would make the school look bad overall and thus reduce their chances at getting a yet juicier job further up the line? If the teachers are not performing it is up to the administrators to make that judgement, and they are not...too much work I guess, and if so, then why are they making the big bucks to begin with. I have seen a lot of not-so-good-teachers shunted aside into positions within the administrations, and THEY will not fire the bad teachers, knowing that THEY should have been fired in the first place, not given more power. THAT is the real problem, NOT the unions.

B. Honest I don't disagree with you entirely but have you ever tried to get rid of an inadequate teacher in a public school? It just doesn't happen unless the teacher is grossly negligent. My son-in-law, a teacher, recently was let go in lieu of a tenured, much less qualified, lower performing teacher.

Beverly in Chicago Comment collapsed by the community

Beverly in Chicago Comment collapsed by the community

The faux freedom lovers collapsed posts because they are afraid of being freed from the spell of FOX NOISE.

We’re Being Scammed

The Mad, Mad GOP/T-Baggers are all giddy that Schumer was heard on a phone call, unbeknownst to him that the caucus told him to call the T-Baggers extreme. Wow, can you believe that hypocrisy and desperation to the nth decree of the Mad GOP/T-Baggers?

The intelligence coming out of FOX NEWS is a joke beyond farcical proportions.

The second top Republican person in the House, Majority Whip Eric Cantor, told the American public a 'big whopper". Cantor said--- the so-called “Government Shutdown Prevention Act” will become the law of the land". Imagine that second top Republican person in the House, Cantor said the $61 billion budget, which is a joke and won’t go anywhere, that passed the House last month would go into effect even if the Senate rejects it and President Obama vetoes it; it will be the law of the land???

This is the very reason so many people can not take T-baggers seriously; and think the majority of them are dumb and stupid. A bill does not become a law without the 2 bodies of Congress passing it and the president’s signature. This revelation of that second top Republican person in the House is targeted for low information voters.

Oh, , that’s right the righties forgot about theier “Spin Doctor” Frank Luntz who fueled the “Government Take Over Lie”. Or the endless cycles of hearing “socialist” fueled by a Fox News executive, Bill Sammon, who boasted that he lied repeatedly during the closing days of the 2008 presidential campaign when he speculated on-air "about whether Barack Obama really advocated socialism." Sammon used his Fox position to engage in a campaign to tie Obama to "Marxists" and "socialism."

http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201103290059

http://mediamatters.org/blog/201103290006

Would you prefer to believe the unrepeated bigoted liar, Sean Sanity about Planned Parenthood? Maybe Megan Kelly's lying obsession about the Black Panthers and Eric Holder is better

Glenn Beck the Prophet of Doom and top cuck conspirator and tells the T-baggers whose pupils can only see Glenn Beck’s chalkboard that the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King

Darrell Issa is channeling his inner Glenn Beck

GOP/T-Baggers are all giddy that Schumer was heard on a phone call, unbeknownst to him that the caucus told him to call the T-Baggers extreme. Wow, can you believe that hypocrisy and desperation to the nth decree.

The intelligence coming out of FOX NEWS is a joke beyond farcical proportions.

The second top Republican person in the House, Majority Whip Eric Cantor, told the American public a big whopper. Cantor said--- the so-called “Government Shutdown Prevention Act” will become the law of the land". imagine that second top Republican person in the House, Cantor said the $61 billion budget, which is a joke and won’t go anywhere, that passed the House last month would go into effect even if the Senate re rejects it and President Obama vetoes it; it will be the law of the land. This is the very reason so many people can not take T-baggers seriously; and think the majority of them are dumb and stupid. A bill does not become a law without the 2 bodies of Congress passing it and the president’s signature. This revelation of that second top Republican person in the House is target for low information voters.

Oh, , that’s right the righties forgot about theier “Spin Doctor” Frank Luntz who fueled the “Government Take Over Lie”. Or the endless cycles of hearing “socialist” fueled by a Fox News executive, Bill Sammon, who boasted that he lied repeatedly during the closing days of the 2008 presidential campaign when he speculated on-air "about whether Barack Obama really advocated socialism." Sammon used his Fox position to engage in a campaign to tie Obama to "Marxists" and "socialism."

http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201103290059

http://mediamatters.org/blog/201103290006

Would you prefer to believe the unrepeated bigoted liar, Sean Sanity about Planned Parenthood?

Glenn Beck the Prophet of Doom and top cuck conspirator and tells the T-baggers whose pupils can only see Glenn Beck’s chalkboard that the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King didn't march for the unions

Darrell Issa is channeling his inner Glenn Beck with hid conspiracy theories.

2

!

#4.12 - Thu Mar 31, 2011 10:59 AM EDT

I grew up in a very wealthy neighborhood, and my mother teaches at a private school. This private ELEMENTARY school costs over $40k to attend . . . yes, parents are paying over $40k per child to send them to that school. Of course, these are families of CEOs (companies everyone here uses), politicians, and a few famous people.

Naturally, you would assume that these children are getting the best education possible. Unfortunately, you could not be further from the truth.

Remember, this is a PRIVATE school . . . meaning it is a business, and any good Republican will tell you what the #1 goal of a business is: Profit. So, when profits are down, the first thing the school does is look at costs, or teacher salaries. They routinely lay off the experienced and more expensive teachers, and hire fresh-out-of-college teachers for $30k a year. That's right . . . the children at this private school are being taught by the least experienced teachers on the market.

THEN, because private schools need to keep the revenue coming in, they tell the teachers to go easy on the kids. Make sure they get good grades so that the parents are happy and continue to pay. They don't even have the kids take standardized tests because they will score so low. However, I will admit that none of these kids will ever have to worry about getting a job, so it doesn't really matter.

Now you are probably thinking that is just one school . . . unfortunately you are wrong. Having family members work in the private education sector, I can tell you that this happens in the majority of private schools. The overly conservative, highly Republican area I grew up in blindly holds to the belief that running a school like a business will produce the best education. Ironically, like a business, their children are being taught by the lowest bidder (cheapest and least experienced teachers) just so they can increase profits.

Having first hand knowledge of the way private schools are run, I can tell you that the Republican idea of moving all education to the private sector is NOT a good idea. The best, most experienced teachers, who have earned the higher salaries, will be passed over for a cheaper counterpart . . . all in the name of profit. Then they will go easy on your children, so you will have a false sense of pride when seeing their grades. Do you want an experienced teachers educating your children? Or the cheapest teacher on the market?

Thoughts from Cali, Here in MO you couldn't be further from the truth. My children attended both public then private school. I can attest that the private school had better test scores, higher graduation rate, less absences. It may just be your experience. Teachers also made less in some cases in the private school than the public school.

My kids also attend private school and there is NO WAY the school could maintain their generational endowments and prestige if they behaved this erratically. Each grade has 3 classes of students with two full time teachers and I assure you they are some of the most experienced and outstanding educators in this city.

Only in a profit driven world would someone accept 'risking' their child's education to cut costs.

Nicely done, John B, nicely done.

This definitely explains why we do not have any job bills coming from the House GOPers, even though they whined incessentally for 2 years about jobs when they were the minority party.

Looks like those who voted for the GOP/Tea partyers got hoodwinked.

Again.

You know, John, it's always amazing to me how republicans always suffer disconnect with regard to how cutting spending by slashing jobs will actually increase unemployment.

Or maybe, as you say, they just don't care. Heck, it creates a whole new pool of highly skilled workers who will be so desperate that they will gladly take those $30,000 jobs that Governor Walker and his cronies envision creating here in Wisconsin. And here's the proof of your theory, right from the horse's mouth.

http://host.madison.com/ct/business/biz_beat/article_98606c30-4511-11e0-9f5e-001cc4c03286.html

"If we can get government spending under control, we will send a signal that Wisconsin is a great place to expand a business and create jobs," says Jim Haney, WMC President & CEO.

"Achieving the Governor's goal of 250,000 new jobs, at an average of $30,000 per job, means Wisconsin will see $7.5 billion in new wages in the state. With those wages comes increased tax collections, and that is how Wisconsin will become more prosperous."

So, the plan here, as revealed by Haney, is LITERALLY to balance Wisconsin's budget by increasing tax collections on people who make $30,000 a year. And Haney wasn't really sure whether that would come with benefits, or not.

Now, Haney, who is BOSS of Wisconsin's business union, made $341,000 last year, including $98,800 in employer-paid benefits.

http://host.madison.com/ct/business/biz_beat/article_8595d11a-45bd-11e0-82bf-001cc4c002e0.html

Sort of warms your heart, doesn't it?

So true, Pietro. Chances are a plan that goes "We're going to put a whole bunch of people out of work and drive down wages, hoping that there will be enough for each of you to work 2" probably won't fly in the real world.

Isn't it strange, Anna, how someone who makes $40,000/year is making too much money, but someone making $40,000/hour is only paid at the appropriate market rate?

Great job, John B. I find it baffling that so many conservatives cannot see that the vast majority of them are not in the upper 2% and yet they support whole heartedly the policies of their leaders that will ensure they never will be in that 2%.

No matter how low average wages fall, not all the public sector workers that are fired are going to find new jobs in the private sector, so the Republicans would be increasing the net unemployment rate. Of course, they can always blame the misery they've created on Obama. It worked for them in 2010.

While I agree that the Republicans have been clueless and feckless in job creation, I think that there is a longer history to this than their current anti-unionism. WE DON'T MAKE PRODUCT IN THIS COUNTRY ANYMORE. Twenty years ago, when I was very active in business, my cronies were spouting the theory that our economy was maturing. It started as agrarian. moved through a phase of providing raw materials to industrialization, and exited the old-school manufacturing for high-tech and the information age. We would be, they said, the "service society."

Well, my friends, so we are. Former white-collar workers now wear white aprons and ask each other "would you like fries with that?" This is our fate because all our manufacturing has moved off-shore where the labor is cheap. We need to renew tangible manufacturing and excellence in services. Have you seen Inside Job? With our investment bankers the architects of the worldwide meltdown, I scarcely believe we will be the choice of champions for financial services in the future. A nondenominational assessment reveals that all presidents since Reagan, Obama included, are inside the Old Boy network and protecting it. Forget taking sides. We need a government overhaul. Give me ideas on how to achieve that, short of going Egyptian or Libyan.

I think that there is a longer history to this than their current anti-unionism. WE DON'T MAKE PRODUCT IN THIS COUNTRY ANYMORE.

And, in case we've forgotten, this is exactly how republicans destroyed PRIVATE SECTOR unions, beginning in the 1970s. They threatened to take jobs overseas in order to win concessions, which ended up making the unions superfluous, and then they took the jobs overseas anyway.

It's all a carefully woven soporific built on lies, built on lies, built on lies, over many, many years, until most sheeple were lulled to sleep and didn't know what hit them until it was too late.

now you liberals exspect the republicans to creat jobs. what is wrong the man you hired to be are president cant do his job. not many community organizers no how to organize. so i guess that is the problem. if i remember right clinton sent jobs over seas. so that means demicrats destroyed private sector jobs.

@John B

So why don't you come up with some business model that will produce millions of jobs....that pay great wages and benefits, that can only apply to the US and not be subject to the global market place.

I got news for you, every bodies wages are coming down because we have to compete against workers who work for less and we have a Federal Reserve who are printing money to hide the fact we're broke. Are there any ideas you have that don't involve taxpayer subsidies? How would you get all the textile and shipbuilding companies to return to the US. Maybe we could reopen Zenith?

Yesterday, Joanna in PA said I was a typical conservative because I asked if someone who had installed solar panels if they had recouped their capital and got a tax write-off. Well they're two years in and expect to recoup their capital in another four. However, we the taxpayer will never get our money back because the whole exercise is uneconomic. You can't legislate jobs.

Question: Did Bill Clinton pass a law that created the jobs under his administration or was he lucky because that was the time the internet boom occurred? (..and I liked Bill Clinton's administration but I'm stupid about cause and effect).

@AM I feel the same way about the capital repatriation as I do about the DREAM act and another immigrant amnesty....fool me once shame on me .......

A nondenominational assessment reveals that all presidents since Reagan, Obama included, are inside the Old Boy network and protecting it. Forget taking sides. We need a government overhaul. Give me ideas on how to achieve that, short of going Egyptian or Libyan

I'm afraid I no longer see a choice other than this. We MUST get big business out of our government before we're living in a third world country. And I can't see any way to do that without taking over and restructuring the government.

I'd like to see the governor of wisconsin go first. Such arrogance to lock the people of wisconsin our of their own political house. such arrogance to ignore the letter of the law. who do these people -- elected officials -- think they are? how do they imagine they can take what belongs to the people away from them like 19th century robber barons? how do they imagine the law does not apply to them?

Nice Alan...the world economy is tough, so Americans had better get used to living in the manner Malaysians have become accustomed to.

Pretty shining future the Republicans hold out for us, at least for the CEO class. Everyone else can just lump it and plan on living in a Dickensian novel.

So John, let me ask: Liberals like you love unions and complain that Repubs are taking jobs overseas. If I remember correctly, Clinton and Obama (along with Bush) have 'promoted' NAFTA and the concept of a 'world economy' that we need to compete in. So, a company/city has a union which demands 'paid' healthcare, pension, wage increases ect. Companies, in order to stay in business, must make a profit. With the cost of taxes, regulations, ect...they find in order to be 'competitive' and earn a profit for the business, they must move their business out of the country. Look at what Caterpillar(IL) is going to do. So give us you idea of how to solve the problem! People want higher wages, more benefits, lower cost of goods, ect. How do you accomplish this and allow companies to still make money to stay in business? And please try to be 'objective' as 'both parties' are to blame!

nice one johnb, more spin... lower labor costs does not mean lower wages, productivity increases will do more to lower costs and higher wages will be paid to those with the skill sets required to effect productivity.

Will our middle class decline? Only if we look at the libs idea of wanting to live in the past for anyone able to turn a screwdriver being equated with earning a high wage. Not much of a skill set there, is there?

Those choosing to not upgrade their skill sets will be left behind and face lower pay due to skills practically anyone can have and thereby experience more competition.

I find it interesting to note that increased government employment or simply maintaining a status quo is simply adding to the burden of the private sector taxpayers and to a lesser extent government employees as well

Debt reduction needs to be made across the board except SS (been raped enough by politicians). Discretionary spending needs to be cut as well by its very definition as it is optional, a gift if you will to its recipients.

Other than obama embracing the republicans ideal of business being our friends what do you recommend as alternatives?

Didn't you, US navy and perhaps even Dennis of columbus tout last year how those on unemployment were stimulating the economy by a factor of 1.65. Seems like a good stimulas plan. Laid off government worker will stimulate the economy while they are hawking their skill sets to potential employers. Looks like a win-win situation to me.

JohnB (post 5.12) - I see you still refuse in making any recommendations or offering any thoughts of your own to get the American economy rolling again. Nice to see that you let others do your thinking and that as long as there is a republican around blame them. So much for your "exceptionalism".

Alan, NJ - yes clinton inherited an economy starting to boom because of the tech boom of the 90's, he also rode its bust at the end of his term as well. Since we Americans seem to have a recession every 7 to 12 years, can't see where anyone can give credit to him for the boom or the bust

nice one johnb, more spin... lower labor costs does not mean lower wages, productivity increases will do more to lower costs and higher wages will be paid to those with the skill sets required to effect productivity.

Yes, increased productivity does lower labor costs. That is NOT what this is about, however. Quoting directly from the plan;

Decreasing the number and compensation of government workers

. Generally, government workers are well-educated and have significant skills. A smaller government workforce increases the available supply of educated, skilled workers for private firms, thus lowering labor costs.

http://www.speaker.gov/UploadedFiles/JEC_Jobs_Study.pdf

It's right there in the plan--create a large volume of new unemployed in order to depress wages. I've said it here repeatedly, the American middle class is nothing but an overpriced labor pool that Conservatives seek to beat down to the wage levels of Malaysia, India, or China.

Now there's proof.

Nashville_fan

And just how did you arrive at those numbers? Unemployment is still lingering over 9%. The jobs reports have been under 400,000 since Obama took office. It takes 400,000 new jobs/month to make headway against unemployment numbers, check out the economic guru's formulas on job creation. When Bush took office in 2001 unemployment was on the rise, the trend reversed in 2003 and went from the high of 6.4 % down to 4.6% by mid 2007 and hung there until the melt downs in late 07 and 08. Obama took office with an unemployment rate of 7.2% spent almost one trillion to stop it yet it grew to over 10% and has not decreased significantly since then. How can you logically say that Obama created more jobs? Liberal wishful thinking doesn't change the facts.

Yo nashville fan? What the hell have you been smoking. Talk about out to lunch another one who is so narrow minded they will NOT do there homework. And anyone with just a little common sense knows the enemployment rate is much more than 9% and real figure 18 to 21% also the under employed and those who have given up. So many leftwing nut jobs on here that only criticize and try place blame on everyone but there own party. its really difficult to find any comments on here with substance and intelligence just crybaby whinebags peeing in the wind.

Please Google these articles.

Bush On Jobs: The Worst Track Record On Record

"The Bush administration created about three million jobs (net) over its eight years, a fraction of the 23 million jobs created under President Bill Clinton‘s administration and only slightly better than President George H.W. Bush did in his four years in office."

and

Obama's Economic Stimulus Program Created Up to 3.3 Million Jobs, CBO Says

Pretty simple, no?

where do you get your news.? bush created more jobs then obama. and did not half to spend are taxpayer money to create them. you need to find a nother news source . because they are lieing to you. i forgot liberals cant think for them selves any ways. that is what the goverment is for.

@Nashville

Of course all semantics because the CBO did not say that President Obama created 3.3M, it actually says he created OR SAVED 3.3M jobs. So the first question would be what would GWB's number be if add in the OR SAVED criteria if in fact anybody before this administration used such a metric. Or what we could do is look at the actual payroll numbers for both presidents.

GWB start - 136,891M end - 145,362M net gain - 8,471M

BHO start - 145,362M end (May 2010) 139,420M net loss - 5,942M

So you can see up to May of last year the job figures are not as rosy as you suggest.

www.bls.gov

www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2543481/posts

vick, Nash put up her proof. If you disagree feel free to disprove her. Until then all anyone sees is your opinion followed by an insult.

When Bush took office in 2001 unemployment was on the rise, the trend reversed in 2003 and went from the high of 6.4 % down to 4.6% by mid 2007 and hung there until the melt downs in late 07 and 08.

I've got news for you, there are an awful lot of people who were cut out of unemployment who would dispute those figures. Perhaps you don't remember but I do. The Bush Regime refused to extend unemployment benefits and threw millions of people off the roles to make their numbers look better... or to give more money to BIG CORPORATE AMERICA at the expense of the unemployed. Be careful where you're slingin' you're bulls**t my friend. Many of us were there and we remember....

The beginning of the end for the middle class begin under reagan. When he took office on 1/20/1981 unemployment was 7.4% 22 months later it was 10.8%. Yes you guessed it, they just blamed President Carter. IN 2011 $'s reagan gave the Military Industrial Complex 1.2 Trillion $'s every year. On October 19 1987 ( black monday) the stock markets fell 24% that day. Reaganomics #1 failed just like Reaganomics 2 failed under bush jr. and Deficits don't matter cheney. How Are The Rich Going To Get Richer if we can not buy their products? Maybe China's middle class can.

Howdy Alan . . . long time no see!

A saved job is a job that is not adding to unemployment.

Regardless of how you look at it, the Stimulus bill stopped our economy from bleeding jobs. And President Bush, tax cuts and all, created the fewest jobs of any President in history. He only created 500,000 more jobs in 8 years than his father did in 4.

All while we implemented all the hair brained schemes that you all keep telling us is going to "create jobs" and "trickle down" to us.

The unemployment rate is going down, manufacturing jobs right here in the U.S. of A have been saved.

Republicans sent our jobs overseas to make an extra buck for themselves, leaving our country up the creek without a paddle. Then they use the media outlets they own to tell us that up is down and black is white.

Mark me unimpressed.

P.S. Remember this from 2008?

The U.S. Air Force sparked controversy with its February decision to award a $35 billion contract, one of the Pentagon’s largest, to French company European Aeronautic Defence & Space (commonly known as EADS) and American partner Northrop-Grumman (NOC). The move raised the issue of whether the military should be allowed to accept bids from foreign companies for defense contracts.

And this was all with the President Bush's blessing . . .

Remember when he tried to outsource port security to Dubai?

Come on Alan . . . Republican policies have DESTROYED U.S. manufacturing and jobs. Period. And now, folks wanna blame it on the guy who has been there for 2 years? Doesn't pass the smell test.

NAFTA destroyed manufacturing jobs in this country. 0bozo has just spent us into oblivion that our grand kids won't even be able to pay off.

Created or saved? The stimulus was just an instrument used to kick the can down the road. If that was the intent then yes it was a success.

Has for job creation, if you mean temporary jobs, once again, yes.

But to say it was has created 3.3 million jobs, that is not true. Look at the current events, states no longer have the stimulus money, and now they are forced to do what they should have done 2 years ago. This is way the unions are on over drive.

From day one, everyone one knew what the stimulus was designed to do. Now that the funds are running out, and the Federal and State Workers are on the chopping block just proves the case.

thetotas:

Saving GM wasn't a temporary solution. Investing in green energy is not a temporary solution.

What plans have the Republicans offered?

Keep pretending that tax cuts create jobs? Keep pretending that corporate crooks have not purchased our government and media, and are doing what is best for them, and not America?

You complain about the stimulus, but what do you suggest? Just let millions of folks be homeless because banks gave them crappy loans and the lost their jobs because greedy folk sent their jobs away to make ANOTHER billion?

Complaining is easy, doesn't solve any problems. however.

The ONLY reason that we are spending more than is being taken in is because of the HUGE giveaways to Corporations and Banks and the lowered tax rates that Bush gave us. If we taxed the stock market even 5% per trade we would be swimming in money (some $24TRILLION a year income there) at the Government levels, but, Oh No, you cannot tax the Rich like that

nashville fan President Clinton endorsed that port security deal with dubai

richard:

In the words of Dick Cheney:

So?

nashville, didn't we have this conversation earlier this year when I dug up the facts as reported by the US dept of labor on jobs created from perhaps oct 2009 to feb 2011. Guess I can go back and look.

B. honest, no, we are spending more, because government can't control what they think we want in perks or the demands made by foreign policy (or lack thereof) or even that historically the US has a recession evry 7 - 12 years.

yep, tax trades. that would work well considering we live in a global economy. Bet all those holding IRA's 401k's and pension plan managers would like that and the paperwork involved..

Why not just reduce spending to a sustainable level? You know like the poor folk do so that they don't run out of money before the end of the month.

Yep, Donald Trump is Rudy Guilianni - Lite (lite on brains, lite on truth, lite on accomplishments that didn't begin with seed money from pappy). He wouldn't know the first thing about Average Americans. He is a TOOL for the Corporate Mouthpiece.

Jody--- Smack! The Donald has been trumped!

Jody, this is the first time ever that I've agreed with anything you had to say.

Donald Trump is a joke, *shakes head sadly*

As for the CIA story you said

There is a time and place to report these stories but it is not during the early phases of any military operation.

I couldn't agree more KUDOS! When I see reports of things like this it makes me crazy.

Thank you Clara, Tom. That's good, trumping the Donald.

1SGFitzWife4ID, thank you, too--your comment is appreciated.

jody - got to agree with 1SGFitzWife4ID as well with respect to your CIA comments, intell has to come from somewhere, thanks for reminding us.

Your welcome. You have to laugh at how ridiculous the media conversation is right now.

Great post, Grand Moff---I don't think the Democrats are caving---they are compromising. It is not a battle for the extremes--their positions are solid. Rather, politics today is a battle for the people in the middle and those people want to see our government get something done.

We know you can't produce facts, now you produce stories? Too funny, hey at least it's your story and thanks for sharing. What was the point of this story again?

Amy,

I live and work amongst a bastion of Conservative 'Value' Voters and even THEY seem to think the morphed version of the TEA Party movement has gone off the rails.

Taxed Enough Already was a catchy little diddy; and then they allowed themselves to be commandeered by the BatSh!t Crazy wing of the 'establishment'. Their immediate assault on Teachers and Public Service workers has shown their 'true' values and it isn't sitting too well with the moderate to almost sane branch of the party.

But it is SO like Republicans to expect the Dems to clean up the mess of their polarized voting constituency.

Thanks for sharing!

Lots of buyers remorse out there, isn't there?

Great post, Amy, to remind us that those of us who hang out here are the political "junkies" while most people don't follow politics as closely as we do. I like to think that most of them are pursuing making a living in this difficult economy and that they will tune in as the 2012 election nears.

Sad and funny at the same time...I also know of quite a few democrats who constantly support Republican talking points...a little disinformation is a dangerous thing.

The buyer's remorse that I see is B.H. 0bama. The most recent polling shows 41% deserves to re-elected. His numbers keep going down. Nov 6 2012 gonna be a great day - Repubs retake Senate and the White House.

If you look at the actual numbers, and stop listening to Faux Neuz, the Repub/Tea party numbers are tanking FAST. It is going to be a landslide against the right and the Dems will hold House, Senate and the Presidency in 2013. Hopefully some of the SCOTUS benchwarmers will be impeached for their improprieties while on the bench, you know, taking corporate money and speaking at right wing gatherings, taking huge amounts of money for speaking...and then ruling in favor of the same right wing folks that paid them?? Couldn't happen to a nicer bunch!

B Honest,

Three months after he took office, Republican Governor LePage has a disapproval rate of 48%. Three months! Thank God he is on a vacation this week, but it wouldn't surprise me to hear he's busy insulting people in Jamaica.

And yet President Obama is STILL more popular than Reagan or Clinton at this point in their terms. http://www.gallup.com/poll/124922/Presidential-Approval-Center.aspx

I'm sure the Tea Party would gladly trade numbers with the President. http://blogs.reuters.com/frontrow/2011/03/30/as-tea-party-cranks-up-heat-on-congress-poll-shows-public-support-waning/

IMHO, may have been easier to Youtube it.

Yes and no Louis, having the lyrics in front of us works as well.Thanks, Steven.

Thank you, Steven. Words have power with or without music.

He's already lying eh? Oh welp, he'll never run... but then again we knew that the moment he said he considered running.

Giggidy.

:^/

Trump has the practiced ability to lie without getting tongue tied, that's the first qualification of a Conservative leader...maybe there's hope for him yet.

Next, he'll be trying to tell us that's his REAL hair and not road kill that he scooped up!

People! Understand this: TRUMP is not going to run for President. If he does, it will be a half hearted run just for publicity, then he will drop out.

The Democratic Party would have Trump for lunch if he ran. He may be a pompous ass but he isn't stupid when it comes to money or the Presidency.

Right John - and he wouldn't come close to winning the Repub nomination just like Palin, Bachman and Newt will not be the nominee - as much as the Dems would like it. Chris Christie, Mitch Daniels or Romney and several others can and will beat 0bama on Nov 6 2012. Libs are going into the 2012 elections with the same ??leadership?? team that got "shellacked," in 2010. 0bozo, Pelosi & Reid running things. Sweet.

The media is the only source ramping Reagan up. President Obama is acting on his own accord. Try not reading into it so much that you become manipulated by it.

Vito

As opposed to the double digit inflation, gas lines, and mediocrity of the carter administration? I think Reagan did much better, thank you. He may not have gotten everything right, but his policies did get us into much better shape than his predecessor. In Obama's case his policies have only made things worse and his obsession with telling the people what they want to hear is costing him badly. His adamant statements about bringing home troops from conflicts we are engaged in without knowing fully the situations was fool hardy and since have been replaced with realities. The same goes for Gitmo and the detainees there. He just hasn't really learned to engage his brain before sticking his foot in his mouth.

archangel, you're totally ignoring the OPEC oil embargo of 1973 and the "WIN" (Whip Inflation Now) campaign of President Ford. Stagflation was in fact a sticky problem that began well before President Carter's inauguration. The cure turned out to be a pretty lengthy period of extremely tight money supply which drove inflation even higher but stalled economic growth long enough to break the inflation cycle. This created a serious (though not as serious as 1974) recession at just the point when Carter was running for reelection and extending through the early Reagan Administration.

Reagan won because of the Iranian hostage crises and a economic dire staights. Reaganomics 1 and throwing in 2011 $'s 1.2 trillion $'s every year to the military industrial complex. Black Monday on october 19, 1987 the stock markets fell 24% that day. The picture of Rumfield and Saddam Hussain is priceless, since the U.S. was suppleing him in the Iran/ Iraq war. Then there is the trading with the enemy in the Iran/Contra deal. Weapons were sold to Iran ( the enemy) to support a illegal war in Guatamula (sp).Drugs were also sold to finance that war........... I think the gop hollers the loadest and points their finger so no one will notice or remember what they do.

You are absolutely correct. Most of us want to stay in denial, and the politicians are certainly not honest at all about fiscal stuff. The reality will sink in when the US goes completely in the toilet, not before.

Good post, by the way some Dems I know think the government has plenty of money and should open their other books that show the government really has an surplus, sound familiar, that's the way unions always think.

@ The Beev - so does that mean that we will FINALLY acknowledge with our declining Governmental revenues and put in place plans to deal with the deficit?

I have been for legislation that will either increase revenues and/or taxes with the EXPRESS instruction(s) that those increased revenues/taxes go DIRECTLY to defict reduction.

Do you think that America has the political will to do this - before it is too late?

Why am I not surprised to see believers in Eugenics as elected members of the GOPTP?

Brief history lesson in Eugenics:

Eugenics was the cutting edge idea of "progressives" in the 1920s. Planned Parenthood founder and liberal icon Margaret Sanger was very much in favor of it, she said the following:

On the purpose of birth control:
The purpose in promoting birth control was "to create a race of thoroughbreds," she wrote in the Birth Control Review, Nov. 1921

On blacks, immigrants and indigents:
"...human weeds,' 'reckless breeders,' 'spawning... human beings who never should have been born." Margaret Sanger, Pivot of Civilization, referring to immigrants and poor people

I don't think anyone with any sense would defend Sanger's beliefs on those points, Bob. Other than the name today's Progressive Movement has very little in common with the Progressives of 90 years ago. Much as the Civil Rights Republicans of 50 years ago wouldn't be welcome in today's GOPTP.

None of which changes the fact that it's the authoritarian Right which makes itself home for folks like Representative Harty.

Nice try, John B.

Liberal progressives of today have reclaimed the title of "progressive" from what it used to be, don't fool yourself. Anyone who thinks otherwise is severely out of touch with reality.

Really Bag? Find a Democrat currently in elected office who professes a belief in Eugenics as has Republican Harty.

Still believing the lies of "Liberal Fascism"?

Steve,

Puh-leeeze. It is YOUR credit card that YOU charged up with TAX BREAKS for oil companies, unfunded wars and entitlements.

It was REPUBLICANS who turned a surplus into a deficit, and now you wanna lecture some one?

Please STFU.

Thanks.

Yes, they are Really that Stupid,

They depend on that free Goberment obama Stash..........

Well give a little credit to the Republicans who are trying to fix it rather than the perpetual blaming of Bush statement that is has been used more than a Union boss' wallet at a democrat fund raiser.

Give a little credit Steve?

And yet you are the one calling folks stupid?

Tax cuts for the rich, a zero tax rate for corporations, no rights to collective bargain, corporations awarded rights of "free speech" by a paid off Supreme Court, wages dropping as the cost of living skyrockets, oil companies, nuclear plants, and coal mines completely ignoring what few laws we have to regulate them, and the media owned and operated by the same jacka$$es who are taking us all to the cleaners . . .

And you want a little credit for a few clowns who stand up and grandstand in Congress with no way of getting their already failed ideas through because they don't have the votes?

But I'm the stupid one?

Like I said, STFU.

Steve841

You are incorrigible. Take responsibility for the effects of the policies of the Republican President and Congress, would you, please? We are in debt because of two wars, tax cuts and a prescription drug benefit that Bush created. Those are undisputed facts, not someone's "opinion."

Your president had two full years of COMPLETE CONTROL ... all we have to show for it is exponential debt and health care reform that will kill the economy.

Sounds like real progress to me.

FOOLS!

Amy B.

Guess what Amy, the national debt has been growing since the 1950's after radical and necessary measures were taken to pay off the massive debt after WWII. Both parties are to blame not just one. Aside from all that is the refusal of liberal and progressives to see that you cannot continue to create social programs out of thin air which grow exponentially and have them go on forever! The recent attacks on collective bargaining are in relation to growing benefit packages that create long term un-financed debt. These burdens on top of increasing social spending obligations are driving our governments broke leaving the only alternatives as cutting necessary services or raising taxes. What everyone seems to forget in the debate over policy is that it can all change again if it doesn't work. Politicians, policies and promises can all be changed with the next election. It has become painfully obvious that we need to take drastic action on spending before it spirals any farther out of control. Even with immediate action it will take decades to clean up the mess. It will not be the result of one set of policies that brings us there, it will be changing policies locked all on the same goal. We may need to really tighten our belts for the present, but if the lesson has been learned then there is no reason to believe they cannot be loosened again in time.

The "corporate people" keep telling US that WE have to "tighten our belts", but THEY in fact NEVER tighten theirs.

I call bullsh!t.

Nice rewrite of history, Archangel. The Federal Debt would in fact have been long ago paid off if not for the supply side hoax perpetrated on us by Republican Conservatives;

This graph shows what happened since Oct. 1, 1981, the day Reagan started his first budget. First Reagan increased the debt by $1.9 Trillion (see for yourself). Then Bush brought that to $3.4 Trillion. Then all that started collected interest for the next 17 years, and with compounding that grew to $8.2 Trillion by Sept. 30, 2010. Clinton, Bush II and Obama are not to blame for that interest, and without it, Clinton would have paid off most of the $1 Trillion WWII debt that Reagan scared us with to get elected. And Bush II (and his supply siders) would have run up only $3.8 Trillion — not $6.1T, which is what actually happened under Bush II. (A clear proof of this with document links.)
Before the supply siders, Dems and Repubs brought the debt down relative to our income in 27 out of 35 years. The supply siders (with Reagan and the Bushes) raised it 20 out of 20 years. That's no accident.
The Supply-Sider's Hoax: Bush-I called it voodoo economics (but he got stuck with it). Their "theory" is that cutting taxes for the super rich will encourage them to work so much harder and make so much more money that they will pay more taxes, even though their tax rate went down. Well the voodoo didn't work in 20 out of 20 years.

http://zfacts.com/p/318.html

I have to agree with you Steve841......many people in the U.S. think they deserve free lunch, as the saying goes "their is no free lunch" someone has to pay for it at sometime......but the people keep believing the politicians that say i will give you this and i will give you that if you vote for me......these are the politicians that will say or do anything to get elected to benifit themself, but the people are so stupid they can't see it......just this year alone each persons share of the debt in this country will increase $6,000.......thats on top of the $45,000 per person that exists today.........and for all of you that wants to tax the rich, "Obama's definition of rich...$250,000 a yr."........when this segment of so-called wealth is eliminated, who will you get the $$$$$ from then????????

" many people in the U.S. think they deserve free lunch"

And those people work on Wall Street and live in places like Mar-a-Lago, Palm Beach, Florida.

Amy, B. if you think it's so easy to make big $$$$$ why aren't you doing it. That way you can get off of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program....otherwise known as Snap Stamps from the goverment....as you know, it's the new food stamps program....sounds so much better.....

Amy ... so typical. Get off the government nipple.

Both Republicans and Democrats are to blame.

Now, let those who are willing to fix it actually try. And trust me, it ain't the Democrats.

Yes, we have no bananas. It is time to quit spending and begin paying down our national debts.

Yet Republican Conservatives continue trying to give away everything and more that could be gained by spending cuts in the form of tax cuts. So much for Republicans being good fiscal stewards.

Fools.

It's not about "caving in".

It's about "we don't have the money."

And yet, Steven B, we STILL pay the John Boehners and the Eric Cantors in Congress. Didn't Speaker Boehner say that 'we are broke'?

Then answer this:

If we are so broke, why do we seem to ALWAYS find the money to pay the ones that say we are broke??

If we are so broke, why do we seem to ALWAYS find the money to pay the ones that say we are broke??

Oh, that's a good question!

I believe that the answer has something to do with the 'Golden Rule'.

"He who has the gold makes the rules".

I was reminded of this fact just today, and it was much to my regret.

Just like the corporate welfare Barack Obama gave to General Electric ... right?

Just like the corporate tax cuts that Repubs support and provided to GE that allows them to avoid paying taxes. There isn't a single Repub that will really talk about a flat tax because that would be the worst case scenario for businesses.

Steve841 , how did Obama give GE corporate welfare. They are using the tax code that was used by the Bush Admin. How is that Obama giving corporate welfare??

Corporate welfare is corporate welfare regardless if it occurs in a Republican, or now a Democratic administration. Until Congress (yes both Dems and Repubs) reign in the lobbyists it will continue. Of course when you talk welfare please add in ethanol subsidies, military hardware we no longer need etc. They all do it. Sanity and fiscal responsiblity need to be returned to Washington.

GE got bailout money. If you don't know that you shouldn't have anything to say here.

THIS IS WHERE I COME FOR ALL THE BEST UNINFORMED OPINIONS. Listen up, if you are uninformed or put your ideology before an open mind and logic then you are part of the problem.

verno .... it's called Green Tax Credits ...

Most folks on this site have no understanding at all of how government "actually" works.