Increase income.

(what a novel concept)

Actually dbo, it IS a novel concept for the GOPTP;

For example, the paper predicts that cutting the number of public employees would send highly skilled workers job hunting in the private sector, which in turn would lead to lower labor costs and increased employment. But “lowering labor costs” is economist-speak for lowering wages — does the GOP want to be in the position of advocating for lower wages for voters who work in the private sector?

http://www.nationaljournal.com/economy/gop-prescription-spending-cuts-and-lower-wages-equal-more-jobs-20110325

Yet somehow Conservatives disingenuously claim that there is no war on the middle class.

Increase income - from their own constituents? No way.

Come on Drive By - would you please pay more taxes, the CBC needs you cash.

And John if you think public sector folks will be able to compete in the private sector you are high. Charlie Rangel high.

kirby in idaho

So, Rep Cleaver, what is your plan? All the talking isn't cutting it so let us hear what you intend to do. Not what others aren't doing, rather what you think we should do aside from some more of those "shovel; ready jobs that weren't there the last stimulus.

Rep Cleaver. probably is in agreement with the CPC since there are African Americans in the Progressive Caucus

The PEOPLE'S Budget Plan From The Progressive Caucus:

• Eliminates the deficits and creates a surplus by 2021

• Puts America back to work with a “Make it in America” jobs program
• Protects the social safety net
• Ends the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq
• Is FAIR (Fixing America’s Inequality Responsibly)

What the proposal accomplishes:

• Primary budget balance by 2014.
• Budget surplus by 2021.
• Reduces public debt as a share of GDP to 64.1% by 2021, down 16.5 percentage points from
a baseline fully adjusted for both the doc fix and the AMT patch.
• Reduces deficits by $5.6 trillion over 2012-21, relative to this adjusted baseline.
• Outlays equal to 22.2% of GDP and revenue equal 22.3% of GDP by 2021.

http://cpc.grijalva.house.gov/index.cfm?sectionid=70&sectiontree=5,70

http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2011041512/peoples-budget-plan-progressive-caucus

Where is John Boeh-Air's plan? We know he hasn"t proUdced saved or created one job?

PolitiFact: Rick Scott's claim that stimulus didn't create jobs "Pants on Fire"

http://miamiherald.typepad.com/nakedpolitics/2010/09/politifact-rick-scotts-claim-that-stimulus-didnt-create-jobs-pants-on-fire.html

Read more: http://miamiherald.typepad.com/nakedpolitics/2010/09/politifact-rick-scotts-claim-that-stimulus-didnt-create-jobs-pants-on-fire.html#ixzz1OG2MEFcF

The "progressive caucus" plan is a joke created by buffoons. People who send pictures of their genitals to Twitter followers. Mentally terrified pompoids who believe they are chosen. The dregs of society.

Unrealistic and caustic. An economy destroyer. But, of course, you would support it because you support apathy and despotism.

Bev,

The plan you pasted is not a plan. It's a list of goals. How do they intend to accomplish these goals? By raising taxes? That's the only thing the Democrats know how to do.

Swampfox: your post was nothing but a personal attack. You have an ignore author flag, if you don't like what Bev and Feisty write....use it.

Newday - you appear to be defending Beverley and Feisty Redhead against personal attacks. It really calls into question if you have ever read anything either of them have posted here.

Certainly you understand that they are the absolute worst offenders of the Code of Conduct. Certainly you see that they rarely ever post anything that does not contain some type of an attack, and almost always it is personal.

So where do you get off calling anyone out on their behalf? By defending the indefensible you lose all credibility.

And John if you think public sector folks will be able to compete in the private sector you are high.

Read the link Spanky, it's REPUBLICANS who plan to drive down wages by forcing skilled workers out of public jobs into the private sector.

So we're in agreement that the Conservative Republican plan is a disaster in the making.

"The chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus said African-Americans are bearing the brunt of the slowing economy, given the unemployment rate for African-Americans is at 16.2%."

That's about 78% higher than the national average, but since the Black high school dropout rate is about 106% higher than White students, perhaps they should stay in school and get a basic education. It's even worse for Hispanics, who have a dropout rate that is 381% higher than Whites.

The link to verify this is at;

http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=16

PS - I'm sure some will call this 'racist', but we need to confront reality if we're going to solve serious problems.

John B, Des Moines, IA For example, the paper predicts that cutting the number of public employees would send highly skilled workers job hunting in the private sector, which in turn would lead to lower labor costs and increased employment."

So they would stop 'feeding at the public trough' of the taxpayers and actually go out and find jobs that pay what they are worth, and that's supposed to be a 'bad thing'?

I love bringing that plan into the conversation. I can always rely on Conservatives to pop up and confirm their belief that average Americans are overpaid and the wealthy elites deserve more.

You've confirmed that by standing up for a plan to cut the wages of ALL Americans in order to increase corporate profits.

Nope, Swampfox, I begin with you. Bev and Feisty bring important information to the table. If YOU don't like it, don't read it, enough said. I called you on a personal attack, and your only response is "but the other guy...." doesn't wash. If there is a standard of conduct that you want others to adhere to, then you adhere to it yourself. So far, you have brought NOTHING to this board.

Yes that would be like ummmmm blaming a past President for things happening nearly three years later.Blaming others is for losers and that's what we will be if we don't move forward and quit living in the past.

2012 Is NOT about Reagan Clinton Bush Carter this is about solving TODAYS crisis we can't rewind now,for good or bad. Losers continue to live in the past,Let's move forward.

Bev you could be so helpful but COLOR should never be the issue.

Newday, now all you have to do is apply your own words to yourself.

If YOU don't like what Swampfox, or anyone else writes don't read it.

It is in fact that simple.

So trying to prevent discussion you don't like. It is not for you to comment on what others have or have not brought tot he table. Just try acting like an adult.

Debbie Wasserman Schultz is a babina and a lying sack of sh!t, just like most Dems:

FACT CHECK: Democrats distort GOP Medicare plan

By CALVIN WOODWARD, Associated Press Calvin Woodward, Associated Press – Thu Jun 2, 12:50 pm ET

WASHINGTON – Democrats are distorting the fundamentals of a Republican plan to reshape Medicare, falsely accusing the GOP of pushing a proposal that tells the elderly "you're on your own" with health care and that lets insurers deny coverage to the sick.

Medicare always pushes hot buttons with voters. Both parties know this and spare no effort to exploit the issue, with truth as the frequent casualty. That's the case now as Democrats go after a far-reaching plan introduced by Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., and largely embraced by congressional Republicans.

The new chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee, Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, D-Fla., led the charge this week in an appearance on CBS' "Face the Nation." The DNC and its Republican counterpart are the primary money-raisers in politics and often temples of exaggeration as they convert controversy into cash for the campaigns.

A look at Wasserman Schultz's statements and how they compare with the facts:

___

WASSERMAN SCHULTZ: "They would take the people who are younger than 55 years old today and tell them: `You know what, you're on your own. Go and find private health insurance in the health care insurance market; we're going to throw you to the wolves and allow insurance companies to deny you coverage and drop you for pre-existing conditions. We're going to give you X amount of dollars, and you figure it out.'"

THE FACTS: First, the Ryan plan explicitly forbids insurance companies from denying coverage to anyone who qualifies for Medicare, including those who have pre-existing illnesses. Second, it does not merely send money to the elderly and leave them to their own devices in arranging for medical care.

The plan calls for Medicare to stay the same for people 55 and older. But starting in 2022, new beneficiaries would get their health insurance from competing private insurers instead of from the government. The government would offer subsidies to pay for the coverage and set standards that insurers must follow. One condition, says the plan, is that participating insurers "agree to offer insurance to all Medicare beneficiaries, to avoid cherry-picking and ensure that Medicare's sickest and highest-cost beneficiaries receive coverage."

Nor would the government merely send "X amount of dollars" to the elderly and let them figure out whether they can afford coverage. The subsidies would go to the plan selected by the beneficiary. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, in analyzing the plan, said it would not let insurers charge more to sick people. Premiums would be the same for everyone of the same age.

The Ryan plan raises plenty of questions about costs to the elderly over time and the adequacy of care. The Congressional Budget Office said future retirees would pay more under Ryan's plan than if they went into traditional Medicare. By 2030, a typical 65-year-old would be paying two-thirds of his or her health costs.

But Wasserman Schultz and some other Democrats who accuse the GOP of wanting to "end Medicare" have skipped past the complicated crux of that debate, instead attacking provisions that do not exist.

That is HYSTERICAL, muffintop. By the way, a good exercise program would help with that. I did not invite you into the conversation. Until I do, you are irrelevant. Frankly, I don't waste any time on what you write, since it is banal.

Now look who is making personal attacks. Thanks for highlighting my point Newday.

Of course like your friends Feisty and Beverly - you make personal attacks on people you don't know. You presume I am fat. That is very amusing.

Or is it projection? Whatever the case you have shown yourself to be as sad as Beverly and Feisty.

Fact of the matter is I called you out again on the thread immediately below, where again your friend Feisty showed her true colors, yet you failed to respond there. How very telling. How very sad.

Or maybe it is just a private conversation you are having in your own head. Sorry to advise you, this is a public forum.

swampfox6actual

newdayDAWNING10

Swampfox: your post was nothing but a personal attack. You have an ignore author flag, if you don't like what Bev and Feisty write....use it.

No NewDay, my post wasn't a personal attack as those offered daily from the two people mentioned. You have read both and know that they continually send verbal vomit to anyone that choose to. Do they deny it?

I am in total agreement with newday. If you don't like what you see use your ignore button and STHU instead making a personal attack such as the one below calling me a racist .

No, and does Miss Beverly accept and feel good with her comments about being a racist?

Racism certainly exists in America. Certainly, there is a hard core of our white fellow citizens who simply will not accept it still exists; particularly in the Republican Party and with most T-baggers since President Obama ascended to the Oval Office.

Even Michael Steele admitted it. Michael Steele the former RNC chairman acknowledged that the GOP has had a race-based “southern strategy” for four decades.

“For the last 40-plus years we had a 'Southern Strategy' that alienated many minority voters by focusing on the white male vote in the South"

http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/node/36581/print

She certainly states so.

I've never made that statement. You will have a difficult time backing that LIE. Perhaps, you are comfortable with the sting of racism I'm not. So until you can walk a mile in my shoes, I suggest you not only retract your lie; but also explain why it's acceptable to attack people when you do the same d@mn thing?

You are worst than Sarah Palin and Michelle Batwoman when you mash up reality and history.

However, with a moniker such as yours I understand since most FUX NEWS watchers are suffering from False Memory Syndrome which causes them to believe an event that did not happen.

Okay then, what would you do? Talk is cheap.

The Federal interstate system needs rebuilt in many areas of the country. There are dams in need of repair and levees that need rebuilding.

Or we can follow the the lead of England and Ireland and go for Austerity. Those economies are really growing fast.

Since the country's infrastructure is crumbling all around us, investing & rebuilding would be a good start!

It's a given that private sector jobs will not be coming back anytime soon!

They got the Bush Tax cuts extended and still REFUSE to hire so we might as well tax the crap out of them anyway!

And the money comes from where? The stimulus was supposed to provide jobs for all the "Shovel ready" projects and 2 years later we are still waiting.

And the money comes from where?

Start with the Bush tax cuts for the top 2 percent. Give back the money that they stole from the economy during the Wall Street implosion. Do something for someone other than themselves for a change. Despite their promises that giving them tax cuts would surely work, THEY haven't created any jobs, either, "shovel-ready" or otherwise. And NOW they say, that wasn't really their job -- NOW they say we need "demand" to create jobs. And just how do you suppose we can create any demand going when no one has a job?

Just how blind are you, anyway? Or are you part of that group that likes it this way?

First off, almost half of the stimulus was TAX cuts...

Second, the majority of the remainder was used to keep police, teachers & firemen from being laid off!

I don't know about ID but, here in IL we had a record amount of road work last summer and could use even more!

Then, there's the bridges that are collapsing, rail systems falling apart and so on.

I say it again, since the private sector refuses to hire, tax the crap out of them and use THAT money to keep the public sector employed!

So what are YOUR ideas kirby? Pretty quick to 'pooh pooh' others & I still haven't heard anything out of you... other than doing nothing...

Only 9% of the stimulus went for infrastructure projects.

Thanks Dennis - I can always count on you & JohnB for accurate figures!

But Dennis Obama clearly said "shovel ready jobs." he said it over and over and over again.

Too bad all that money went to state employees. Would have been nice if it had gone to shovel ready jobs. But the government is just too incompetent.

Fiesty - totally we should tax the crap out of "them." that ought to fix the jobs problem.

You so funny!

Isn't it sweet to see desperation and fear starting in the liberal ranks??

Obama is becoming more and more like political poison. Watch the show as the pathetic Democratic losers try to distance themselves from the biggest loser. They want to get re-elected too. They don't want to have to go home and look for one of those "shovel ready" jobs they know don't exist.

There are 22 Democrat Senators up for re-election this cycle. The Honorable Republican Party only needs a net win of three of those seats for the Senate to ascend to Republican control. I expect many more. Democrats, under their inept leadership, have worked themselves into a corner. Dammed if they do, and dammed if they don't.

To even attempt to divert America's attention from the Democrats promise of "creating" jobs only puts a bigger spotlight on their colossal failure as an administration. Millions of Americans who desperately need help are losing faith in the B.S. slogans. They can't eat slogans.

Many have lost their homes and their marriages. Their credit ratings are in the sewer. They feel useless, and betrayed by their "President". This is why even being referred to as a Democrat will be considered an insult.

This is why even being referred to as a Democrat will be considered an insult.

You got some serious delusions happening there Eddy!

I'm a PROUD LIBERAL Democrat!

Nothing insulting about it, I'll take being a democrat over a tea bagging self-absorbed, greedy bastard any day and twice on Sunday's! ;o)

The real desperation is coming from the right - they know they there is not ONE candidate out there who can beat President Obama!

By all means, keep running candidates like Sharon Angle & Christine O'Donnell and the rest of the baggers & birthers will ya?

Democrats will gain seats in the Senate!

As for the House - judging by the moods in the states, you better get used to saying Speaker Pelosi again! lol

Feisty,

I say it again, since the private sector refuses to hire, tax the crap out of them and use THAT money to keep the public sector employed!

What about the private sector, middle class and poor, nothing for them? Go Union, right?

What about the private sector, middle class and poor, nothing for them?

What ever are you talking about?

Private sector employees have been 'bent over' by the Gorden Gecko's of the country for years!

They go years without a cost of living raise, are forced to take unpaid furlough leave (while the owners collect bonuses at the end of the year), their co-pays for health insurance has gone through the roof, well you get the idea!

By the way, since when do YOU care about the middle class & poor?

Are you kidding? I consider myself middle class, and at one time I was very poor, so yes I do care.

What I was referring to, in your comment above you did not mention private sector jobs, you only addressed public sector jobs. That's it.

Correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't a large sum of money from the Obama stimulus allocated for shovel ready jobs

Try reading once in awhile, it's FUNdamental - see comment #3.7

You consider 9% a large sum? lol

Yeah, I hear you and in your world 3 inches = 6!

If you want to insinuate that because the President is from IL, we received MORE funding - you damn well better be able to back up that accusation!

In the meantime, I'll sit back and await your PROOF!

swampfox6actual

Feisty Redhead Roselle, IL

First off, almost half of the stimulus was TAX cuts...

Second, the majority of the remainder was used to keep police, teachers & firemen from being laid off!

I don't know about ID but, here in IL we had a record amount of road work last summer and could use even more!

Then, there's the bridges that are collapsing, rail systems falling apart and so on.

I say it again, since the private sector refuses to hire, tax the crap out of them and use THAT money to keep the public sector employed!

So what are YOUR ideas kirby? Pretty quick to 'pooh pooh' others & I still haven't heard anything out of you... other than doing nothing...

Madame,

Correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't a large sum of money from the Obama stimulus allocated for shovel ready jobs? And were these jobs dedicated to repairing the infrastructure? And didn't much of the funding go to this, but the local government used the funds to stimulate this local issues instead?

Where was the majority of money for tax cuts, the Obama tax credit extension? I don't see that as a stimulus program for shovel ready projects, that is a separate issue that the President passed on his watch. It is an Obama program. I didn't see any veto on the bill; didn't both parties pass it?

I am happy to see your state had money sent to it for these projects. My state could have also used funding for its programs. What state is Obama from again? And how many dollars were sent to IL to build your infrastructure and how many jobs were saved or gained?

• !

#3.14 - Fri Jun 3, 2011 6:09 PM CDT

It was stimulous money that alot of Republican states turned down. They wanted to use the money for their state deficit and that was against the conditions of the money, The GOP doesn't care about the infastruture or creating jobs.
In Iowa Branstadt tried to have the AMTRAC plan removed but it was thankfully voted down in the senate.
That would create jobs and tourism, as we sit on the Mississippi River
So you see , Feisty is correct

I can't blame Pres. Obama for trying. History clearly shows that in a similar circumstance, Hoover did nothing and it led to the Depression. So, Obama tried the stimulus. Where he went wrong is that he has the same supply-side bias that every President since Reagan has had. Obama sent the stimulus to the top, hoping the banks and all would put it back into the economy to trickle down to the rest of us. He should have bailed out the middle class, allowing folks to keep paying their mortgages and providing a demand for goods and services that would have allowed businesses that went bust to live on, thus saving the jobs that were lost. A demand-side stimulus would have helped everyone from bottom to top. That mistake is what can rightfully be blamed on the President.

Get the heck out of Iraq and start spending 10 billion a month to win our hearts and minds. Raise taxes, we gave them yet another chance to prove their trickle down voodoo economics, it does not work, it never has. They had a chance and wasted it on abortion, union busting, and killing medicare. We can kill the tax cuts, it would be the courageous thing to do, and they will thank us in the end or raise the debt ceiling. Businesses borrow all the time to re-position themselves into a more profitable mode. you would think the people who want to run the government like a business would know that much.

Next Democrats must mobilize themselves, their children and their neighbors, people are ready, they are sick of the republican attack on the middle class. Educate the young people, show them a video clip of the guy who laid their dad off, but takes a limo from the infield to the hot dog stand. Young people will send that stuff all over cyberspace, they have an innate sense of fairness, they are not entrenched in some ideology. More and more people see now that the republicans talk a good game but they never deliver. They went too far, they gave everything to the people who don't need it, and would not even throw a scrap or a bone to the working class. People see these gas prices and the fact that Republicans still protect big oil's 4 billion a year in corporate welfare on top of world record profits. Even the hardcore fox fans are realizing they are being played for chumps (Oh my God! Glen and Sean did not tell me they would screw me along with the evil democrats). People are ready to sweep them out as fast as they came in, just look at the dwindling number of republicans defending them on this site. People see them running joke candidates, they see the Gov of NJ cut them to the bone, but he lands in a chopper, and then has a limo drive his well fed fat ass across the infield, for a few innings of a high school ball game. Republican cheerleaders can bitch about Obama all they want but those are republican Governors and lawmakers pulling this crap and you know the old saying all politics is local. Even the tea party scared the crap out of themselves, with the Paul (Jim Jones) Ryan plan. The people in Joplin Mo. USED to vote almost exclusively republican, but they heard about that goofy punk Cantor telling his little story of how if you have a little family emergency you might have to spend the money you were saving for a new car to address it. So we need to make cuts (in technology that competes with big oil) before we can help you. That idiot has some gall to say that to people who absolutely lost everything including their loved ones, and believe me they know it, and they don't blame Obama, he was in Joplin with them. Tell the working people you know that might vote republican on a single issue the truth, tell them to stand up for themselves and their families and stop kissing cheaters asses and start kicking them by voting democrat. If republicans want to play games with voter ID's and such, start working now to make sure everybody you know that will vote democratic has their long form birth certificate or whatever it is they need in your district by election time. Boycott everything republican that you possibly can, and tell republican politicians I want to see you fail, my priority is to make sure you do not serve another term. The republicans can kick it in gear and do something or suffer whatever consequences we can bring to bear, the ball is in their court, not Obama's and more and more former republican voter's are realizing it. It's a shame it has to be this way but it is, it's always the same with bully's, until you stand up to them, and let them know you are willing to inflict a little pain of your own they never know when to stop. It's political head busting time, that's my plan.

Good god - so much libbie desperation and angst.

Next week is gonna be good.

Debts, deficits, taxes oh my. This is totally what Obama was looking to tackle. :)

Indy Lib is right the money was placed in the wrong hands, it should have been pumped at the bottom. although I question whether he could even have gotten past endless filibusters to implement it. But that was the mistake. Evidently too big to fail meant to rich not too be rich so we made them rich again and that was that. Had that money been placed in the hands of working people they would have paid their bills, bought their goods and services, and wall street would have gotten it back anyway just not so fast. I will say this about some of the shovel ready jobs some governors refused money because they did not want Obama's "socialism". The NJ project was ready, but the Governor punished the people of his state to prove what I don't know.

10 billion a month to win hearts and minds in Iraq is breaking hearts and blowing minds here in the US. 10 billion a month. We should take that money and spend it here on infrastruvture projects. No handing the money to the state governors. The federal government should determine the bid process, review the bids, hire local contractors, pay the local prevailing wages, and manage the project. This would put some money out there to start to create a little demand that small business so despartly needs. There isn't much money out there now and the oil and insurance companies are sucking up the lions share of what little people have left.

I will tell you that not as many people are blaming Obama as some here might think. Some will say he is a union guy he just loves Obama, but I'm telling you management is not blaming Obama as much as you think. Not the owners in the business I am involved in. Business owners were promised jobs too, they were counting on them they see what is going on in Congress and with some republican governors, and those republican policies and positions are punishing them, inadvertently maybe, unintentionally probably, but they are being punished just the same. The small business man (who republicans claim to support) is slowly being ground down to nothing. They see whats happening and they see who is responsible, to tell you the truth Obama might be the last man standing in DC after 2012 judging from the owners I deal with twice a month. They blame congress, they know how things work, they lobby too. They don't see Obama as the big reason why nobody has any money to spend with them or the reason nothing is happening. They sure as heck don't give a rats patootie about conservative social issues right now. They see jokes for presidential candidates, but they aren't laughing. They want action just like everybody else. The democrats did not focus on jobs immediately, and paid the price, the republicans got the nod and are making the same mistake, only worse they are lowering what little purchasing power people had left. They are going to pay the same price, if they don't get some movement. Congress is running out of time, and people are running out of everything. But don't be surprised if Obama is the last man standing after 2012, because the longer Congress plays their games, the less people blame him, and they are not going to replace him with any current republican presidential candidate.

Spanky if you really want to see some desperation and angst go to Joplin Mo. If desperation and angst tickles you, you will have a laugh riot, there is nothing but desperation and angst everywhere you look. But you really got to see the live show the TV version doesn't really do it justice. Bring Eric Cantor if you want the more the merrier.

Indi lib,

“Obama sent the stimulus to the top, hoping the banks and all would put it back into the economy to trickle down to the rest of us.”

I see things a little differently. 30% of the stimulus went for tax cuts for the average person and small business. Nearly half of the money went to Cities and States that allowed many middle class people to keep their jobs. Nearly 10% (should have been much more) went toward infrastructure which translates to middle class jobs. So by my account more than three-quarters of the stimulus funds went to help the middle class.

The stimulus funds just ran out so watch the unemployment figures this summer as Cities and States cut employees.

Newday - as you can see from this thread Feisty has made a number of personal attacks. Yet you have not admonished her.

Why is that Newday? Are you really that hypocritical? I sure looks like it.

Fascinating that Conservatives are working so hard to pin terms like "desperate" and "crying" on Liberals at this particular time...when around half a dozen GOPTP governors would fail to be elected again less than 6 months after taking office. When 6 Wisconsin GOPTP representatives are just over a month from a historic recall vote. When the Republican budget was as successful as the Hindenburg.

Karl Rove was wrong when he claimed Conservatives make their own reality...looks like they still haven't learned the lesson.

Dennis, your comment at 3.26 needs to add that the stimulus bill signed by Obama was nothing but a pork barrel 800 billion dollar fund that was mostly wasted. It is not the federal governments job to pay for police, firemen and teachers for states, cities and school districts. States and cities have the authority to raise taxes, if necessary, to pay for public safety. States and cities and special districts need to bring their own budgets into balance and quit relying on the federal government. Remember Clinton's 100 thousand cops on the streets, what happened when the money ran out, most were laid off because cities were not able to come up with the money to continue paying them. The tax cuts did no good because people did not spend on purchases but most paid down their credit cards or other debts. You keep saying 9% (in other posts) to 10% went for infrastructure, with a lot of government stings attached, but it did nothing to spur job growth. Also remember it was Obama and the democrats that said unemployment would not go above 8% because of the stimulus bill, the unemployment hasn't gone below 9% even when the government changed how they came up with the unemployment rate. As for the housing market that Obama has wasted billions on, it is now at 2002 levels. When are the liberals going to learn the government needs to let the market correct itself and stay out of the way. Let the foreclosures run their course and let the housing market correct itself, there has always been ups and downs in housing.

sfcret,

Actually IMO it is the responsibility of the Federal Government to protect the people of our country, be it from foreign enemies, starvation, or financial ruin and to help in time of devastation, be it caused by war, nature or financial. This action allowed Cities and States to keep their citizens safe with limited disruption while they figured out how to balance their budgets. Columbus did very well with our Democratic Mayor as the stimulus allowed us to pass the tax increases needed that took effect this Jan.

An immediate reduction in the workforce in the Cities and States most likely would have resulted in an unemployment of 15% or higher and could have put us in a depression. “States and cities have the authority to raise taxes, if necessary, to pay for public safety.” But you know that those actions can take 6 to 18 months to get passed and enacted. They didn’t have that much time.

Over half of the tax cuts went to small businesses so are you telling me that tax cuts to businesses doesn’t help? People didn’t spend the money just like they didn’t with the Bush refund checks because they were afraid of losing their jobs. It is the same reason that people still aren’t spending. As for that statement about the unemployment not going above 8%, it was walked back once the administration understood just how deep this recession truly was – and they didn’t try to hide their mistake.

“You keep saying 9% (in other posts) to 10% went for infrastructure, with a lot of government stings attached, but it did nothing to spur job growth.” You state this as if you don’t believe it – check it out at revovery.gov. Got anything to back that up because here it did a lot to create jobs or is just another one of your opinions?

As for the housing I can’t believe that most intelligent people didn’t question what was going on as property values were going up at twice the historical rate when compared to inflation. I saw it in the mid to
late 90’s.

Dennis, Nice try but you put to my faith in the responsibility of the federal government. The federal government is not responsible for taking care of cities, states and districts, that is the responsibility of the states, cities and local districts (schools, water, utilities, etc.,) they all have the means and rights to raise revenues to meet their own needs. The federal government is responsible for defending this country from foreign powers, interstate commerce, foreign trade, treaties etc.. It's the liberals idea that the federal government is responsible for just about everything that has gotten us into the trouble we are currently in. We have to quit relying on the federal government because once the government programs start they never seem to end. The federal government is way to big and involved in to many programs that are better left to local authorities.

As far as the stimulus please tell me how many permanent jobs it created and at what cost? Temporary tax cuts do not help nor does extending the Bush tax cuts for two years since most businesses plan their budgets for more than one or two years in advance. Businesses are not hiring because employers and consumers are losing confidence in this administration.

sfcret,

First I said IMO so you shouldn't say "nice try". It's my opinion not a try.

So in your opinion the Feds should not provide any disaster relief, right? Not even for NYC after 911?

The stimulus, in itself, was not intended to create any permanent jobs. It was supposed to jump start the economy. The recession was too deep and the citizens were too afraid to spend so it wasn't able to accomplish its goal. Also I will agree that the money wasn't used as wisely as it should have been. They should have put 50+% into infrastructure not 9%.

Dennis, I didn't say the government should not provide any disaster relief like NYC after 911. But I don't think they should be running every program in the country on the taxpayers dime. One thing wrong with most federal programs is they have one size fits all, and that doesn't work. You say the stimulus was intended to jump start the economy, but in my opinion it was nothing but a lot of spending on congressional pork projects for political capital only. The down turn in the economy does not constitute a natural disaster but a failure of our political leaders in Washington.

BTW I consider 911 as an enemy attack from abroad and not a internal disaster. I do think that they was a lot of fraud and waste in the way 911 and Katrina was handled, and like most government programs to big and costly. I believe we should have FEMA, but it should be ran by competent individuals and not political appointee hacks with no knowledge or idea of how to manage such an agency.

Sargent,

No, you didn’t eliminate disaster relief but you did not say that the Feds should provide relief to the States in what you said the Feds should be responsibility for. I just wanted to get a clarification. I agree about 911 being an attack on America I just wanted to see who you thought should pay to rebuild.

One size never fits all at any level. It won’t even work at a local community, not even at a single school. But there needs to be laws and policies that apply to vast numbers of people. You can apply this to the American constitution as it does not fit the needs of all Americans but we expect all Americans to believe in and adhere to it. This is also like the UCMJ. I find many things in it that I disagree with but I understand that they are there to serve the majority of our military men and women.

One size fits all doesn’t apply, it can’t and never will but we are a country of majority rule. The constitution, our laws, our programs, our institutions and our policies at all levels of Government are expected to fit the needs of the majority – not all.

Dennis, yes we are a country of majority rule, but the constitution, laws and programs and many policies are there for the benefit and legal rights of protecting all Americans, majority and minority. However, it does not mean, nor should it, that the federal government be involved in all aspects of people's lives.

Take the housing problem and the foreclosures mentioned in today's NYT, the best thing for the federal government to do is to stay out of the housing market. Let the foreclosures run their course and it will balance the housing market. The government admits that Obama's programs for saving people's homes did not work and has wasted a lot of money. Take a look at the government's "cash for clunkers" program, a costly and failed program that did more harm than good, especially for those in the "used car market." It appears this administration and the democrats in congress think that the answer to everything is just throw more and more money at the problem, instead of trying to correct the problem by letting the the private sector, and local authorities handle the problem. I have no problem with some government programs but feel that the American people have become to dependent upon the government, (federal, state and local) instead of relying on themselves. One major area I believe the federal government should stay out of is Education. The Department of Education is one department that could be completely eliminated as our schools have not improved.

Have a good day Dennis, I have to watch the NASCAR race now.

All well and good, sfcret, but where's the shared sacrifice? The federal government made the lenders whole back in 2008 and they're making record profits. Now all that's left for them is to take the homes of untold thousands of tax payers who, incidentally, paid the taxes that bailed out those lenders! Privatizing profit while socializing risk isn't the answer.

I understand keeping those lenders afloat (although I don't understand letting "too big to fail" continue) because the alternative was Great Depression 2.0. Government looked out for the interests of the nation, which is exactly the role of government.

What's in the best interest of the society now? Let's look at what happens if we just let all those mortgages fail. At least the lender resells that home for CURRENT market price and CURRENT market interest. Ironically the majority of all those mortgage holders who are in trouble could afford to keep their homes at current value and interest. Renegotiated mortgages would keep people who care in those homes and support the market value of entire neighborhoods.

One of those foreclosed homes is on my block. It has an outside stairway to the basement that's caving in, and periodically has had water in the basement. What's the value when the bank resells that one? Two blocks away another foreclosure has multiple broken windows, a big limb on the roof, and a fence that's falling apart. How much is that one worth to the bank? Another is just new ready for occupancy, it took months to fix it up after a year sitting empty and a sale at HALF the previous price. No coincidence that the value of my own property is down significantly.

So, what better serves the interests of society? For my money the answer would NOT be letting the banks who've sacrificed nothing take the homes of average Americans, hurting the chances of all of us to build value in our own homes in the process.

Hope you're you're enjoying the NASCAR race as much as I am. A couple of my favorites are doing well, a couple of others managed to avoid going a lap down before the first caution. That's life.

Afternoon John B, I was pleased with the NASCAR race results, glad to see a young driver win his first race. My favorite drivers finished 4th (Gordon) and 21st (M. Martin).

I don't really believe in shared sacrifice and I really didn't agree in the bank bail out but maybe in the long run it was best. But I don't think the government should bail out any businesses, that is why we have bankruptcy courts and laws.

As for your 3d paragraph, if we let these mortgages fail, real estate prices will continue to fall until the market corrects itself, which it will do as it has in the past. Home prices over the past 50 years have been like an yoyo, up and down. When buying a home it should be for living in and protection of your family but never as a money making investment. Really no different than buying a car, boat or other high priced item. As a retired real estate agent I have seen the results of foreclosures on neighborhoods, as I have on numerous occasions mowed the lawns of a couple foreclosed homes to try and keep the appearance of the neighborhood up. I have also seen people who were foreclosed on completely destroy the house when they left (taking appliances, breaking the plumbing, windows and vandalizing. These were mainly people that should not have been approved for a loan in the first place and no amount of government bail out would save them. Most homes that did get refinanced or loan modifications just ended up in foreclosure a few months later anyway. Another group of foreclosures are from owners that just walked away from the house because they were upside down and didn't feel they would recoup their investment, most were capable of making their monthly payments but decided to default. A lot of people lived in their homes without making any mortgage payments for up to a year since banks were behind on processing foreclosures. The home loan policies in the late 90s and early 2000s was a major factor in creating the housing market collapse. The housing market for the past 50 years has always had its ups and downs and will in the future. I am a firm believe that the housing market would be on its way to recover had the federal and state governments stayed out of it.

One other question I would like to ask and that is did you buy your home to make money or did you buy your home to live in and to take care of your family? If it was to make money, then maybe you should have invested in some other market. I believe my take is the government has a stake in helping with natural disasters or attacks from a foreign source, but the government should not be bailing out businesses, state, city and local governments.

Good Luck and I wish you well.

You the man Groucho have a good weekend.

See you Monday.

Spanky,

Going so soon? If you really are in San Diego that would mean you are leaving the office at about 3:00 p.m. your time.

What gives "my man"?

Wow 14 trillion I can see things are falling apart but I did not realize it was this bad.

We better start doing something, it is not going to repair itself. Since we are already borrowing 10 billion a month and blowing it in Iraq, we could start there, I now realize 10 billion a month is a tiny drop in the bucket, but however humble it is a start, and we could hire 200000 workers at $50000 a year, every month you did this. If we wanted jobs, and a tiny bit of infrastucture in the USA.

Hey, Feisty, Look at that! Another Feisty wannabe for your fan club. How you DO collect them m'dear!

Look at that! Another Feisty wannabe for your fan club.

Tell me about it! lol

I have to wonder if I'm as immaterial as they claim, then why I scare the crap out of them so? ;o)

It is funny to watch though, them begging for attention!

They've got nothing better to do than trolling for some Feisty attention! *yawn*

It's not about being material or even on topic, simple fact is Feisty, you make a perfect foil.

Indefensible as it may be for NewDay, you are perfect for many to USE. Fortunately you either crave attention, even bad attention, or don't understand that. If that is true, it is unfortunate for you.

But in any event have a happy Sunday. I see from the time stamps you are here every day. How nice for you. You must have a great deal of spare time.

Fancy That..

It's not just the GOP who are making a stand to keep carbon based energies in our furture, it's also the American public. Electric car sales are dismal. Think about it, drive the the new VOLT to work and if you need a charge, where's the charging station? If sales continue to decline they may stop producing electric cars until the support technology catches up with demand...which as I said was not even close to what was anticipated even with the tax incentives to buy the cars.

Seems like that to the American people, electric cars are like the metric system and soccer. Tough time catching on.

You are way off on this one Groucho sales for the Volt are exceeding production capabilities, they can't build them fast enough to fill orders. I am heavily involved in the Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Training Program, and at least a dozen electrical manufacturers have already produced quick charge station pedestals. You can charge the Volt with any standard outlet and an extension cord, that is standard equipment that comes with the vehicle, the pedestals allow a higher voltage and charge current, so it charges quicker. They are out there and will start to proliferate, In a year you will see the equipment available at home depot, although I would not recommend any homeowner to attempt to install a quick charge unit themselves. The volt has a small gas engine that runs a generator so even if you need a charge you will not be not be stranded, it will go 300+ miles on its 9 gallon gas tank. The volt was introduced in limited test markets and the public response has been better than anybody ever expected so much so that the utility's and electrical manufactures are slightly behind the curve. There are people driving half way across the country to buy them where they are available and then driving them home.

Forrest shhh, you're challenging the Conservative narrative.

You're making a valuable point regarding new technology...it's always more expensive with limited infrastructure and support. If we nurture these technologies and help them get ready for prime time those industries can feather our nest for a very long time.

Or we can let someone else do it and become a second class economy, stuck in the past and dependent on more forward-thinking nations for our new tech.

Why do think Cantor picked green tech monies to offset aid to Joplin, and why the volt is not available in Texas, two words, big oil.

Forrest Grump:

Don't know what your reading but the latest sales number for electric vehicles at the end of April were as follows:

"The cumulative North American sales of both the Chevrolet Volt and the Nissan Leaf as reported by their respective manufacturerers were:

The Leaf sold 573 units in April versus the Volt's 493. Compared to March's results, which had Leaf sales at 298 and Volt sales at 608, Nissan's electric hatch has gained some ground, while Chevy's plug-in lost some traction.

The latest cumulative U.S. sales totals for the plug-in duo, since launching in late 2010, has the Volt leading the pack with 2,029 units sold, while the Leaf comes in at 1,044. Year-to-date, Volt sales stand at 1,703.

These are NOT selling like hotcakes or, for that matter, to me seem to be selling at all.

While I respect your expertise in the industry and the technology that accompanies it, as a businessman, with sales so very low, I would want to cut or halt production until demand catches up.

They are NOT selling.

John B, Des Moines, IA

Forrest shhh, you're challenging the Conservative narrative.

That's not challenging any narrative. Google the sales figures, they are dismal.

I agree the new technology is important if we are to get off our dependence of oil but you can't blame the conservatives if people aren't buying it.

Like I said, like the metric system and soccer.

John B, Des Moines, IA

If we nurture these technologies and help them get ready for prime time those industries can feather our nest for a very long time.

...............................................................

Are you saying that it's the job of government to nurture these technologies? Hope not. Cause I don't remember reading anywhere that this function was their job.

I don't know what to tell you Groucho except the GM rep that I deal with says they are selling better than they expected and production is behind on orders plus the fact that they had a limited area where they were initially available. I can tell you the GM rep is thrilled with sales, and the way the electrical manufacturers are gearing up they think it is going to be big.

Note to any first responders out there (you might do a little research, and this info is available and will be distributed more widely as the number and variety of electric cars increase) you need to be aware of where you can safely cut these cars when extricating accident victims. Those are the type of things you don't necessarily think about but it is an important consideration.

There's also nothing in the Constitution to say the government is responsible for schools, or building roads, or railroads, or airports, or a bunch of other things--but they've been integral to our development as the largest economy in the world.

As far as the tech sector is concerned, the Internet upon which we're having this conversation was a government development. The space program in its heyday was a fantastic incubator of technologies that ended up providing highly profitable businesses and well-paying jobs for US citizens.

Nothing says we HAVE TO keep doing these things. Then again nothing says we have to continue being one of the world's leading economies.

seems like the tech sector is doing just fine. Al gore may have invented the internet, but Apple and the rest of the private companies are doing just fine on their own.

Why is that so hard to understand?

John B, Des Moines, IA

...and that my friend is why we are $15 trillion in debt. Private sector needs to invest in the private sector as they reap the profits. Private sector needs to hire people for tech jobs and they're not. Why should they be subsidized by our tax dollars. The business of government is government and not investment in electric cars. That's a discussion for another day.

Were in huge debt because we have been at war for ten years and we are collecting revenue at pre 1960 levels, If you went back to 1960 wages and 2012 prices who wouldn't be debt.

The private sector does not want to produce anything unless they think they will see huge profits, the private sector would have never put a man on the moon. If it was up to the private sector people in rural areas would still be without electricity because it is not profitable to run mile and miles of poles and wire to sell a little bit of electricity to a farmhouse. The private sector does not build national or state parks and the list goes on and on. If you depend solely on the private sector you will only have what is profitable and only so long as it is profitable. The private sector would not have developed the atomic bomb (good or bad thing maybe) but my point is that was the type of project that no one company could have or would have done. The government has been funding tech research ever since George Washington most of it was about developing better ways to kill people but without government involvement we would not have a lot of things we take for granted today. You know what else people today don't know what polio is or tuberculosis or a whole host of maladies that have been cured partly do government funded research.

Seems to me that's a pretty good reason for corporations to pay taxes instead of having 2/3 of them get out of paying corporate income tax altogether.

When republican governors restrict collective bargaining rights and simultaneously cuts taxes on buiness then the government is subsidizing the private sector

The same people who complain about unions, don't like the cost of medicare, or medicaid, or the thought of universal health care or the fact that people depend on SS when they retire. But they don't support unions. The good American companies and owners that bargain in good faith with their employee's pay decant wages and provide health benefits and real pension plans. The people that spent their careers working under decent collective bargaining agreements are not the ones sucking up social services. Why should everybody that has health insurance subsidize Wal-Mart employees, who don't have health benefits, and aren't paid enough to provide themselves with any. Not to mention a phony matching 401K for a retirement plan, they don't have anything to put in so they never have to match anything. The company deserves to make a good profit, but labor should get a fair slice of the pie they produce, I am not against profits I am all for profits, and I want an equitable share. Don't kid yourself the truth is when you support union busting, and the right to work for less and less and less laws, give huge tax breaks to extremely profitable companies paid for by labor (GE paid no taxes but everybody that works there does), then the government winds up subsidizing the private sector. Because these are the people who have nothing the minute they stop working, and immediately need social services. This has been going on since Reagen and except for a brief respite during the Clinton administration middle class purchasing power has been in decline. I'm no economist but what the hell else can possibly happen when you support the company paying less of its profits to its employees and simultaneously less of its profits to the government in form of taxes. For those of you waiting for this trickle down theory (fantasy) to kick in and make you better off, give it up, it is impossible, you tell me how business keeping all the profits and the workers paying all the bills makes you better off. I tell you what lets go on a treasure hunt, and when we find treasure I am going to keep all of it, and you are going to pay the all the expenses. How many times do we have to do that to make you rich.

Well said, Forrest. Worse yet, all the companies who do business the way you've described make it that much harder for other, more admirable business to be profitable. Companies who skimp on health insurance make it harder for other companies to provide decent insurance. Companies who pay wages so low their employees qualify for public assistance make it nearly impossible for competitors to pay a fair wage. Targeted tax breaks in effect INCREASE costs for companies that don't benefit from those same breaks. It's a never-ending cycle that can only end in poverty for nearly all Americans.

This is an example of how a multitude of businesses doing what appears to be in their own best interest can collectively destroy the US economy.

John her is an interesting little thing for you. The first electric car is credited to man from Des Moines IA, named William Morrison, in 1886, well I thought that was interesting.

I did not know that! Thanks for mentioning.

Magnets,

Right, I see that common misconception from the liberal left all the time. They actually believe a business exists solely to "provide" people with jobs. Like you would provide a tissue to someone with a runny nose. They have some vague concept that companies are inherently evil. Corporations are even more evil. Profit is a bad word, If a company is successful and makes more profit than normal, it is just greedy. It is "hoarding" wealth. They liberals remind me of misinformed, jealous children.

Never again will America stupidly elect a flaming liberal like Obama to such a high office.

I see an economic turn-around on the distant horizon. Sometime after the 2012 election, when we have a REAL President. Till then folks, we have to put up with what we've got in our White House, which isn't much.

The business of America is business. We have a political party that is standing in the way of progress. Once the remainder of them are booted out in 2012, we will be able to get down to business.

Want to talk about a misconception?

Magnets, Ed: your and apparently the teaparty/republican/conservative attitudes as expressed above show a true misconception. This entire group has become so adamant about partisanship and "having our way" as they did under W that they are WILLING TO DO HARM TO THIS NATION if it prevents our President from achieving successful accomplishments - all for political "talking points" and this is wrong!!!

Your MISCONCEPTIONS have distanced you from the American people; YOU ARE OUT OF TOUCH with us and too involved with your politics. It is WAY past time for Our public servants to do the job and stop knee-jerk stonewalling efforts to solve the country's problems. The House had better develop an open mind and start doing the job of legislating or they WILL see true mandates and "silent majority" in Nov. 2012. We middle class Americans are sick and tired of your childish partisan bickering and are not above firing those who won't or can't do the job in order to elect someone who can and will.

Sorry if that bursts your bubbles, but that is the way it is... we DO NOT want politics, just improvements!

KUDOS TO MR. CLEAVER; He understands what we - middle America - wants.

here here!!! Beautifully said.

NOT AS STUPID-- I agree about firing the people who don't do their job my fear is already started in 2010. Americans are not happy they spoke in 2010 I don't think people voted with just their party I think they just voted people OUT

Not necessarily, t4t. Midterms always trend more Conservative...these are folks that just vote more reliably and it's a habit Liberals would do well to learn. Republicans were an angry bunch last year and they turned out strong even for a midterm. Democrats had weak turnout last year, but not much more so than their usual midterm performance. Independents skewed toward the Right compared to the numbers from '06. Add to that the normal disadvantage of the party in power during midterm elections and an economy that was just a few minutes past apocalypse and it was a perfect storm.

2012 will be different. Presidential years trend more Democratic. Republicans won't have a "protest vote" potential because they're part of the power structure, and in fact the numbers show a public very upset with their performance so far. The economy will continue to recover through 2012 which always benefits a sitting President, in this case one who's popularity has stayed high in spite of 3 years of relentless Conservative attacks.

It'll all come down to "persuadable" Independents, themselves a subset of politically undeclared voters. Even among self-described Independents many actually have a firm political ideology that causes them to consistently vote Republican or Democratic.

Early signs all point toward a good year for Democrats.

that's what I have said over and over since Texas is requiring Photo id at the polls. If you require it then put it on the voter registration and let Texas pay for it.

Summertime - If our congress has the brightest minds in the country

That's a big if, many are bright, some are quite dim, they are all politicians, you get the votes you get the job. Perhaps along with residency and other such requirements it is time to add some educational requirements, maybe an IQ test, maybe a practical exam, maybe a Sat's exam for legislator's. We have a former Governor and VP candidate that recently said in reference to Paul Revere:

"He who warned, uh, the British that they weren’t going to be taking away our arms uh by ringing those bells and making sure as he’s riding his horse through town to send those warning shots and bells that we were going to be secure and we were going to be free and we were going to be armed"

Wow! Maybe politicians should at the very least be required to pass the same test that people applying for US citizenship must pass before their name goes on any ballot. Many professions and trades require board exams or licensing exams or some sort of practical exam to prove a level of proficiency, to protect the public from the unqualified, or just plain shady operators. We have plenty of laws to protect us from an unqualified plumber but none to protect us from unqualified politicians that create and enact the laws and policies of the nation. Go Figure.

Leona I don't think the lies all come from either one side of the isle! It is all a bunch of "The Sky is Falling" crap to buy them all time for the 2012 election.

but look at the benefit of putting millions of Americans back to work with good paying jobs, the tax base would skyrocket. Clinton and his Republican lead Congress did it together and they reported a surplus in deficit. They do need to scrutinize many/most of the programs that are wasteful and mismanaged but they also need to increase taxes for revenue. You can't run a business like that, cutting spending only makes you stagnant, cutting spending and increase income makes you profitable, putting people back to work and millions of more people paying taxes is how America was built.

Well Edward then you and President Obama do have something in common after all.

"What happened to Obama's "laser like focus" on creating jobs??"

I think you know... The GOP/teabaggers/wingnuts kill or oppose all efforts and ideas our leader endorses; at the very least, "amends" and changes it around to benefit themselves and their wealthy friends and supporters that it becomes ineffective [think national health care.]

Any more questions?

You know Robert, I am set for life.

I have two pensions, Social security, No debt, two annuities that I haven't touched, stocks, reits, and a fat Roth IRA. I don't much care what Obama does right now. Except I do feel some compassion for the average working man. I've been there. Difference is, when I was out there making my nest egg, there was plenty of decent paying jobs if you were ambitious and willing to work and learn. It's called opportunity.

I would hate to be a young married man trying to make ends meet in this economy. Horrible....no opportunity.

The public morale, the despair, that feeling of worthlessness, the lost homes, the broken marraiges, the broken dreams. This is what is going to be Obama's downfall. The average American is not dumb, he, or she, is not lazy. they simply lack the opportunity that was afforded to my generation. I remember when you were professionally trained by the company you worked for. the company valued your ambition and experience. In return, they got long term dedication and a great work ethic from their employees. It was a two way street. Now it's an unpaved alley.

Edward quote: "I remember when you were professionally trained by the company you worked for. the company valued your ambition and experience. In return, they got long term dedication and a great work ethic from their employees. It was a two way street. Now it's an unpaved alley"

So you ask yourself, WHY did things change? Pretty simple, actually ... Capitalistic GREED! ANd what brought on all this GREED ... "Supply-Side Economics" ... as more and more tax breaks have been given to Corporations & the Wealthy, the need to really create things has diminished. Why do you think that CEO pay has skyrocketed to over 400X the salaries of their employees? Why do you think the net wealth of the middleclass has shrunk by over 60% since 1980? Or why jobs are being created by these corporations OVERSEAS?

In 1986 I worked for a company called Georgia International ... the board gave the then-sitting CEO pay incentives to accomplish "profit gain". In the last quarter of the year, that CEO fired 2 whole departments (over 180 employees) so he could get his executive bonus for 1986. Then, in the 2nd quarter of the following year the company began restaffing the departments. I recall all those employees (some of which had been there 10-15 years) getting laid off because of a CEO that was focused on one thing ... getting his bonus.

That is what Trickle Down Economics creates ... rich people that will go to any link to get richer ... even putting their own mothers on the sidewalks.

Very true MacNfries. The traditional social compact between Capitalism and Democracy has been breaking down since the time of Reagan. Over time Capitalists have been able to do pretty much as they will in America--as long they are generous enough with their employees to keep the middle class healthy.

This bargain was perhaps most famously exemplified by Henry Ford, who once DOUBLED the pay of his factory workers. Ford was no Socialist (closer to a Nazi sympathizer during the pre-WWII period) but he realized it was in his best interest to pay his employees enough to purchase his cars--thus making him MORE money by increasing the size of the market.

Trickle Down Economics hurts the economy because it creates the opposite dynamic--a gradually impoverished middle class that begins to constrict the larger economy. It's a failed experiment and time to cast trickle down aside as the failure it's been proved to be.

opajack

groucho--you stupid ass! you know nothing about economics!
..........................................................................

Well, thanks for the lesson. Unfortunately there are no laws on the books that allow us to tax the top 2% of this country and the multinationals are paying what the IRC mandates. So with no extra cash, you wanna borrow the trillions needed? Seems like we're already paying 42 cents on the dollars for borrowing expenses. Why not raise that to half our revenue NOW. Great idea. The rest goes to defense and we have, well almost zero to run the country and pay for the entitlements.

Enjoyed the lesson.

Groucho how do feel about shifting some of the money now borrowed but spent on defense to rebuilding infrastructure. Nothing new on the tab just a shift of were it is spent. It has been a lot of years since I had an economics class but I remember an analogy about a nation could spend its money on guns or butter, and it seems to me we are about fresh out of butter.

Forrest Grump

Groucho how do feel about shifting some of the money now borrowed but spent on defense to rebuilding infrastructure.

Could not agree more. Defense has a bloated budget that can be reduced by multi-billions if not trillions. There's a fleet of F-22's that have never flown a combat mission and no one wants. Billions wasted. They're building F-35 engines that no one wants or asked for. Gates and the joint chiefs all want certain programs, these included, eliminated but Congress just keeps passing the legislation to keep them alive. No one wants to give up jobs related to these projects in their districts.

Sorry Nick the withdraw from Iraq was done in 2008, Obama has nothing to do with that. The DOD does need to be trimmed and so does entitlements. So we pull out of Afghanistan, what do you think will happen in 12 months?

Not true, 3WM. From Stripes in July, 2009;

U.S. troop levels in Iraq should drop to 120,000 by the end of the year, said Gen. Ray Odierno, commander of U.S. forces in Iraq.

"We want to make sure that we have enough forces on the ground to ensure good elections, legitimate and credible elections in January," Odierno told reporters on Tuesday.

Odierno said he will decide on troop strength in September and October.

"We have 131,000 [troops] on the ground," he said. "I expect we’ll be somewhere around 120,000 by December. But that could change, because I have some flexibility based on how things go here on the ground. ...

"After the elections are over and the government starts to get seated, we will reduce our presence further, probably going somewhere between 115 to 120 [thousand] down to 50,000."

U.S. combat troops are slated to leave Iraq by the end of August 2010. A smaller force is expected to remain until the end of 2011 to train Iraqi security forces.

All U.S. combat troops left Iraqi cities before Tuesday, the first major deadline in the U.S. withdrawal from Iraq. A relatively small number of troops will remain the cities to help Iraqi troops and police.

http://www.stripes.com/news/odierno-troop-levels-to-drop-to-120-000-1.93027