Worst president in my lifetime, and that's saying something. If the country is idiotic enough to re-elect him, we richly deserve the collapse that follows.

cele

oh, so you were not around when George W "the decider" Bush was president?

"Republicans argue that these infrastructure projects are done by labor which is inflated in cost by the Davis-Bacon law, which requires workers on federal projects be paid at least the local prevailing wage, which in some cases is the union wage."

If you google the stimulus given to the city of Seattle which was 25 million as I recall, the avg worker installing insulation gets 12/hr in Seattle. The government insisted they get paid 25/hr, and they trained people to do this work, and instead of insulating thousands of homes as promised, I believe 4 houses got done because businesses could not afford to pay workers that much money. Think about it. You can't hire one group for 12/hr and another for 25/hr. So the money got spent training and no jobs came of it.

$12 per hour in Seattle is not a good wage, I mean it is a wage but pretty low by Seattle standards, hell that's even low for Texas and Seattle has a 30% higher cost of living than we do.

cele2000 - Worst Congressional House (and Republican Senate) in my lifetime, and that's saying something. If the country is idiotic enough to re-elect them, we richly deserve the collapse that follows.

Better 12 dollars an hour then 0 dollars an hour. Insulating is not exactly rocket science nor a skilled trade.

Jaybird: Speak for yourself. You have no right to lump me in with your "Americans," and I suspect a large portion of the citizens of this country feel the same way.

Yes, Cele.....including Mr. Incompetent in the WH.

American rank republicans the lowest for approval, then democrats, then the president.

Worst president ever. And I remember LBJ. Fact is, I think we've only had two decent presidents since Eisenhower: Regan and Clinton. Bet you thought I'd say Regan and W?

W was terrible, but not as bad as O. Only Jimmy C was as bad as O. Hope and Change. What morons we were to elect him.

Too bad the Tea party- republicans have no credible ideas!

-We already have their tax cuts

-We already have the low regulations

When is the economy gonna turn around...we got all the Gop said is needed, Right?

Party over Country is all the GOP cares about. So, IF they defeat Obama in 2012...then what? I know. NOTHING!

If you hate Bush, you need to hate Obama or vice versa. They are both big government, big spending progressives. No one deserves even the slightest credibility in their comments if they are against one and not against the other.

Second, I'd like anyone who thinks we're on the right path to stop regurgitating propaganda and answer what you are always avoiding:

How can you expect to turn the economy around when we are competing against non-union, non-environmentally friendly, non-regulated, non-safe, indentured servant wage countries?

You guys are all the same, you blast away with your rhetoric without taking a simple second to do math that a 1st grader can do.

But go ahead, continue to rack up credit card debt and then blame the evil corporations, banks, wall street, and executives for your pathetic credit scores and inability to get more loans.

Like many people, I expect, I support some lines from both parties: let the Bush tax cuts expire, raise taxes a few percentage points on upper-income folks, implement payroll taxes on ALL pay, reduce taxes on small business, tax investment income the same as any other income, no new stimulus, and no unemployment benefit extensions. In other words, raise more revenue and cut spending.

As for Obamacare, I simply don't know enough about it to have a credible opinion (not that that stops most people here!).

Obama and the democrat controlled house and senate had their chance and they failed. Now Obama is trying to blame his failures on everyone but himself. His policies have dug a hole that our children will never get out of and now he wants to double down on them.

For all of you libs that try to blame it on the republican house, take a closer look at what Harrry Reid has bottled up in the senate. The obstructionism is in the senate.

Know what? Watched the debate the other night. The only candidate I heard that wants to save SSI is Romney. What strikes me about the baggers/GOP is this: Everyone of them knows that taxpayer's money was raided so that Congress could get elected/re-elected. Been going on for years now. But did one of them, even the ones talking about phasing it out, talk about putting in protections for the money being contributed now? Nope. Not one of them is interested in protecting the futures of the American people. They're worried about getting elected/re-elected. Period.

I agree with Reagan and Clinton being the best recent presidents. Had high hopes for W when he came in office, but that was such a bust. With our current president I would rather have Mrs. Clinton.

Repubs and Demos are just the same wolves in different dresses. Do we want liberal or MORE liberal? As a nation we are farther left than ever and are about to lose our balance.

JayBird2, what's a "baffon"? I looked on Google and the only definition I could find was a French term meaning irony.

How can you expect to turn the economy around when we are competing against non-union, non-environmentally friendly, non-regulated, non-safe, indentured servant wage countries?

vglance, because unlike Republicans we do not want to turn our country into THAT! You guys would sell your souls to get elected. You're no better than the people in the countries you describe with your outline above who abuse labor and the environment we all have to live in. We should be trying to elevate what they are doing, not sink to their level as Republicans would have us do.

The Tea Party is experimenting with change. A dangerous slippery slope approach to politics.

Policy aside, the Tea Party has implemented the tactics of "fight to the death" to achieve their political goals.

Where will this lead.

For example, the Tea Party has decided that it is better for America, to use tools like the budget, and the debt ceiling, to hold the world hostage, to achieve as John Boehner put it "99% of what we wanted."

So, the Tea Party has said, it is in the best interest of the USA, to destroy the world economy, to remove President Obama from office.

At the beginning of the Iraq war, I wished George Bush would disappear, I felt he was creating long term misery for the world, and for the USA. But I never saw John Kerry, or any other progressive, suggest that destroying the world to remove George Bush from office, would be a good move.

I detested the policies of George Bush, but I never, ever, would have taken moves to hurt our country, to remove him.

Fast forward to the present. The Tea Party has taken power. Although, a minority, they have held a gun to the head of the world, in order to implement their goal to remove the opposition president.

Bad idea. Let's look at the future,

If, next election, let's imagine the Democrats win the house back. Just bear with me for a minute, Let's say, the Tea Party does not have the tools to use the budget and debt ceiling as guns to force their agenda.

What will they do? I mean, they have made it clear, it is a god-given right, to do anything, to remove Obama from power.

The have shown willingness to perform economic terrorism. If they no longer hold that gun, what will they do?

Will old white bigots take to the streets and start shooting homeless people?

Will they establish militias to kill progressive politicians where they sleep?

And, what will be the response of the progressives?

I think, that we progressives, would not retaliate with violence in kind. We have shown, that even with an idiot like George Bush, we would not take political action that would hurt the country, in order to get our way.

That is what scares me about the Tea Party. They have Rage, in the Biblical sense. The kind of rage, that builds and builds, until someone is hurt or killed.

I listened to an evangelical speaker today on the radio. It did not make me feel good. He talked about the comming Apocalypse, and the earthquakes, and famine, and hurricanes, that point to the return of Jesus.

This is scary. The Tea Party, and their followers, are waiting for the second coming of Christ. This means, that they will be willing, to sacrifice all, ALL, of the status quo, to achieve their goals.

Lord, protect me from your followers.

Mr. president and members of congress address our failed free trade agreements and illegal immigration.

I will say it again, since the implementation of the North American Free Trade Agreement on January 1,1994 during Clinton's presidency the American people lost over 20 million jobs.

It opened the door making it profitable for American based bcompanies/corporations to move to foreign nations to set up shop to take
advantage of slave labor, no environmental standards and no unions. This
agreement and similar ones sold out the American worker and obliterated the
American based manufacturing industry.

Now add the 20 million or so illegal immigrants to the mix and we have the mess we are now facing. The American people have to compete with illegal's for job positions and in some cases businesses hire illegal's instead of citizens as they pay them less, don't have to contribute to any workers benefits and don't have to make sure they have good/safe working conditions. The savings are huge.

Illegal's also take business away from American small businesses since they will do it for less, such as house painting, landscaping, roofing and similar.

We had the implementation of NAFTA on January 1, 1994 and the creation of the WTO on January 1, 1995. The WTO (World Trade Organization) replaced GATT (General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade) at that time. At this point the United States has entered into 17 free trade agreements and 3 others waiting on congresses approval.

If the U.S continues this trend the only jobs that will be available in this country will be in the service industry. Department stores, automotive chains, restaurants, construction, plumbers, electricians, physicians, nurses, police, fire, and similar. Everything else will be out sourced.

Good luck America we are going to need it

Takemeback......If not for republicans winning control of congress in 94', Clinton was well on his way to being the obama of the 90's...remember Hillarycare? That being said, atleast Clinton was man enough to see the writing on the wall. You could hit obummer in the head with a brick and he still would not get it.

vglance,

You hit it on the head but not the way you think. I hate to point it out to you but it takes more than a 1st grade math understanding to deal with the complexity of our economy. Simplicity sometimes comes with attendant simple minded solutions. Expand and grow.

I have seen excerpts from 1 Term 0bama speech last night. "Pass this Bill" there is no bill. It hasn't been written yet. It won't pass house and likely won't pass Senate. I was embarrassed to see our POTUS up there going "Pass this Bill" over and over when there isn't one. On his campaign stop today he used the same stupid phrase. He embarrasses himself and the American people anytime he opens his mouth.

Jailbird2------Bush allowed 9-11 to happen after He was warned, invaded to third world countries, costing us over 6,000 brave young Americans, spent over 2 trillion, ran up our debt, gave Billionaires a tax cut, let the banks runamuk destroying the world economy etc. Is that what you think is sound policy. Obama spent a trillion to stop an economic free fall caused by the GOP, we could easly have 20% unemployment. Now we need to prim the carborator to get the engine going again. The GOP have borrowed and spent for thirty years to artificially stimulate the economy. This is a sound GOP practice you should know that.

Amused...you, the enviromental movement and the labor movement...you can not change the world, all you are doing is making it impossible for America to compete. So we will collapse, and the western way of life will collapse with it. Just be honest and admit that this is the plan of the progressive movement in America....it's pretty obvious.

And don't forget...there are plenty of progressives on both sides of the spectrum.

Eric, I think we agree on something for the first time ever!

You could hit obbummer in the head with a brick and he still wouldn't get it....

Obama's foreign policy experience, what little he has, was formed during his association with people like Van Jones, Rev. Wright, nation of islam and other anti American radical left people.

I think Most of the World and a lot of Americans, including the "grown ups" in our Government realize that Obama is a rank amateur. Some of the life long members of the diplomatic corps are finally taking action to stop the disastrous credibility bleeding going on.

Robert

I think Cele is only about 2 yrs old. That is why she can't remember a worst president. She wasn't around when reafan and the Bushes were in.

cele2000, I think most Americans could agree on a lot of topics if WE could just put party politics aside and put what is best for America first....it would require compromise on BOTH sides, not just for conservatives to agree with everything that liberals say. The real problem in America today is the progressive movement and yes, that includes progressives on the right, George W. Bush being one of them. We need to make some tough changes in this country and fast....I want my children to grow up and prosper in the same America I did and that does not look like it's going to happen.

Better go back and read again: I remember LBJ. He most definately doesn't make the great list either. What has the War on Poverty accomplished, other than institutionalize dependecy on Gov?

Dgibb...even your party uses Reagan as a reference...don't go there moron.

Eric---------- If you did some home work you would know that we pay 16% of our GDP on health care and leave millions uninsured, where the dumb ass socialist countries that have a single payer system pay only 10% or less of their GDP on health care and cover everybody. It's a better cheaper system and is proven to work in dozens of countries. WE can save 3/4's of a trillion per year. Since 1992 we could have saved almost 13 trillion, we could sure us that money now, but we got scared. Oh well.

"vglance, because unlike Republicans we do not want to turn our country into THAT! You guys would sell your souls to get elected. You're no better than the people in the countries you describe with your outline above who abuse labor and the environment we all have to live in. We should be trying to elevate what they are doing, not sink to their level as Republicans would have us do."

You're missing the point. I'm not saying that we need to do what they are doing. I'm trying to explain that you cannot have all the things you want (entitlement programs, modern medicine extending life beyond the point of sustainability, bloated pensions, policing other nations, rebuilding other nations, etc.) and have a massive trade deficit where jobs and money are going overseas. That's the math I'm referring to.

sparticas, you need to watch some news and see how the countries you praise for their healthcare are falling apart. This socialist garbage has been tried many times and IT DOES NOT WORK....much like obummers lame attemps to "FIX" the economy....some people never learn.

Both the Democrats and the Republicans have done nothing. They are clones of the other and are involved in a messy divorce. They refuse to compromise on anything and care more about the next election rather than fixing America.

They either want to:

A) Blindly spend.

B) Blindly cut.

C) Blindly raise taxes.

D) Blindly cut taxes.

E) Twiddle their thumbs and do nothing.

---

I'm done caring on who started this mess, I only care about who is going to clean it up. Obama promised change, Boehner promised jobs, both haven't delivered. I want change and jobs, is that wrong? Either they put on their big boy/girl pants and realize that the next election is no where near as important as America.

Erik, thanks for the reminder. I liked Clinton's presidency because he did have a conservative counter part and compromised with it which I believe moved the country forward in some significant ways even though we have been socially slipping since the 60's.

The problem is that we have a representative government during an entitlement generation so no one will have the guts to do what is necesary for the good of the country, only prolong the entitlement fantasy until the well runs dry and it's too late. Big government and liberal social policies are going to be propogated by repubs and demos alike. The current show is just a show. If a repub had whitehouse and congress government would continue to grow. Bush showed us that.

We need someone inspiring with actions rather than words.

Eric -------- There's nothing we can do to compete with people making 5.00 per day, But we can require foriegn countries that want to export here to also manufacture a percentage of there products here, creating local jobs for Americans. This is much better than tarrifs.

Spart, if ou would do some research, you'd see that our cost structure is way higher than the Eurpoean systems (just one typical example: ave MD salary in France 113,000; in the US 273,000), and even with that, the Euros are beginning to realize they can't afford it. If the US hadn't erffectively provided Europe with their national defense since WWII, a lot of these programs would have ended or been very much reduced. Europe is facing declining populations with increasing costs - and they already pay much higher taxes and are starting to crack. ObamaCare did not adress costs, and so is doomed to fail or require tax increases that will cripple us.

There must be alot of truth in this thread....the progressives have collapsed it. Does anyone know how to open it again?

How can you expect to turn the economy around when we are competing against non-union, non-environmentally friendly, non-regulated, non-safe, indentured servant wage countries?

Wow... you have finally gone there. I was wondering how long it would take before Republicans started demanding that we take America back to a pre-1920's era. No worker rights, businesses are free to dump all chemicals and waste into local waterways and the atmosphere, no child labor or wage laws, no safety laws, no responsibility for worker deaths, and legal indentured servants.

I can't believe that this is the new vision from Republicans. It is shocking to see how the party has changed since I was a part of it during the Reagan era. God help us, and our children, if they ever get their way.

Newly...you are a typical "All or Nothing" libtard...your comment does not warrant an answer.....good by.

Eric,

Newly...you are a typical "All or Nothing" libtard...your comment does not warrant an answer.....good by.

And your comment is insulting. In just one line, you expose your intelligence, your prowess over the English language, and your maturity... amazing feat!

Eric is just following the lead of his Tea Party leaders. Ignorance is ok, as long as you sound patriotic.

Libtard ha ha. I said Libtard! Obuma, I said Oduma! ha ha ha ha

NO Newly elected official is going to end SS, not happening. There are people, like my dad, that collect SS and act like they deserve it but as long as Obama is President no one deserves it.

In my life time I have never seen so many, bite on the Political flavor of the year and somehow live in this abstract reality.

SS may be broke, it may be a PONZI Scheme, it may be the most liberal thing since free Government cheese. What I do know and is undeniable, if we end SS, our Country will change forever. Aging parents will be living with their kids or homeless. Companies do not pay enough for people to actually save enough to retire. Do the math, its pretty simple. The stock market is not retirement, for every person that wins, two lose. I'm not saying I know the answer, I'm just telling you that we are, as a people, a Ponzi Scheme if we can't find a way for people to make proper pay or have a retirement system that a 32 year old Hedge Fund manager can't steal. Its the truth..

BAGGERS and fake conservatives are the buffoons (that is how you spell it, dolt). Bachman, Perry and Fox News cry babies are too busy wearing pink skirts and acting anti-military, and against any working economy to notice how stupid they look. Real life conservatives are busy working with real life liberals to fix a problem, while Baggers pee their pants over it.

Angry PETA members and whale ship hunters are the same kind of people that Baggers are. Its just that PETA members know they look stupid and don't care. Baggers don't think they look like wimps, which is hilarious.

Be thankful we're not getting all the government we're paying for......Ancient Rome declined because it had a senate; now whats going to happen to us with both a senate and a house. Will Rogers

Actually, the core issue is our balance of trade and the international outsoucing of jobs and that, my friends, has been a massive biparisan failure through several presidents. They are adhering to some mistaken belief that we can afford to ignore that, but it isn't true. It's been slowly dragging us under for decades.

Unless a candidate or a program is willing to address that, then it is at best a quick fix.

Both parties are very much at fault here. I suspect their funders won't let them go there.

"In contrast, Obama makes it clear he still sees the federal government as the vital engine of job creation."

Obama believes in a centralized government with that government choosing when and how often the public gets to make one single move. Another example of how crazy all this is getting.

CA, the other centralized government concept, wants to make it law requiring that employers, meaning the average person, makes arrangements during the day for their babysitter to get a 10 min break in the am, a 1/2 hr lunch at noon, and another break in the pm. The child sitters are opposed to this regulation because they know that it is IMPOSSIBLE to make these provisions. Thus these kids instead of staying home will now be shipped to a daycare and kill the jobs that many child sitters have today. This is the sort of stuff the big government advocates embrace. They want control and everything to be fairly doled out.

Respond to what?

theBoys: Employers are not "the average person." Take the population, add all the employers, divide it by the employees or unemployeed, and you will not find a number greater than .5. Therefore, they are not the average. They are also not the median. They are the minority.

California has led the nation in protecting worker's rights for a long time. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't, but you can't equate the government in California to the Federal Government in any meaningful way. It's apples and oranges.

Your arguments are based on a number of rhetorical fallacies, and are, therefore, invalid. Make a real argument.

Yea borrowing and spending to grow government VS. financial responsibility and private sector growth... they're practically the same thing!!

Thanks MSNBC for clarifying why B.O. should just be handed another blank check. (sarcasm)

The private sector is clearly demonstrating that they are not capable of creating jobs....they're sitting on about $2.5 TRILLION in cash right now! More tax cuts aint going to make them hire...but it will help to line the pockets of shareholders (particularly the larger shareholders.)

Stu - If I was sitting on money to invest, why in God's name would I invest it here? A tax code that's 80,000 pages (literally) long; a new entitlement that no one knows the true cost of; regulatory agency after regulatory agency writing rule after rule after rule; a permitting process that delays, for years, most industrial projects - even solar farms and windpower installations; a president who vilifies business, and has never held a job in the business world; a gov that favors unions... the list goes on and on.

And you're blaming the companies? I've no great love for big business - I do what I can to avoid supporting companies who outsource, never go into a Wally-world, and buy local. And, I search for Made in America whenever I buy anything. If we would all do that, perhaps we would see improvement.

bull @!$%#! If this were true, why didn't we loose 750,000 jobs in a months under bush!

republicans live inside their own little world. facts do not exist in republican world

You republicans need to be careful what you post here...Remember that this post is showing Perry shaking hands with Obama -gasp- Oh NO!

They are not spending money because they don't want to under this administration because they do not know what assinine policy/expense they are going to be hit with tomorrow or a year from now.

BS, no one is hiring, because no one is buying anything.

And of course they are not hiring in the US because they are building all their new facilities in a Communist country-China. Isn't it strange that the Right Wingers keep yelling Socialism at every suggestion to improve our lives while at the same time making a Commusit government fantastically wealthy.

....and isn't it weird that Obama's jobs Czar, Immelt, is one of the biggest offenders?

TwistedFister,

You are absolutely WRONG.

Currently, corporations are experiences the highest revenue-per-employee ratio ever (look it up). Why would they hire more people when they do not need to? Why would they decrease their revenue-per-employee? Current employee rates are meeting current consumer demand. There is absolutely no reason to hire anyone new.

If you were running a company, making profits, and you had all the employees you needed to meet consumer demand... would you hire more people when you don't need them? You get a tax cut, do you put that money in your own pocket, or hire someone to sit around and do nothing?

This is not a hard concept. Why would anyone hire someone that they do not need?

The private sector is clearly demonstrating that they are not capable of creating jobs

Not capable? Perhaps because they've got the government boot on their throat.

"The burden of regulation on Americans increased at an alarming rate in fiscal year 2010. Based on data from the Government Accountability Office, an unprecedented 43 major new regulations were imposed by Washington. And based on reports from government regulators themselves, the total cost of these rules topped $26.5 billion, far more than any other year for which records are available. These costs will affect Americans in many ways, raising the price of the cars they buy and the food they eat, while destroying an untold number of jobs. With the enactment of new health care laws, financial regulations, and plans for rulemaking in other areas, the regulatory burden on Americans is set to increase even further in the coming year."- http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2010/10/red-tape-rising-obamas-torrent-of-new-regulation

TwistedFister -

Facts to support my argument??? LMAO!!!

Try an introductory class in Macro-economics.

Twisted you have clearly learned your econ on Faux News. Your moniker suits you well.

And of course they are not hiring in the US because they are building all their new facilities in a Communist country-China. Isn't it strange that the Right Wingers keep yelling Socialism at every suggestion to improve our lives while at the same time making a Commusit government fantastically wealthy

You think conservatives are driving the jobs out of the country? Really? The group that opposes unions, opposes regulation, gives tax breaks to big business, THEY are the ones driving businesses out?

One day you liberals are bitching about the conservatives crushing the little guy in favor of big business and the next day you're accusing them of driving those businesses away. Do you actually stop to think about the things you say or just automatically regurgitate whatever you've allowed yourself to be spoonfed.

If you listen to Mr Cantor remarks, he said that they could agree on some of the plan, but the thing that he could not agree on was the FACT that Obama wants everything in the plan done. I really don't remember him saying that. However, wasn't it after the debt ceiling vote, Mr Bstated that THEY GOT 98% OF WHAT THEY ASKED FOR, AND WE ARE GLAD." Now it should be Obama and the DEM getting 98% of what they want. Even Steven, oehnerside gets what they wanted now this time the other side needs to get all they asked for. But then this is the Congress of America and NO ONE COMPROMISES ON ANYTHING ESPECIALLY WHEN IT COMES TO AMERICA'S JOBS, RIGHT????

This jobs bill is pretty sound, even from a GOP perspective...

Is it? I think I'll read it for myself before deciding that. Oh wait, I can't read it because it doesn't exist.

FOR ONCE - can you tell your f*ck** GOP to do something other than obstruct???

For once? You mean like how they obstructed Obamacare and the first stimulus? They hated them both but could stop them from passing; but still they are accused of blocking everything Obama does. Funny how that works. I guess when you fail at everything you try all you've got left is to point the finger at the other guy.

StopTheLiesNOW

I've earned a Masters Degree in an economics related field and run a successful small business...

This is the problem... none of these GOPers have run a successful business or studied in an advanced business field. In fact, most of them claim that any type of education from a university is just "liberal lies" and "real education comes from life." (Yes, I had a Republican tell me that)

It baffles me how they believe that consumer spending and demand plays no role in business. They actually believe that demand is irrelevant. This is basic high-school level economics and they completely fail at it.

The first rule - the God damn economy is not a business! Figure this out already... different objective and goals involved...

True... I will also add that the economy is also not a family. These retarded comparisons need to stop.

It baffles me how they believe that consumer spending and demand plays no role in business.

It baffles me how someone can blame "lack of demand" for the lack of jobs here in this country even as we import shiploads of consumer products from overseas.

Our Policy is and always will be:

"Never Negotiate with a Terrorist"

It baffles me how someone can blame "lack of demand" for the lack of jobs here in this country even as we import shiploads of consumer products from overseas.

I think you're just baffled.

Your point about imports is valid but it does nothing to unravel nuts and bolts economic theory. We are not contesting your point. It is YOU and yours who are being irrational. lol.

Obama is not the demon your puppet masters have you believe.

investment capital isn't the problem.U.S. corporations are sitting on hundreds of billions.why hire when there's no demand.there's no demand because of high unemployment and middle class disposable income has all but dried up.middle class extra income is all but gone because we exported our manufacturing base via free trade/job exporting.service sector jobs pay alot less.4,900,000 manufacturing jobs lost since 2006 plus all the support jobs that went with them.the president proposes we have more free trade/job exporting treaties.since our fundamental problem is a lack of disposable income in the hands of the middle class its not only foolish but down right destructive to encourage more good paying jobs be exported

our economic problems all boil down to one cause free trade.our country has been declining ever since we adopted it and we will continue on our journey to third world status until we as a people demand it stops.big money wants to replace us as a labor source.the big money that gets people reelected.that's why both parties endorse this terrible trade policy.they know it gets them their 30 pieces of silver

"you can expect to hear much more of the rhetoric Obama used Thursday night about getting “the wealthiest Americans and biggest corporations to pay their fair share” of the tax burden."

So just how much is "their fair share"?

Currently, the top 10% of income earners pay 70% of all income taxes collected, while earning only about 30% of the nation's income.

Conversely, 90% of the people earn 70% of the income, but pay only about 30% of the income taxes.

Personally, I think they can pay more, but let's not misrepresent what "their fair share" really means. It's all about 'soak the rich' and class warfare - they have it, so let's take it from them.

It seems that Obama's attitude is to 'Punish the people who succeed so we can reward those that don't" - not exactly what made this country great.

Backcountry you just displayed how little you comprehend or understand about the real economy. First, China and others are complaining their revenue from from sales in America is down measurably. So your "shiploads of consumer goods from overseas," argument is moot at best. Second, IMPORTS ARE CHEAP in more ways then one. Oh, Yes you can bet lack of demand does choke economic growth and job creation. Why? As one small business owner stated so eloquently on a major network radio program that..."he is a small business owner and makes 250K a year, he as others do not create jobs...Americans by their demand for goods and services create the jobs." You can't make money without money which is exactly where we are at right now. Anyone who believes entrepreneurs will drive this economy probably believes in fairies. Fact...Entrepreneurs need two things demand for what they make or provide and capital to get started. No one is getting any money to start up a business anywhere. Heck, people are crying banks are holding them hostage. Just how many entrepreneurs does the right wing think it will take to rev up this economic malaise? A plan that is not even feasible given the scope of the problem. When you consider people who do have any money are stocking up on essentials because discreationary spending for non-essential items no longer exists. oh! So I'd venture the Dems in fact do have the inside on the scope of the problem.

Oh...gotta love all the far right wing input because obviously they must feel they are losing public support. If they didn't they wouldn't feel the need to make any comment. The demographics speak volumns most Americans are hard working middle-class who earn less then 250k per year. So I'd say the GOP has some serious public relations issues at the least. They should have thought about that when they picked the battle of "no," to anything and everything. Politics!

It is YOU and yours who are being irrational. lol.

?? Libertarians or were you thinking of someone else?

Obama is not the demon your puppet masters have you believe.

I don't have puppet masters (you should talk) and I don't think Obama is a demon. I think he's a decent guy. Being utterly clueless doesn't make someone a demon.

I watched the speech, I didn't hear much I objected to in it. There were parts both sides liked, and parts neither side liked at all.

The problem I see, will either party stand up,be an adult and push a program through that will actually help the American people as a whole, and not worry about campaign contributions?

Do I believe the Gov't wastes money? Yes. Do I believe we need to cut the deficit? Yes. Do I believe we need to run this country into a ditch further than it is now over ideological ideas? Hell no!

What's wrong with compromise? Basically that's what this plan actually looks like, neither party gets their way, both get a little bit of what they want.

@Mary-911256
You're absolutely right. Short term, not even close to shovel ready (thanks to the governments own bureaucracy) infrastructure jobs that cost us several hundred thousand dollars apiece to create are definitely the solution. It worked so well the first time after all. <end sarcasm>

... will either party stand up,be an adult and push a program through that will actually help the American people as a whole, and not worry about campaign contributions?

No

So just how much is "their fair share"?

I did an analysis of how much a 'rich' person would pay in taxes over their lifetime, and the results were surprising. Here are the assumptions;

- Single person makes $1 Million per year in taxable income for 50 years, then dies.

- Lives in California entire life.

- Saves 50% of after tax income, and spends the rest.

- Invests savings to receive 5% interest income.

The result - They would have earned income of $50 Million over their lifetime, but would pay a total of $45.647 Million in income, sales, payroll and estate taxes, which would be over 91% of their $50 Million in earned income.

Again - How much is their 'fair share'?

I think there is some coming together but have no doubt the g.o.p. circus isn't leaving town. They are not going to leave 2.5 yrs of dishonor toward the president and our country to waste. We know we will see more. Glad they are ignorant enough to not realize is all going to backfire this next election. Just like so many that post here: polarized to the point of stupid.

Keep it up GOP. America will do it without you.

SLEEPING GIANT...AWAKE!

Saving 2% social security tax is not going to create a job in a small company.

The government recently loaned about a half billion dollars at a 1% rate to a politically-connected, but failing solar panel company, Solyndra.

Here's how the government can help. Extend working capital loans to small businesses at a similar rate. Given the rates available to small businesses with proven track records, the reduced rates would translate into new jobs. For every $500,000 in working capital at these reduced rates, 1-2 jobs could be created.

Most small businesses want to hire. This would give them a tool that actually would make a difference.

There is world demand out there. There are 6 billion consumers out there. The US has a trade deficit. The Indians and Chinese are able to find and satisfy consumers here. What is needed is competitiveness. With more competitiveness the US can get a trade surplus.
Competitiveness creates new demand for the US by taking it away from the rest of the world.
Competitive companies GAIN market share from companies in other countries. Those US companies will have more demand in the US and around the world. Targeted tax credits for small companies help those companies become more competitive.

"Perhaps the most significant divide between Obama and his GOP rivals is something he did not mention in his Thursday night address to Congress: the health care law which he signed in 2010 imposes large tax increases — more than $400 billion over the first eight years, with most of that falling on upper-income people — as well as new regulations on business owners."

What? Do you mean that Obama lied about it 'saving' money?

Why are we not surprised?

And just what we need when we need more jobs - More costs and regulations against businesses.

Gee, I wonder why businesses are not hiring? Maybe they're waiting for the 'other shoe to drop' if Obama gets re-elected.

This whole complaining about Obamacare killing job is a colmplete lie. And If you want to bitch about what has been trying to get going in legislature, blame it on the damn GOP who is stopping anythin from being moved along.

I feel that most you you don' t really realize who actually makes the law....That would be congress. The president is there to help keep them on trak but does nothing with the laws until they have been passed through house and senate and the gets passed to his desk where he can veto or sign it. But to actually get things that will work to get to his desk, the congress is dillydallying allday long. I place all this crap about needing jobs to helping the economy is on those elected officials.

Because these memebers of the legislature are pretty much keeping their head and the sand doing nothing. mY only conclusion to this is that it is Congress that is @!$%#ing by not getting anything to the president. The president doesn't write the laws he just passess them when the eventually get them. The president's hands are tied because he hasn't got @!$%# to work with even though he has ideas to help Therefore, you can't blame Obama for all this @!$%# on job creation and healcare stuff. It hasn't even really been implimented to do any damage to job.

Instead of sticking it on just Obama, maybe we should be looking to the many other elected officialls up on that hill.

More overlap than both would admit (in public) indeed, but the overlap is all one way: Obama towards the Republican side.

"Among the Republican policies promoted by Obama was a program known as "Georgia Work$," which sends unemployed workers to private sector employers to work as unpaid trainees for six weeks, with the state paying the usual benefits plus only a small stipend to cover transportation costs. Georgia officials said they were surprised that the program, which is virtually bankrupt and has enlisted less than 100 people since February, would be touted as a model. Its apparent attraction is that it holds out the prospect of doing away with traditional jobless benefits and forcing the unemployed to work without pay."

Obama outlines right-wing program in "jobs" speech

By Bill Van Auken
9 September 2011

The speech delivered by President Barack Obama to a joint session of Congress Thursday night was billed as the presentation of a new government initiative to confront the worst unemployment crisis since the Great Depression of the 1930s. Instead, it underscored yet again the unwillingness and inability of the US financial elite and its two major parties to implement a single meaningful measure to aid the 25 million Americans who are unable to find full time work.

The "American Jobs Act" trumpeted by Obama from the podium of the House of Representatives represents a laundry list of right-wing proposals, all of which he justified as having been supported by Republicans, sections of big business or the US Chamber of Commerce.

While hailed by his Democratic supporters as the return of a new combative Obama, his phony populist demagogy about the need for immediate action and commitment to ensuring that every American received a "fair shake" stood in stark contrast to the actual content of the policies advanced in the speech. All the proposals, moreover, will be paid for by even deeper attacks on core social programs such as Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security.

The speech came on the same day that the US Department of Labor released weekly unemployment figures showing that the number of people filing new unemployment claims had risen by 2,000 again to a seasonally adjusted 414,000. Even more telling was the most recent four-week average of new filings for unemployment benefits, which rose by 3,750 to 414,750.

This follows the report that in August, zero net jobs were added to the economy. It is estimated that 11.2 million jobs would have to be created to reach the employment levels that existed before the meltdown of the capitalist financial system three years ago.

Current conditions are catastrophic for the unemployed, with nearly five jobless workers chasing every new job opening. Meanwhile, the wave of budget cutting carried out by Democratic and Republican administrations alike on the federal, state and local levels are adding tens of thousands of workers to the jobless rolls every month...

....At the center of the proposal is the conception that only the private sector can create jobs, and that the government can prod it along with the offer of tax incentives. The reality, however, is that corporate America is sitting on a cash hoard amounting to trillions of dollars, fed by record profits and government bailouts, and has shown no inclination to utilize these vast resources to provide jobs for the unemployed. A reduction in payroll taxes or tax incentives for hiring veterans or the long-term unemployed will not change this class policy.

Moreover, by cutting these taxes, the Obama administration is starving core social programs—Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid—for funds, helping to create a justification for inflicting even more savage budget cuts....

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2011/sep2011/obam-s09.shtml

Roy Wilson writes;

The result - They would have earned income of $50 Million over their lifetime, but would pay a total of $45.647 Million in income, sales, payroll and estate taxes, which would be over 91% of their $50 Million in earned income.

Huh?????!!!!............very amusing, but not very credible.

Not much of a clash I'd say, more like a squishy squish as Obama collaborates again with the Republicans, his ever supple rubber backbone bending low (while pretending to be "feisty"):

SEPTEMBER 9, 2011

The Waste Land

by ALEXANDER COCKBURN

.....This brings us to Thursday night, and Obama’s address to Congress. He flourished a $447 billion plan involving tax cuts, public works, extensions of unemployment relief, credits to business hiring people who’d been out of work for more than six months....

....But as the economists Randall Wrey and Stephanie Kelton point out, “Business will not hire more workers until it has more sales. Consumers will not spend more until they’ve got more jobs.

“A private-sector recovery requires 300,000 new jobs every month. But the private sector doesn’t need 300,000 new workers per month to meet prospective sales. The new jobs can only come from the federal government — the only economic entity that can afford to hire. Obama’s 1 million infrastructure jobs is a nice down-payment, but it is only three month’s worth.”

They call for a real New Deal program like Roosevelt’s Works Progress Administration. The program would offer a job to any American who was ready and willing to work at the federal minimum wage, plus legislated benefits. No time limits. No means testing. No minimum education or skill requirements....

...“Stop the political circus,”.... [Obama] cried to Congress last night. Why should the Republicans listen to him after he himself stopped the circus at the start of August by mumbling, “You win.”

You can find America’s future in blueprints minted in business-funded think tanks 30 to 40 years ago at the dawn of the neo-liberal age: destruction of organized labor; attrition of the social safety net; attrition of government regulation; a war on the poor, fought without mercy at every level. Last year the New York police stopped and questioned 601,055 people, predominantly blacks and Hispanics, and the numbers were up 13 per cent for the first six months of this year.

Texas, near the bottom in so many social indicators, is the model: Rick Perry is its latest salesman. But whoever the Republican candidate may be, they face in Obama an opponent who agrees with at least half of what they say...

http://www.counterpunch.org/2011/09/09/the-waste-land/

Roy your fair share post is absurd especially in light of the lower federal tax rate.id agree 45 million is what they should pay.they would still have 5 million.a pretty lavish life style compared to 99 percent of their neighbors.the worst post ive seen you make.no numbers to back your contentions either

Currently, the top 10% of income earners pay 70% of all income taxes collected, while earning only about 30% of the nation's income.

Conversely, 90% of the people earn 70% of the income, but pay only about 30% of the income taxes.

ROY WILSON is an expert at misleading through the use of statistic. Here's another statistic Roy does not include,

50 Percent of the wealth in this country is controlled by the top 1 percent. Primarily, these are the people Obama wants to tax. Imagine if this wealth was more evenly distributed across our population... crisis OVER!

Only 1/3 of the "households" in this country make more than 65K per year.

Roy and those like him will do everything they can to place focus

Roy free trade and the resulting job exporting isn't class warfare?outsourcing 4,900,000 excellent paying manufacturing jobs since just 2006.now that's class warfare.asking the rich to pay 35 percent of the profits they made replacing their American work force is hardly class warfare.letting them keep 65 percent is a gift.that's the problem we have as a society we are rewarding despicable behavior on the part of the rich.i dont know how you cant make excuses for them.but then i consider obscene gluttony at the expense of so many of our fellow Americans to be reprehensible

Well, if you want to borrow money to stimulate fine. If you want to raise taxes and call it cutting spending, fine. Interesting how not one poster seems to understand what a payroll tax is and what it goes into. Social Security will be underfunded, at a time when demand is greater. Guess that's ok?

Substantial tax incentives should be given to employers who hire new employees for a minimum or 3 years. The amount should be large enough to cause a 'gold rush' of new hires, millions of people.

The rest of the President's points sound like monkey business to me.

Of course get rid of cheating, it should have been gotten rid of already, you don't need a joint session of Congress to propose getting rid of cheating.

Stopthelies,

I happen to be one of the households in that 1/3 just barely. In my region, that means I have no cable TV and no cell phones just to make ends meet. I live within my means, the only debt I have is student loans and a reasonable fixed rate mortgage. My biggest purchase in the past 4 months that wasn't medical services or food is a $99 tablet computer. Once my wife can return to work we will be in a better spot, but right now I am saving zero and spending the bare minimum. Take care of people like me and the economy will start booming again!

The discussion should have been about jobs from Day One before anything else. But both Parties have their jobs, and have been way too busy "Grandstanding With Other Issues" placed well ahead of the line before the jobs problem. Just another lack of understanding with our economy. This has been especially true with Republicans. You can be sure they'll save the jobs issue until closer to campaign time to use as a political tool to win, and after the election, it will be forgotten or placed in the back of the line for their own Party agenda and issues.

If Obama is so smart, why does the economy grow continually worse? What he sold as "hope and change" has turned into "economic despair and broken dreams". His jobs bill will do little more than waste tax money. Businesses will have an incentive to hire when economic activity and sales demand it....and not until. No business is going to hire a $30,000 a year worker in order to get a lame tax credit. Maybe if Obama and his crew of super-smart minions in Washington had ever worked in real jobs of their own, they would understand how things work.

The GOP jobs plan is simple. Pay the American worker on a Chinese pay scale and thus create millions of jobs and a permanent American underclass. Destroy all federal government regulations and laws dealing with the workplace. No minimum wage, no OSHA, no NLRB, no labor unions. Take the US back to the 19th century and permit the rapacious predatory capitalism that exploited labor and resulted in a huge disparity in incomes between labor and management with no restraints on monopoly or corporate profit. That's it in a nutshell folks. You want a trip to the third world and a fascist central government controlled by corporations and industry? Vote GOP.

DW Brown "Roy Wilson writes; The result - They would have earned income of $50 Million over their lifetime, but would pay a total of $45.647 Million in income, sales, payroll and estate taxes, which would be over 91% of their $50 Million in earned income..............Huh?????!!!!............very amusing, but not very credible."

Actually, it IS very credible. It was meant as a bit of a tease, but it is accurate. What most people don't consider is that the savings will accumulate about $23 Million of interest income, which is taxable at the normal rate. Also, when they die, the IRS gets to tax their accumulated savings as well. Their heirs will still get a net estate of about $15 Million.

PS - This does not include any property taxes they might pay.

StopTheLiesNOW "ROY WILSON is an expert at misleading through the use of statistic. Here's another statistic Roy does not include, 50 Percent of the wealth in this country is controlled by the top 1 percent. Primarily, these are the people Obama wants to tax. Imagine if this wealth was more evenly distributed across our population... crisis OVER! "

You're comparing apples and oranges. We don't have a 'wealth tax' in this country, and most of those with 'wealth' have it because they either saved it or inherited it. Typically, they don't pay much in personal income taxes because they invest in tax-free bonds or get income from capital gains, which is different from income taxes.

I'm sure there are plenty of people who have 'wealth' of more than $5 Million, but pay virtually no Income Taxes. Obama's proposed Income Tax increase will not have much effect on them.

If we just 'confiscated' the 'wealth' of people in this country, how many people would bother to save - and the 'wealthy' would merely move to another country, and take their investment capital with them. America would then become as poor as Africa.

johnQcitizen "Roy free trade and the resulting job exporting isn't class warfare?outsourcing 4,900,000 excellent paying manufacturing jobs since just 2006.now that's class warfare.asking the rich to pay 35 percent of the profits they made replacing their American work force is hardly class warfare."

So let me understand your proposal. You want American corporations that compete against foreign companies not only to pay the highest corporate taxes in the World, but then pay another 35% on a major portion of their costs? And then, when they send the remaining profits back to America, you want to impose more income taxes on the transfers?

And you expect them to successfully compete with foreign companies?

Exactly what incentive would they have to even remain as American corporations? Does anybody actually THINK THINGS THROUGH?

If you want to see a huge increase in employment, just eliminate the corporate tax completely - It's already taxed when the corporate profits are distributed as dividends anyway, which means that the profits are currently taxed twice (or more if they are in a high corporate tax state like California).

Bluelake,

The GOP jobs plan is simple. Pay the American worker on a Chinese pay scale and thus create millions of jobs and a permanent American underclass. Destroy all federal government regulations and laws dealing with the workplace. No minimum wage, no OSHA, no NLRB, no labor unions. Take the US back to the 19th century and permit the rapacious predatory capitalism that exploited labor and resulted in a huge disparity in incomes between labor and management with no restraints on monopoly or corporate profit. That's it in a nutshell folks. You want a trip to the third world and a fascist central government controlled by corporations and industry? Vote GOP.

This. Exactly.

If you look at their "plan" here:

http://www.gop.gov/resources/library/documents/jobs/theplan.pdf

most of it is generally focused on the "corporate scale". They also like to tout that "the stimulus" was an "epic failure". Ignoring credible sources to the contrary. Like:

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2011/08/obamas-2009-stimulus-is-still-boosting-jobs/1

and:

http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=12385

And still, they simply CANNOT accept that "Obamacare" is designed to help the people who need it most. REAL "small business":

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2011/01/health_care_myths.html

How do you spot an obvious Teatard? Its easy. They discredit this guy:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/05/opinion/05brooks.html?_r=2&src=ISMR_HP_LO_MST_FB

and label him as "a know nothing" who has "no credibility" within the mainstream republican party. They dismiss this comment as "meaningless":

If responsible Republicans don’t take control, independents will conclude that Republican fanaticism caused this default. They will conclude that Republicans are not fit to govern.

And they will be right.

Boehner and McConnell aren't so stupid as to underestimate what Brooks is saying. They're watching it unfold daily. They KNOW hes right, and it scares the sh!t out of them. If you watched the speech to congress closely, you easily noticed that Boehner lost three shades of tan, McConnell wanted to cry, and Cantor looked like a scared kid who just had all his toys taken away. Clearly evidenced by their comments to the media the following day.

They take serious notice of things like this:

http://www.gallup.com/video/149030/Editor-Chief-Insights-Congress-Historic-Low.aspx

And right now, they're beginning to realize that even though Obama's approval may be low, its holding steadily around 40%. Which puts his chances of staying in the White House for another 4 years, WELL above their chances of surviving 2012.

Its the idiots who link baseless garbage from places like the Heritage Foundation, and other right wing fruitcake organisations that simply don't "get it", because they're completely oblivious to "the bigger picture" thats being painted all around them.

Just catalog and bookmark these articles. So that when November 2012 comes and goes with no change in the executive branch, you can link back to their idiotic comments here and laugh at them. They have NO viable candidate in the field that can unseat Obama. And they know it. So they just flail about, grasping at straws and half-truths, in the hopes of convincing a few "lesser educated" moderates and independents.

ROY WILSON-336103

"you can expect to hear much more of the rhetoric Obama used Thursday night about getting “the wealthiest Americans and biggest corporations to pay their fair share” of the tax burden."

So just how much is "their fair share"?

Currently, the top 10% of income earners pay 70% of all income taxes collected, while earning only about 30% of the nation's income.

Conversely, 90% of the people earn 70% of the income, but pay only about 30% of the income taxes.

Personally, I think they can pay more, but let's not misrepresent what "their fair share" really means. It's all about 'soak the rich' and class warfare - they have it, so let's take it from them.

It seems that Obama's attitude is to 'Punish the people who succeed so we can reward those that don't" - not exactly what made this country great.

Roy I want to know where you got those stats. Ya know you can just put anything on here that you want...making up numbers BUT some of us know the truth....something you are in dire need of. Misrepresenting what the figures actual show is another way of lying. They pay more in taxes because they OWN 80-90% of the wealth!

SOI Tax Stats - 2004 Personal Wealth Tables

Data Summary
An estimated 2.7 million U.S. adults in 2004 had gross assets of $1.5 million or more. In total, these top wealth holders owned nearly $11.1 trillion in assets.

After accounting for debts and mortgages of $850.1 billion, these individuals had a combined net worth of over $10.2 trillion.

In terms of types of financial wealth, the top 1% of households have 38.3% of all privately held stock, 60.6% of financial securities, and 62.4% of business equity.

The top 10% have 80% to 90% of stocks, bonds, trust funds, and business equity, and over 75% of non-home real estate.

or have a look at this from Rueters:

Credit: Reuters/File

WASHINGTON | Mon Aug 25, 2008
9:43am EDT

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Tax and accounting loopholes that largely benefit rich taxpayers and companies cost the government $20 billion a year even as the pay gap between chief executives and employees has widened, two groups said on Monday.

The biggest loss comes from a "stock option accounting double standard" that allows corporations paying executives stock options to deduct more than their actual expenses, they said.

For example, when UnitedHealth Group Inc paid CEO William McGuire 9 million stock options, it put on its financial statement that the compensation cost the company nothing, according to the Institute for Policy Studies and the group United for a Fair Economy.

But it claimed a tax deduction of $317.7 million, the groups said.

That practice alone costs the U.S. government $10 billion a year, the groups said.

A practice known as deferred compensation -- which allows executives to defer an unlimited amount of pay -- costs the government $80.6 million a year, while other loopholes bring the total lost tax revenue to $20 billion, the groups said.

"It's outrageous that our tax dollars are inflating executive paychecks," said Sarah Anderson, an author of the report. "Surely in these troubled economic times we can find better ways to spend our nation's wealth."

The report said large U.S. companies paid CEOs an average $10.5 million in compensation last year,

344 times what the average worker earned.

That gap is expected to grow as the industries adding workers are those with the biggest pay gaps, the groups said.
(Reporting by Diane Bartz; Editing by Braden Reddall)

YOU SIR ARE DISHONEST...LIKE MOST OF YOUR POLITICAL PALS!!

Good stuff, Rico and Alan.

i expect our government to institute tariffs that protect American companies so that hiring Americans makes them as profitable as those that hire dollar an hour foreign labor.lets be honest how many companies actually pay a full 35 percent you say they do.none.G.E. paid no income tax.neither did wal mart.both made billions.americas EFFECTIVE corporate tax rate is one of the lowest in the world.your post has corporations paying 35 percent on their profits and paying another 35 percent in taxes and another 35 percent when they bring the money in country.were you a little tipsy when you wrote that.

if we want to see u.s. corporations hire Americans again we make foreign labor more expensive then American labor with tariffs.its worked in the past and will work again if we can get past a bribed congress

ROY WILSON-336103

Let me be more clear -- taxing the top 1-2 percent makes about the most sense possible given the realities of our economy and political and economic system. It is movement in the right direction instead of the wrong direction...

If we just 'confiscated' the 'wealth' of people in this country, how many people would bother to save - and the 'wealthy' would merely move to another country, and take their investment capital with them. America would then become as poor as Africa.

NO ONE is advocating outright wealth confiscation! Gradual, long-term solutions... UNDERSTAND.

I see you're trying to turn rational solutions into socialism, again. Nice try with he fear..

StopTheLiesNOW,

There should be no illusion that the answer doesn't lie solely at the top 2%. So for the sake of clarification, it should be acknowledged that our economy CLEARLY needs three things:

1) Trade reform to balance our current 25% import vs. 2% export deficit.
2) Tax reform to disregard and deeply regulate special interests.
3) Entitlement reform to strengthen and extend the social safety net.

In that order EXACTLY.

Addressing 1 and 2 FIRST, reduces the impact on 3, and affords MUCH more flexibility.

Trade reform starts with getting China to stop devaluing its own currency, and making them acknowledge their greatest market: the US.

Tax reform doesn't need a specific target. It needs "fairly" distributive "gains vs. capability" measures. In other words, if your gains afford you the opportunity to contribute more, then you WILL contribute more.

Entitlement reform requires much simpler measures after trade and tax reform have been accomplished to generate revenue. Means test Medicare Part D, and raise the taxable income cap to $250,000, and you're done. For AT LEAST 75 years or more.

EVERY ONE of our politicians KNOWS it really is just that simple. The problem is, most of them simply don't have the political will to make it happen.

rico-3714896 "Roy says - So just how much is "their fair share"? Currently, the top 10% of income earners pay 70% of all income taxes collected......... Roy I want to know where you got those stats."

Here's the link to the figures for 2008 (latest available) The accurate figure is 69.94%, which I rounded to 70%;

http://www.ntu.org/tax-basics/who-pays-income-taxes.html

ROY WILSON-336103,

In your rush to "prove your point", you neglected to explain "why".

The top 1% of America have captured the largest portion of America's wealth:

http://www.businessinsider.com/15-charts-about-wealth-and-inequality-in-america-2010-4#the-gap-between-the-top-1-and-everyone-else-hasnt-been-this-bad-since-the-roaring-twenties-1

Your problem is that you simply don't want to acknowledge that they're the only ones "capable" of paying that portion.

You simply cannot say "the rich already pay their share" out of one side of your mouth, while also "expecting" that the bottom 47% of American's need to "pay more" out of the other.

Its blatantly disingenuous, and nothing more than right-wing talking points.

Alan, quick question: When we place tarrifs on China, and begin a trade war which increases prices for all Americans, how will that effect our consumption driven economy? Your "easy" solutions are no solutions at all - just simply liberal taking points: raise taxes, stiffle trade, protect entitlements.

How about we shrink gov back about 60% and give our companies a fighting chance at being competitive in an open market? Americans have always been able to out produce anyone else, given the oportunity. Economic growth will allow us to finance soc sec and some form of medicare without confiscating - cause that's what it is, regardless of what you call it - wealth others produced for themselves.

cele2000,

Do some research. Then come back with clear non-biased links to your evidence that anything you claim will happen, will ACTUALLY happen.

First, I never used the term "raise taxes". In fact, I think the tax code can be reformed to LOWER the top rate. But even so, the top 1% WILL pay more than they do now.
Second, theres no need to raise tariffs if China is forced to stop devaluing its currency. That declaration simply needs to be made. And China will NOT want to lose their best customer, as opposed to simply leveling out the trade agreement. No matter how much you like to assume otherwise.
Third, why not protect entitlements? Even YOU worked for them, just like the "liberals" you so despise. Trade and tax reform can near exclusively provide the solvency they need. Means testing and raising the cap could push them over the top.

And finally, I'm not as "liberal" as you might like to assume through your narrow understanding of what I posted.

The largest portion of the problem points squarely at wage stagnation focusing wealth distribution to the top 1% through consolidation, and through tax credits only they can take advantage of, which keeps their ACTUAL tax rate at around 15% or less. Read the charts I posted above. They explain a lot.

I'm sorry your "preferred party" is getting shellacked as they are. But they brought it upon themselves. Personally I like the distribution of the parties as equal as possible. Which is why I'm rooting for Dylan Ratigan's constitutional amendment:

http://www.dylanratigan.com/2011/08/25/a-response-to-your-constitutional-amendment-emails/

Get the special interest money OUT of Washington once and for all, thus removing the enourmous incentives for making anti-patriotic decisions, and THEN we'll be able to get sh!t done. But until you're willing to put in the long research hours to clearly see whats REALLY happening, then everything you "claim" is nothing more than right wing talking points.

Alan O.-3429365 -

Yes, Alan. I'm sure we are on the same page, more or less. Your posts are thoughtful and honest.

I believe others are here not for honest exchange but rather for one purpose and one purpose only -- their agenda. That agenda, to misinform to the greatest extent possible in order to achieve that well-known goal.

Alan-That last paragraph says it all. Get special interest money our of our election process. The Citizens United decision by our far right leaning Supreme Court majority is probably the very worst thing that could have happened to the integrity of our electoral process in the last 150 years. It sets up the very real process of government by business and for business. Until we are able to undo the damage caused by that one single decision we will have little chance of keeping our congress from becoming a political bordello. Actually its already little more than a whorehouse. The corruption of our political process has left us with the most greedy, ignorant and cowardly of legislatures.

And for the record I am a liberal progressive and damned proud or it!!

StopTheLiesNOW,

Watch these three videos:

http://www.dylanratigan.com/2011/08/08/jobs-wanted-a-special-report-on-trade-taxes-and-banking/

then when you want to see how "real America" feels (not "the American people" the fringes like to claim as their constituency), watch this one:

http://www.rawstory.com/rawreplay/2011/08/dylan-ratigan-rages-against-bought-congress-on-msnbc/

Bluelake,

I'm about as middle-of-the-road as one can get. But the difference between me and most, is that I see the faults on BOTH sides. And frankly, thats EXACTLY where everyone needs to be to have an "honest" discussion. But until there is an across-the-board admission that our political system is sold to the highest bidders every 2-4 years, then our ONLY option is to rotate their asses out as frequently as we put them in, keeping ONLY the ones we feel are "most honest".

Thats where I draw my line in the sand. I don't believe that Obama is "completely honest" in everything he says and does. But conversely, I also don't believe hes willing to put "personal gain" above whats best for the country. I don't think hes capable of that.

Alan- Agreed. I grew up with republican parents who would never ever recognize their party today. I also used to consider myself fairly centrist but the terrifying lurch to the far right of the teabaggers and GOP has pushed me much farther to the left just by standing still. Actually when I listen to Jon Huntsman I hear the small whisper of what used to be within the GOP. Of course he has a snowball's chance in hell of getting the nomination. And while I am skeptical about the survival of honesty within all politicians I see elections that cost candidates millions and millions of dollars as the ultimate poison in our political system.

Bluelake,

the funniest thing is, MOST of a politician's campaign expenses are directed toward smear measures to defeat their opponents, rather than on simple media interviewing practices that they can get for free! Seriously. What national news network wouldn't interview a presidential candidate, without ANY cost to the candidate, just for the opportunity to get their views on the record about specific issues?

Where the big money comes in, is at the carrier level for ad space to smear the hell out of opponents LOL

" but will reject the infrastructure and public education spending the president wants"... I have to wonder just how much the republicans are wqilling to cut out of educating our kids ? Everyone must remember..the wealthy have no problem keeping the middle class from getting ahead if they are not educated..which it seems is just what the republicans are pushing for. Do we as the voting public want to lessen the chance of an education for our kids ? Are our kids not worthy of an education..or is it just the wealthy that are to get a good education now ? All those so hot to see cuts made need to look closely at what these cuts are and what it will mean to us all. This country already, thanks to our elected, has dropped in the education of our young while every other one is not. We are no longer number one in anything....and it is getting worse..and so far, I have not seen anything done by either party to correct the problems they have caused in jobs lost..nor in manufacturing lost...It is noticable however that they have no problem patting themselves on the back for doing nothing.

ivan, NC,

This has all happened MANY times before. And it WILL happen again. For as long as members of EITHER party determine that they no longer want personal accountability associated with their jobs.

The ONLY lobbyists our politicians "need" to do their jobs in accordance to "whats best for the American people", IS the "average" American citizen.

And right now, we're at an extreme disadvantage.

Alan O.-3429365 "ROY WILSON-336103, In your rush to "prove your point", you neglected to explain "why"."

Nobody asked me to explain "why", but the answer is simple - we have a graduated income tax scale, where the higher income earners pay a disproportionate share of the income taxes. It's not really that complicated.

In pointing out that the 'wealthy' have a disproportionate share of the wealth, that's what happens when some people invest and save, while others spend, spend, spend.

Don't get me wrong - I think we can get the 'rich' to pay more in taxes, but it's not like they don't pay a 'fair share'.

Most people would no doubt say that the 'fair' thing to do is raise taxes on everyone making 'more than they do', so everybody's opinion of 'fair share' is different.

I think we could do away with a lot of 'loopholes' and simplify the tax code, and have a much 'fairer' tax system and get even more taxes from the 'rich', but I also think that EVERYONE should pay some income tax, even if it's a nominal amount because when almost half the people pay no income taxes (and get 'credit' refunds anyway), they could care less about how much debt we're piling on, because 'someone else' will have to pay it off, and they typically will vote for whomever promises to keep up the freebies - at someone else's expense.

Everyone needs to have 'some skin in the game'.

PS - I am in favor of 'protecting entitlements' like Medicare and Social Security, but we need to fully fund them based on promised benefits, which is certainly NOT the case right now. My next Post will explain why we have such big Deficits - not to make this Post too long.

What is the REAL problem with the Deficits?

Just for perspective, I looked at President Obama's 2012 Budget projections, and here is what it shows with regard to just the health care entitlements - Medicare/Medicaid;

Total projected Revenues for Medicare/Medicaid over the next 10 years = $2.730 Trillion.
Total projected Costs for Medicare/Medicaid over the next 10 years = $10.530 Trillion.
That's a net Deficit in just the Medicare/Medicaid program of $7.790 Trillion.

It's interesting to note that the same Budget projections by Obama for the same 10 year period (2012-2021) show a TOTAL Deficit of $7.206 Trillion, so if it were not for the health care Deficits, we would actually show a net SURPLUS of $584 Billion over the next 10 years. These figures include the added cost of Obama's new entitlement for Obamacare. The revenues and spending projected by Obama can be verified at the following White House link - See Table S-3;

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2012/assets/tables.pdf

It's obvious that underfunded Medicare/Medicaid is the REAL problem with the Deficits.

My recommendation – Fully fund Medicare with increased payroll taxes of about $71 per month each for employers & employees, and for Medicaid, a combination of a small deductible ($10 per doctor visit) for Medicaid beneficiaries plus a National Sales Tax of about 2% (excluding food and medicine). These simple changes would fully fund these programs and lead to a Surplus instead of huge Deficits within 10 years.

I welcome any comments.

ROY WILSON-336103,

we have a graduated income tax scale, where the higher income earners pay a disproportionate share of the income taxes.

Everyone needs to have 'some skin in the game'.

These 2 comments are where your argument is fundamentally flawed.

First, we have a "progressive" tax system. Whereas the more you make, the more you're taxed.

Second, when a progressive tax system "disqualifies" a specific portion of the population from contributing based upon limited earnings, you CANNOT THENexpect them to have "skin in the game". You can't get more of something someone doesn't have.

You CLEARLY don't even recognize the basis or structure of our tax code. If you did, you would realize that if not for the "prerequisite" condition of ongoing wage stagnation spanning MANY years, many wouldn't be disqualified, because they would be ABLE to contribute to federal revenue, because they could AFFORD to.

The top 10% of our income earners are also eligible for credits and unscrupulous practices (such as off-shore tax havens and outsourcing entire operations), that "actual" small businesses will never see. Otherwise known as "tax expenditures".

Until you recognize these issues as the core of our economic issues, again, you're simply repeating FOX News talking points and misinformation, because you clearly don't have ALL of the required information to properly assess what you're trying to discuss.

Moving on:

Pointing to the 2012 budget is utterly pointless. Because its NOT the "current budget" the government is operating under. The government is currently operating under the 2010 budget through continuing resolutions, and has been for the entirety of FY2011.

That aside, the issue with Medicare is NOT Medicare itself (apart from its being starved of revenue for the past 10+ years). Its with Part D. Which is why means testing will be needed AFTER the trade and tax issues are resolved. Means testing the program to weed out "freeloaders" who obviously don't "need" it, would eliminate a tremendous amount of waste. Then, create the necessary regulations for "negotiating" prescription drug costs.

Medicaid recipients simply cannot afford "co-pays". Why? Because its an "income based" program. Its not "pay as you go" for the poor and un/underemployed. In most states, its 4 times your average gross weekly household income multiplied by 4.333%, then scaled accordingly to household size. Which is why we have SO MANY without ANY health insurance at all.

So your "recommendation" fails, because MOST people who actually qualify for Medicaid, also rent. They are not homeowners. And rent is an expenditure that is NOT a factor of the equation. Neither is car insurance, utilities, or food requirements of the household. And neither are mortgage payments for those who do own their own home, which are comprised MOSTLY of the elderly and disabled, and the rarity of an excessively large family.

Sure, there ARE people who "game" the system. But they don't total up to any "majority", or "epidemic" level. And certainly not to the degree of which our most affluent citizens and corporations "game" the tax code.

Finally, get rid of the rampant Wall Street "speculation".

The problem is, finding enough "honest" politicians to undertake this monumental task. And that starts with getting Wall Street money OUT of Washington. Permanently.

They pay 70% (your stats) of the taxes because they own 85-90% of the wealth. Now if this were an even deal where everyone paid their fair share wouldn't you think they'd be paying 85-90% of the taxes?????

Oh no....can't have that! The middle class will pick up their tab.

The President could turn job loss around. But he must remember the golden rule, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you".

He must stop saying, "Just comply with these thousands of new pages of regulations, and all the old regulations, which will only take about 15 years, and then you will be shovel ready".

Rather he should say, "Here, use my shovel. I'll have one of my guys work with your guys to help meet the old regulations. There will be no new regulations. We can get you up and running in your new factory in a jiffy".

scott-579755,

Deregulation is a HUGE part of what got us into this mess in the first place.

Corporations aren't NOT investing because of "over-regulation". They aren't investing because its not their preferred method of maximizing profits. They want maximum profit for minimal investment, and want to continue as they have for the last decade.

They sit on immense profit knowing that eventually, they will succeed in having these funds "repatriated" at minimal tax expense, allowing them to maximize shareholder gains, because they have well paid politicians in Washington to make sure it happens. "Under-regulation" was the primary hindering factor of the stimulus. Minimal regulatory focus, leaving expenditures at the discretion of state governments caused the stimulus to be FAR less effective than it could have been.

Go here:

http://www.recovery.gov/Pages/default.aspx

and look at what MANY states did with that money. Pay special attention to which states used the stimulus primarily to balance state budget deficits. Then compare them to the states which have slashed education funding, while providing "tax incentives" to their local corporate interests. Did they use those cuts to reinvest and create jobs? Hell no. They pocketed the cash with a smile, and thanked their lobbyists for a job well done.

Special interest money has infiltrated EVERY level of government. And until its stopped, the status quo will prevail.

Count on it.

He must stop saying, "Just comply with these thousands of new pages of regulations, and all the old regulations, which will only take about 15 years, and then you will be shovel ready".

Rather he should say, "Here, use my shovel. I'll have one of my guys work with your guys to help meet the old regulations. There will be no new regulations. We can get you up and running in your new factory in a jiffy".

And once that factory is set up and running, who are they going to produce products for?

When are the Republicans going to come going to come to grips with the facts? For real small business, tax cuts, regulations, health care requirements don't mean jack!

If there is NO DEMAND for whatever product or service that company is selling why would they hire on anyone new? If the business is booming and the current staff is unable to meet the demand, then and only then would they be looking to add to the workforce. At that point all the above points mentioned before may play a roll in that decision, but I'd be willing to bet those things would come second to meeting the customers demand.

We aren't going to have any demand until we put people back to work again, roads/bridges, high speed trains, upgrading the power grid, on and on with things that are broken and need of replacing.

I love the way the right uses "the those jobs aren't ready now" BS. If we had looked at how bad this recession truly was back in 2008 and took action then we would already be beyond the planning stages and started ground breaking on so many projects. How long should we wait????

We would have already had engineers and architects working and paying taxes, buying everyday things and putting money into the economy. Now we would be seeing steel plants getting orders and producing, same with every other industry that supplies a bridge/road project. Construction workers would be going to work, paying taxes and buying cars, washers/dryers----whatever, again add taxes dollars to Fed/State and local Govt. Adding dollars to the economy and helping consumer driven industry.

Will all this money be deficit spending--absolutely, when the economy is booming and 95% of the country is working again bump up taxes a little, change the tax code, revisit spending, work together and do any and all and do whatever it takes to get it right.

The point is now isn't the time to cut spending, when things are good and the private sector is fat and happy, then it's the time to harvest. Now is the time for Government to sow.

JimD-723959,

Exactly.

"Supply side economic theory" is just that. A theory that's proven to be a failure for the past three decades.

You hear all this "Keynesian theory hasn't worked", yet NOT ONE of those who decry the theory can point you to a single solid point of historical reference to back up their claim. They "try" to use the Great Depression as their "evidence":

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

The consensus among demand-driven theories is that a large-scale loss of confidence led to a sudden reduction in consumption and investment spending. Once panic and deflation set in, many people believed they could avoid further losses by keeping clear of the markets. Holding money became profitable as prices dropped lower and a given amount of money bought ever more goods, exacerbating the drop in demand.

.... without acknowledging the advent of World War 2 as the event that interrupted the Great Depression, and ultimately increased demand as the government took up deficit spending to partially fund the war:

As the Depression wore on, Franklin D. Roosevelt tried public works, farm subsidies, and other devices to restart the economy, but never completely gave up trying to balance the budget. According to the Keynesians, this improved the economy, but Roosevelt never spent enough to bring the economy out of recession until the start of World War II.

Sound familiar? This is where we're at right now. Obama's "Roosevelt moment". And hes facing EXACTLY the same challenges that Roosevelt did. Unfortunately, the country is NOT in a period of peacetime, and is far too war weary as it is. So here we are. With a choice to make as a country. Continue deficit spending to jump start the economy in the short term and put forth definitive measures to deal with the debt when the economy improves, or enter into an Age of Austerity?

And make no mistake, that's EXACTLY what it will be.

There is world demand out there. There are 6 billion consumers out there. The US has a trade deficit. The Indians and Chinese are able to find and satisfy consumers here. What is needed is competitiveness. With more competitiveness the US can get a trade surplus.
Competitiveness creates new demand for the US by taking it away from the rest of the world. Competitive companies GAIN market share from companies in other countries. Those US companies will have more demand in the US and around the world. Targeted tax credits for small companies help those companies become more competitive.

The rethugs are praying for a great depression to get rid of the black guy in the white house.

Alex. CA,

Your assessment is spot on, but only one part of a multi-faceted problem.

"Small businesses" only make up about 7.2% of total US employment. Its nothing. And 7.2% of the nations REAL "job creators" aren't going to be able to float today's "real" 18% unemployment rate.

Targeted tax credits would surely help, but they would do more to entice sidelined capital awaiting investment. Trade deficits are certainly the first item that needs to be addressed, to stop the steady extraction of wealth from the country. REAL penalties for companies who outsource and then offshore the resultant profits MUST be forced through responsible trade policy to invest in the US, by enacting measures that diminish their profit margin to nothing for such activity.

"Repatriation" should NOT even be a consideration, unless 100% of those profits are regulated toward the directive of domestic investment. If they want their profits to come home, then they need the incentive of mandatory investment to get what they want. Isn't that what they claim they want to do with that money anyway? Invest in America?

Fine. Then a few conditions of that investment shouldn't be an issue. Tax free repatriation, with mandatory regulatory measures. No predefined federal investment contract? Sorry Charlie, but your money can continue to sit in a tax haven overseas until it turns into confetti.

Today's republican party (as much as I hate to see what it has become) is nothing more than the new "corporate party" of our government. Republican, Tea Party, and even some democrats...... makes no difference. Because they're all beholden to special interests that have infiltrated out political system.

And your last comment is more true than you may realize. At least according to this guy:

http://www.truth-out.org/goodbye-all-reflections-gop-operative-who-left-cult/1314907779

But of course, he'll be labeled as a know nothing by the GOPTards who post here, and discredited as "a leftist" who simply couldn't hack it as a "true fiscal conservative". But just for sh!ts and giggles:

MIKE LOFGREN

Mike Lofgren retired on June 17 after 28 years as a Congressional staffer. He served 16 years as a professional staff member on the Republican side of both the House and Senate Budget Committees.

The money needs to be removed from Washington, and KEPT OUT through constitutional measure. Until it is, NO PARTY will be able to guide this country to economic prosperity.

Sally,

What do you expect from one of these right-wing clones?

Congratulations on a stellar display of bias. God knows, we NEVER read comments harsher than this on this vine!!

Pathetic. You should be ashamed of yourself.

Waaaah someone reported me and I got banned for a week for breaking the rules I agreed to adhere to to post here. Waaaaah. Now I'm gonna rereg and get permabanned. Waaaaah.

Ghams, you really are something special! Take off your subjective glasses for a moment, be a man, and ask yourself, am I right??

"What do you expect from one of these right-wing clones?"

For this, a week suspension??? Really!!?? Well, it's good to know I'm getting under the skin of the right wing!

Oh, and I'll cry if I want to! WHAHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

LOL

First off, yes, that is a prejorative term the way you meant it. Second, this isn't your first time in trouble if you got dinged for a week for it. Third, rereging is going to get you permanently banned. If you don't like the rules here, no one is forcing you to stay.

Cal, it isn't the fact they're union - it's the fact the law gives them advantages (such as prevaling wage requirements for Fed contracts) that are unfair, and inflate the cost to the taxpayer. It's the fact that the Feds can dictate to a company where that company can do business based on wether or not a union claims the company is treating them "unfairly". (If I were Boeing, I'd move every single union shop to India, China, Singapore... wherever I could hire who I wanted and build a plant where I wanted. Just makes me puke!)

I really don't care if a private company decides to deal with a union. But it is simply unconscionable that gov can then tell the company, in effect, now you're stuck with them.

Checking you moniker suggest you're from California, and you're going to try and make the case union don't hire illegals, don't be silly.

cele2000: if only we could outsource all the people like you to India, China, Singapore... wherever we could. America might be strong again.

Many of the construction companies that were not union never got to bid on any of the stimulus money. Cal doesn't understand how a business is run. Wages are determined by local or regional forces. So an average wage in CA is very different than in Topeka Ks. So now the government comes in and dictates the wage, instead of allowing those natural forces to place a wage on those jobs. So all the non-union companies that are paying X wage, now must increase wages for all others if they plan to keep their employees. So imagine one worker getting 25/hr and working right next to another making 12/hr. It is easy to say just raise that wage to 25/hr, but can that economy stand that wage. Of course not. Union jobs are government subsidized and thus why they can pay a higher salary. The government is not worried about making a profit, while the guy that starts a business is doing so to make a profit for himself. I mean why bother anymore. Why not just wait around for government to pass the goodies along and sit back and watch tv.

We are becoming a truly sad nation when we see so many on the left despising the private business sector that is the ONLY ones that can create jobs and get us out of this mess.

The union pay package for plumbers in Ohio is around 53.00 an hour.

Non Union Plumbers make around 28.00.

how is the private sector creating jobs?

Any America that spirals into dependency on the US Gov will never be strong. The gov needs to get out of the way - that will make us strong. The natural order should be Citizens - Local Gov - State Gov - Fed Gov. Right now we've got Fed Gov - State Gov - Local Gov - Citizen.

A small correction here: prevailing wage is required for ALL workers on federally paid for jobs - whether they are union or not. Employers of illegal immigrants would not be allowed on federal jobs because they do employment verification, but if they were, they would have to pay the illegal immigrants the same prevailing wage as non-union employers. That is the law, and it is verified by federal auditors. I know this because my husband has worked non-union on federal and state prison construction projects. Employers who fail to pay this money subject themselves to fines and requirements to make up back payments for wages owed and taxes.

It's not mostly because the EPA is not allowing new coal mines in West Virginia, currently they are protesting about the pipeline from Canada.

Not issuing permits for oil drilling or shutting down oil platforms.

Trying to stop fracking in the east for Natural GAS.

But not to worry it's ok to kill Golden eagles off with wind turbines...

California supports roughly 2,500 golden eagles. The state’s largest wind farms kill, on average, more than 80 eagles per year. But the state is set to triple wind capacity in the coming years as it tries to become the first state in the nation to generate 33 percent of its electricity from clean energy sources by 2020.

http://www.nationalreview.com/planet-gore/274804/dead-eagle-has-landed-greg-pollowitz

Oil and Gas Jobs
Find over 10,000 oil and gas jobs from around the world. Over 1,200 oil and gas jobs posted each week.

Hey, Cav, outsource all the people like me and you'll be Greece in two years. And wondering what went wrong - didn't O promise to take care of us?

The Davis Bacon Wage on Federal projects in my state averages around $50-54/hour (nearly twice the wage for a worker with 5-10 years experience at normal/non-union wages). Add the additional cost to the employer and you will get around $63 of cost per hour to the company. The wages are centered around Union jobs. The specialized work that we do does not fit into any union outfit (our company has looked into this). The only way we can get around that is if we set up an apprenticeship program and had other followers in the same type of businesses around the country jump on board. Of course, we are talking about dealing with the Fed to set this up so kiss that dream good bye. So without an apprenticeship program I have to pay a 2nd year guy the same amount as my guy with 15-20 years experience. Or I could pay him more than the required rate and either never win a bid or never make a dollar. We've been dealing with the DOL wage and hour division on finding ways to comply with their regulations and heavy reporting requirements. Of course, none of them give us the same answer (because they don't know). Now when we leave messages with questions this is how they respond. A week after our initial question we get a post card from the DOL wage and hour division. It sets up a date an approximate time that they are going to grace us with a call. That day usually comes and goes and several days after we get their call. That person rarely has the answer and usually leads us to ask more questions that he/she can't answer. Then the next week we get another post card and start all over.

We don't want to deregulate to the point where the health and safety of our people and resources are at jeopardy, but if anyone can find me an example of where our federal gov't operates with the slightest bit of efficiency I would really like to know.

Oh, and we would also rather be caught dead before employing a p.o.s. illegal. Our workers are proud to be legal and proud to work with us.

Unions had their place. We now have laws to make up for the b.s. people were subjected to prior to unions. Now, they are simply unsustainable.

oil and gas? their profits are high enough and the devastation left behind is not pretty and costly to clean up. how about hemp for a raw material which can be used for a number of things including fuel.

Calusa.....when the government, state or federal, spends taxpayer money, they should look for the best deal. If a none union shop can do the same job for less, they should get the job. Otherwise, we are just contributing to the gov. waste we all complain about.

the best deal does not mean products produced without fair wage

It is obvious that you know nothing about running a business for profit. The reason highways, bridges, skyscrapers, apartment buildings,and so on cost so much is the high cost of government interference in the free trade process. By eliminating any competition you guarantee the unions the jobs at the highest cost possible.

If you want a good example of the high cost of union labor just watch your local BPW workers. It takes five men to dig a hole, 6 months to build a small bridge over a 1 foot creek and forever for them to build a highway. Private no union enterprise will do the job in half the time and better.

Have you ever wondered why the same car you bought for $3,500 in 1974 now cost $30,000 and is half the size. Ask your congressman.

A person can go on forever why unions are no longer needed. The only reason Hoffa and others and their goons run their jaws is to protect their high paying jobs and benefits. Ask them sometime if you can have an independent audit of the union pension and hospitalization trusts. If the money is really there.

cele2000 -

LOL. You may be the guy with the pen put you sure don't have the critical thinking skills to back it!

Which is is?

Either you're going to ship all the jobs to India as you stated in your previous post, depriving Americans of jobs to spite the government...

OR

As a GOP, you align yourself with Bush! He held the pen and he's the one to put us one foot in Greece's shoes... most of our debt is under his and Reagan's pen buddy!

- "Inconsistent, irrational, arrogant and erroneous!" You should use this for your new company slogan.

The arguements presented are interesting indeed! One of my favs is outsourcing for cheap labor! Well that is just what you get, cheap labor! Consumers have to watch what they buy cause stuff is just too cheap. Better to do without! Companies outsourcing should be outsourcing their freedom and liberty protection also. With the reduced numbers paying taxes in the Good Old USA, there will be no money for military and pentagon and whatever other protections you were expecting. VIVA Mexico, China, India, Ireland, etc. As for the union guy at $50.00 an hour and the nonunion guy at $12.00 an hour, only send the $50.00 guy to my house. I have paid enough already for shoddy work and only want the best. Last if everyone in the USA makes minimum wage, how will the airport at Houston or Dallas be supported? By the rich? OK airports just for the rich ran by the minimum wage guy/gal! USA drops from 5th in the World ranking to 185th. Thank you all you thoughtful voters. Glad I am older now and won't see the long term ramifications.

CAL,

The real principle is quite simple. The buyers (i.e., the taxpayers) want to buy as cheaply as possible. One of the ways to cut costs for everyone is to avoid paying dues to unions that add ZERO economic value but impose many extra costs.

Cal,

Just last year, while we were in the heat of our first recession, I was working on a construction project in Illinois, on a large highway resurfacing project. This interstate project was funded as part of the stimulus package. It Just so happened that the UNION CONTRACTS, were up in 2010, Operating Engineers and Laborers. Around $45.00, and $37.00/ hr respectively NOT INCLUDING COMPANY FUNDED BENEFITS, AND HEALTH CARE!!!

THEY WENT ON STRIKE!!!!!

THEY DECIDED THAT THEY WERE NOT GETTING ENOUGH OF MY CHILDREN'S MONEY.

THE BUMS WANTED MORE!!!!

You Can't tell me that was right! You can't tell me that with unemployment at artificial 9% realistic 17% we couldn't pay 1/2 that amount with a 401k and health insurance and find someone else to do the job who is a LEGAL US CITIZEN.

BE REAL!!!!

Cal, in your world, unions add zero economic value. In my world, they add quality workmanship and pride of production. Hum, you buy from the cheap guy, I'll buy from the union guy!

@ stop the lies now

again just more garbage with out facts. you should think about changing you name.

Sandy,

Many Tradesmen are embarrassed at what their own leaders are doing to this country! They know that the only way they can work is to be forced into a union!!! This I know because I TALK TO THE UNION WORKER ON A DAILY BASIS about these very issues.

My point is, get rid of their union choke-hold, (SPECIAL INTEREST GROUPS, see Bill Dugan-Operating Engineers Local 150, now in Maryland), and put more brothers to work! Not at home on their rumps!!

Cal, in your world, unions add zero economic value. In my world, they add quality workmanship and pride of production. Hum, you buy from the cheap guy, I'll buy from the union guy!

And what exactly is the name of your world? Fantasy Land? Hum, you buy from the guy who won't get fired regardless of how poorly he does his job; I'll buy from the guy who has his @ss on the line if he screws up.

u know, I think the Republican plan for immigration is not to fire employed i. immigrants, (since many of the jobs they take are mediocre like housekeeping, berry farming, etc.) but to show the people that they care about removing them more than the next guy...oh and kill the unions too

Backcountry164

As a GOP, you align yourself with Bush! He held the pen and he's the one to put us one foot in Greece's shoes... most of our debt is under his and Reagan's pen buddy!

Please! Obama has spent more money in 3 years than Bush did in 8. Bush was an idiot but looks like a genius when compared to Obama. Seriously, you dems should consider staying home on election night. That way you'll still be able to at least hold a straight face while you're bitching about Bush being the worst president in history. Four more years of Obama and even the most ardent progressive would be hard pressed to make the case that Bush was worse.

Obama's first budget year started on October 1, 2009. The expenditures which were incurred during the first 8 months of his presidency were already budgeted before he took office. The debt on September 30, 2009, was 11.909 trillion. The majority of the increase in debt was due to interest on loans incurred during the Bush administration and the stimulus.

"The fact of the matter is," Obama replied, "is that when we came into office, the deficit was $1.3 trillion -- $1.3 trillion. So when you say that suddenly I've got a monthly deficit that's higher than the annual deficit left by Republicans, that's factually just not true, and you know it's not true. And what is true is that we came in already with a $1.3 trillion deficit before I had passed any law. What is true is, we came in with $8 trillion worth of debt over the next decade."

Bush did all the spending, quit your Bitching!!!!!
Another thing that's going to make you bitch even more is the fact that Obama has to only win Florida or Ohio or N Carolina and hes president again.
And there's nothing you can do about it.
And im not including Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada, or New Hampshire.
Also remember my bitching friend, that he won Ohio by more than 10% of the vote.
And theres no way Perry of Romney come close to getting elected.
Look at perry he lost hes first debate.

How is this package helping the unemployed?Extend healthcare for another year? I am unemployed and i went 1 time to the doctors and saw no special healthcare for me.I had to pay out of pocket.My employer offered to keep me on the policy provided i payed for it.I couldnt afford it,so i didnt.Most amaricans that are unemployed cant keep there policy cause of other bills or lack of cash coming in to pay there bills till they find work.I ask,how is this gonna help a person with no job that has ran out of unemployment?Its not! Its one big joke.

abattaglia

Cal,

Just last year, while we were in the heat of our first recession, I was working on a construction project in Illinois, on a large highway resurfacing project. This interstate project was funded as part of the stimulus package. It Just so happened that the UNION CONTRACTS, were up in 2010, Operating Engineers and Laborers. Around $45.00, and $37.00/ hr respectively NOT INCLUDING COMPANY FUNDED BENEFITS, AND HEALTH CARE!!!

THEY WENT ON STRIKE!!!!!

THEY DECIDED THAT THEY WERE NOT GETTING ENOUGH OF MY CHILDREN'S MONEY.

THE BUMS WANTED MORE!!!!

You Can't tell me that was right! You can't tell me that with unemployment at artificial 9% realistic 17% we couldn't pay 1/2 that amount with a 401k and health insurance and find someone else to do the job who is a LEGAL US CITIZEN.

BE REAL!!!!

I bet your dream is for American auto workers to be working for minimum wage and no benefits? Or teachers? or police firefighters? The people who build our highways and bridges?

Because if there was no unions that's what they will working for and there isn't anything you can do about it.

Since you aren't lucky enough to work for a union F#@$ them!!!!

Can you show me a link that shows that unemployment its realistically at 17%???

Backcountry164Please! Obama has spent more money in 3 years than Bush did in 8

Thats what i call ignorance at its finest!!!

Can you please provide some numbers for your LIES?

And no!!! no links to fox news opinion sections.

Can you please provide some numbers for your LIES?

And no!!! no links to fox news opinion sections.

I'd have more faith in information that I got from friggin Kermit the Frog than I would from any opinion show of FOXNews. How does NPR suit you? Please see post 3.31 above.

Backcountry164

Bush did all the spending, quit your Bitching!!!!!
Another thing that's going to make you bitch even more is the fact that Obama has to only win Florida or Ohio or N Carolina and hes president again.

Bush was an idiot. Obama is worse.

"Bush ran up a total of $3.283 trillion in deficit spending (p. 22). In his first two fiscal years, Obama will run up a total of $2.826 trillion in deficit spending ($1.294 trillion in 2010, an estimated $1.267 trillion in 2011 (p. 23), and the $265 billion in "stimulus" money that was spent in 2009). Thus, Bush ran up an average of $410 billion in deficit spending per year, while Obama is running up an average of $1.413 trillion in deficit spending per year — or $1.003 trillion a year more than Bush."-http://www.npr.org/2011/01/25/133211508/the-weekly-standard-obama-vs-bush-on-debt

Yeah, Bush did all the spending. LOL! That's almost as funny as your assertion that Obama is practically a shoe in.

This is what you do, don't count Bush deficits with Obama deficits and see who spent more.

Federal government spending has risen under President Obama, mostly because of the $800 billion stimulus designed to offset the massive recession. But the increase in federal spending under Obama is dwarfed by the colossal increase under President Bush.

from 2000 to 2008, under President Bush, Federal spending rose by $1.3 trillion, from $1.9 trillion a year to $3.2 trillion a year.

From 2009 to 2011, meanwhile, under President Obama, federal spending has risen by $600 billion, from $3.2 trillion a year to $3.8 trillion a year. It has also now begun to decline.

In other words, federal government spending under President Bush increased 2X as much as it has under President Obama.

From the numbers above 1.2 trillion dollars is what Obama has added to the debt. Most economist even ones that served under Bush, have stated that the Obama stimulus bill helped us recover faster from the rescission.

I have a link for you if you want to check the numbers for yourself?

Thats Obama spending Bitch!!!!!

And guess what by 2012 and 2013 Budgets are beginning to shrink. With 2013 expected to be around a 600 billion deficit. Off course if the government doesn't do anything about entitlements it will begin to go up after 2015.

DO THIS LOOK AT SPENDING BASED ON BUDGETS NOT THE DEFICIT LEFT BY ANOTHER PRESIDENT.

242 ELECTORAL VOTES THAT Obama HAS AND ELECTION IS STILL 14 MONTHS AWAY. I call that a shoe and a half in.

continued from #3.32- accidentally posted before I was finished and won't allow an edit

For the record I will admit to a bit of hyperbole. Technically Bush spent 3.283 trillion in deficit spending in his 8 years and Obama has “only” spent 2.826 trillion in his 3 years. So Bush has outspent Obama by nearly half a trillion dollars but I think my point remains valid. Bush spent 8 years throwing away American tax dollars Obama has nearly equaled him in just 3. There is no way any honest person can bash Bush while praising Obama or vice versa.

Backcountry164

Can you please provide some numbers for your LIES?

And no!!! no links to fox news opinion sections.

I'd have more faith in information that I got from friggin Kermit the Frog than I would from any opinion show of FOXNews. How does NPR suit you? Please see post 3.31 above.

Its taking into account the deficit left by Bush.

George H W Bush left a $290 Billion Dollar deficit for President Clinton to clean up and during his 8 years as President, he managed to leave George W Bush with a
$236 Billion Dollar SURPLUS !!!
8 Years to clean up less than 300 billion and you want Obama to clean up 1.3 trillion deficit in 2.5 years????????????
I know what your response is going to be: Clinton did not leave a surplus and bla bla.... he used social security money and bla bla. Fine, but he did bring the deficit to zero.
You are a weird guy... huh?? you dont get your talking points from FAKE NEWS????
I wonder who else is brainwashing you?

alex cali

...$45.00, and $37.00/ hr respectively NOT INCLUDING COMPANY FUNDED BENEFITS, AND HEALTH CARE!!!...

...You can't tell me that with unemployment at artificial 9% realistic 17% we couldn't pay 1/2 that amount with a 401k and health insurance

The above is from my original post...DO THE MATH!!! Sounds better than minimum wage to me!

You would benifit from focusing on reality instead of anger!!!

242 ELECTORAL VOTES THAT Obama HAS AND ELECTION IS STILL 14 MONTHS AWAY. I call that a shoe and a half in.

Don't count your chickens before they hatch. No incumbent President in the last 60 years has won a reelection with the numbers Obama has now. But I'll be stocking up on survival gear just in case. Hell, I might even listen to that fruit Beck and start buying gold if Obama gets back in.

Backcountry164

continued from #3.32- accidentally posted before I was finished and won't allow an edit

For the record I will admit to a bit of hyperbole. Technically Bush spent 3.283 trillion in deficit spending in his 8 years and Obama has “only” spent 2.826 trillion in his 3 years. So Bush has outspent Obama by nearly half a trillion dollars but I think my point remains valid. Bush spent 8 years throwing away American tax dollars Obama has nearly equaled him in just 3. There is no way any honest person can bash Bush while praising Obama or vice versa.

Wrong! wrong! wrong! You are funny.

You look at Bush spending as if in January 2009 thats it no more Bush problem Obama problem now!

Budget ends in October 2009 and the final number for debt is 11.9 trillion dollars plus a 1.3 trillion deficit.

Its simple accounting man/woman, look at the numbers please.

Backcountry164

242 ELECTORAL VOTES THAT Obama HAS AND ELECTION IS STILL 14 MONTHS AWAY. I call that a shoe and a half in.

Don't count your chickens before they hatch. No incumbent President in the last 60 years has won a reelection with the numbers Obama has now. But I'll be stocking up on survival gear just in case. Hell, I might even listen to that fruit Beck and start buying gold if Obama gets back in.

Different times.

Look at congress approval? who has a majority of congressmen? Democrats or republicans?

Maybe Romney seems like a real candidate. But i doubt it. Perry is an @#!$!

I think i figured something out with you in these few posts. You seem to hate on all the people on the right from whom you take all your talking points from.

Its weird ??

alex cali

PS. I'm vested in a union!!! Didnt like it then but was forced into it! Got out. Now doing much better on my own!!!

Backcountry, if you're going to post a link to support your assertions, you may want to choose one that isn't an opinion piece. You may also want to put your "selected proof" into context. For example, check out the paragraph beginning, "In fairness, however, Obama can't rightly be held accountable for the 2009 budget, which he didn't sign." Clearly the person righting this op-ed agrees with you, but he also had the decency and intelligence to qualify his remarks.

Guy I am sorry but cheap labor can and most time is the most expensive way to go. I worked for a very large central IL manfacturing business and hired outside contractors. I tryed low bidders a few times and found the jobs took longer and in a few cases had to be redone, with additional loss in production. I found that using the professional from companys using only union trained workers, work was done faster and I was never disapointed. Companys using union workers can flex their work force up or down to suit the job. So if you want the job done fast and done right look for the profesionals.

While unemployment is bad enough at 9.1 percent, there's a number behind the number that paints a broader picture. The Labor Department compiles the figure to assess how many people want full-time work and can't find it — a number the unemployment rate alone doesn't capture.

Combined, the 14.2 million officially unemployed; the "underemployed" part-timers who want full-time work; and "discouraged" people who have stopped looking make up 16.2 percent of working-age Americans.

In a healthy economy, this broader measure of unemployment stays below 10 percent. It's been 15 percent or more since the Great Recession officially ended.

This is the first time since 1945 that the federal government has reported a net job change of ZERO!

So much for a Happy Labor Day In The Obama Economy....

CAL USA "I find it interesting that Republicans object to paying union labor rates for construction projects. Wouldn't you think that would offer an advantage to firms that employ illegal aliens who are willing to work for less?"

That sounds contradictory. It actually costs less for a union company for labor than a non-union company on a 'prevailing wage' job, because the non-union company has to pay the same wages PLUS extra wages in lieu of union dues PLUS payroll/worker's compensation taxes on the union dues equivalent. Union companies don't have to pay payroll taxes on the union dues. That gives union companies a big advantage on 'prevailing wage' public jobs.

Ironically, the 'prevailing wage' provisions (Davis-Bacon) were passed in 1931 to prevent contractors from hiring Black laborers, since they would work for less, and union companies wanted to protect the jobs of 'White' workers.

All you posters arguing about how much Bush spent versus how much Obama spent need to consider only one thing. In 8 years during the bush administration there were approx. 3.5 million new jobs created while the population grew by 23 million. The country was already in a tremendous jobs hole before Obama was even elected.

The spending, right or wrong by Obama, was to try and dig ourselves out of this tremendous hole. I don't think it worked nor will it work now. Neither will tax cuts which just allow Americans to buy more foreign made products.

I am a private business. A small family operated and private business. I dutifully pay all of my taxes as a proud American.. I fully understand that the required licenses, regulations and insurance are there to protect my customers, my employees and the environment. I not only understand all of the above, I appreciate them.

As an honest businessman that cares deeply about all of these issues, the requirements level the playing field for all businesses of my size. The tax cheating, customer and employee abusing businesses that dispose of toxic waste in their own community must follow the same rules as my business. In most cases, they don't get a leg up by bribing officials for special exemptions that apply only to them.

I fully acknowledge that much larger businesses have much larger purchasing powers that result in lower prices. I always counter that advantage with a much higher level of personal service to our customers. Various inquiries or the few complaints that may result out of our business transactions are always directed to my office or trusted people within my office with no delay. You will never spend 30 - 60 minutes punching various numbers in response to recorded voices to finally, if ever, reach a live broken English speaking employee that understands your concerns even less than you understand his or her pitiful excuse for the English language.

I do NOT appreciate the great disparity between small business and mega corporations. They have millions to bribe our elected officials and hire lobbyists to pass legislation with huge loopholes and tax breaks that benefit themselves(and their stooges in Congress) at terrific expense to myself, common American taxpayers and our national treasury.

Once upon a time, I was a right leaning centrist. The gauges have been drastically altered. The far right has moved to extremes that would make Hitler, himself, blush. In a rush for "smaller" government, their version of government would dictate who we may love, our religion, our personal freedoms and claims of "enemy of the state" if we fail to agree with them.

The far left has almost vanished with false claims of sedition and hating America by the new right. The new left of American political leaders such as President Clinton and President Obama fall right of Republican Presidents of old such as Lincoln, Ford, Nixon and Eisenhower.

My ideals and positions have not changed drastically in past decades. The political landscape in this great nation has been hijacked by extremists bent on destroying her and all of her glory. The American people are dazed today by the rapid onslaught on freedom, liberty, equality and the pursuit of happiness for all. This is a temporary condition. They will rise once again with clarity and purpose to restore the American dream. My last hope is that the second American revolution need not be as bloody as the first. That will be determined by the greedy hands presently strangling the greatest nation on Earth.

Backcountry164 -

Please! Obama has spent more money in 3 years than Bush did in 8

I love a guy who demands facts and then comes up with this kind of @!$%#! Hell, reference ROY WILSON'S numbers, they're closer to the truth than yours. LOL.

Funny, I don't see him contributing them here??? HMMM.

When 47 percent of the wealth in this country is controlled by the top 1% of the population -- you're going to have problems. And you will not see job creation when business and corporations are looking for ways to cut costs due to a decline in demand. I read somewhere corporations are experiencing the highest revenue-per-employee ratio ever recorded.

Ignoring the lessons of the past, the wealth gap continues to grow. Not coincidentally, the last time we saw polarization like this was preceding the Great Depression. After a decade of spending more on less (homes, cars, etc) while the median income actually declined after inflation, the middle-class is done. They're broke! Oh - and the number one reason for personal bankruptcy in this country -- health care related.

It seems to me, that while stock market practices and
irresponsible legislation certainly contributed to our financial crisis,
triggering the inevitable, it is the decline of the middle-class and its buying power that was and is the TRUE problem.

We have seen the direct result of supply-side economic theory over
the past several decades and the irrefutable result has been to redistribute
wealth to the top, a segment of the population that will run to safe haven
during times of crisis rather than participate in our
economy.

abattaglia #3.20,

Did you ever think that the bums were trying to keep their current wage? What would you do if your employer came to you and told you to take a pay cut but do the same or more work? Say "oh. I understand" or leave at the first opportunity for someplace else? I'll tell you what I did when it happened to me: I stayed on for a month then I left for an employer that paid me my uncut wage and an extra $6.73/hr for the same position. I'm non-union. And I did it in February 2011!

List of Laws Passed by the 111th Congress and President Obama

We've been hearing that we have a "do nothing" Congress from the GOP for some time now (even as they have tried to obstruct most of the legislation passed).

Despite our disappointments, Democrats in the Congress and Obama have actually achieved quite a bit of change since 2008!

Below is a list of the 43 major laws passed so far in 2009-10 (excluding resolutions, appropriations bills and minor bills renaming post offices, etc.).

In just two years, we began health care reform, started an overhaul of the finance sector (credit cards, derivatives, banks), expanded FDA oversight to include tobacco, took back our national parks from mining and forestry, passed the first Iran sanctions since 2003 (Bush and Cheney opposed expanding Iran sanctions) and implemented programs to stimulate the economy and save jobs. We have more work to do, but that's a great deal to be proud of!

Did we get everything we had hoped? No, of course not with only 55 reliable Senate votes and a GOP that used the Filibuster more than any time in history.

I want us to do more to help our economy, fix health care and hold people accountable.

We've made a decent start, and if we don't get out there, we could lose much of what we have gained and lose our ability to improve on what we've started.

Don't let anyone take that progress away.

List of Laws Passed by the 111th Congress and President Obama

You'll find a list of laws passed here. Google it so you know what you're talking about. I see only things that will benefit the average citizen.

Commonsense101

If you could see me right now you couldn't miss that I am standing up applauding your post!! If I could click "like" more than once you'd be in the high hundreds. Thank you so much for your support of the middle class!

all I know is that I worked for 35 years for a national rail co and I am one of those overpaid union thugs I guess, not really sure what you have to do to be a "thug".........

averaged about 45k per year........

my net worth is zero

I don't really understand how continuing to lower wages for Americans is going to spur any demand in a consumer driven economy, at the same time that upper management is taking millions out of the business

cele2000...it would be interesting to see how many in congress have close ties to all those that received government contracts.....I do not believe unions have anything to do with those deals...congress pays out way too many favors to lobbyist to even consider unions having any say over any contracts one way or the other.

CorporateShill...finally, someone gets it right..thanks...you are right on. I have to wonder why tyhe republicans are so hot to reduce wages....other than toi make sure their wealthy friends make more profits...of course, I have to wonder just who they think willbe able to buy their products if we workers can not afford to buy them because of very low wages.

yeah, I don't know who they think will be consumers. It's like Henry Ford in reverse !!!

Agreed.

Huray for holding the economy and Americans hostage for petty political maneuvering.

A national sales tax replacing an income tax?! That only works in a vacuum!

Do we really need to give one more advantage to multinational corporations compared to the domestic players. We already offer generous foreign tax credits, deductible outsourcing expenses, a lower payroll tax on the few remaining US jobs, loose standards on H1B Visa applications, and barely questioning transfer pricing and engineered losses to offshore earnings without taxing them.

A national sales tax will reward every company that is capable of purchasing its supplies outside of the country and shipping them in. I imagine that companies like GE will move their procurement centers offshore, purchase all the equipment/supplies they need through these companies, and then bring the supplies back to the US without having to pay any taxes on it whatsoever! It completely eliminates the need for GE Capital to engineer losses! GE could just end all purchases within US borders and outsource GE Capital like it has most of its remaining production and overhead...HURAY!

/Still waiting for a real solution to our mess

//Real working solutions won't come from the lobby-funded-fodder we call our elected representatives

KA-BOOM!

The problem with any new tax is that until we get spending under control, it's just adding fuel to the spenders - they'll just see it as another source of money to spend.

A VAT, as part of tax reform that eliminates or greatly reduces income tax rates, could work. Your objection that it would allow corps to "avoid" the tax - so what? It could be written to capture those "imports"; conversely, since companies don't pay taxes, their customers do, reducing tax on American companies increases their ability to compete, no? It might even, (gasp) create growth in the American mfg sector.

Course, I'm half convinces O doesn't want anything to grow excpet Gov.

Ghostmaker where is the GOP's plan?

The same arguement can be made for the timing of this "American Jobs Act"

Why werent we doing this 2 years ago? Why not a year and a half ago?

It can easily be said that Obama timed this to coincide with his reelection bid in 2012. It gives him ammunition if the GOP stalls or refuses to cooperate and if the bill works ( if passed ) Then the economy will begin to rise just as he is campaigning for reelection. So who is to say he has not held the American workforce hostage for two years in order to keep his job in the White House?

It's all politics and I am sick of all of them.

portman.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/files/serve?File_id=6e0dad20..

So, which is it? If the GOP is not presenting any alternatives, then how can you criticize the national sales tax. That is an alternative, isn't it? And don't act like a national sales tax is a wacky tea Party idea, national sales taxes in the form of Value Added Taxes (or VATs) are pretty common. (A VAT is a little different from a sales tax, but they are close cousins.)

My problem with a VAT is that the government - always thirsting for new ways to pick our pockets - would likely add a VAT while maintaining income taxes. To determine the true tax rate you need to add together: the federal income tax, state income tax, local income tax (where present), sales and excise taxes, property taxes (including on vehicles), special taxes on property conveyance, estate taxes, license fees, social security taxes, medicare taxes, unemployment insurance taxes (where applicable), and so on. Also, remember that the Obamacare taxes will kick in soon. I would hate to add a VAT on top of all of that!

What I really want to know is, how much of my income is enough for the government to take away from me? Do I have to give it all away in order to pay, "my fair share." Even serfs got away with only giving the king 3 days of labor out of 7. I would have done better under feudalism!

Dot - Check Harry Reid's office. He is not allowing anthing Republican to come up for debare

Amen,Jim TN You got that right!!!! I hope it does blow up in Their Faces! They could care less about "The working Man"

Seriously,

Don't worry about GE, they paid $0. in taxes last year.

Tickle down economic theory HAS never worked in the history of the world. It is totally illogical to believe that concentration of wealth will help the majority of the country. That really is the basis for our current economic woes-the concentration of wealth in the hands of a small majority is the highest it has been since the just before the Great Depression. But the TEA party is doing everything possible to increase that concentration without regard for the welfare of the nation. The TEA party is truly the party of Total Economic Annihilation.

The idea of the GOP to make sure Obama doesn't do anything substantial and receive any credit that may help his re-election in 2012 would be a very selfish act on the part of republicans in office and how unfair they are. In my opinion a true picture of what the republican party is all about would be painted to the American people.

A picture that this is a party that doesn't care about the people in this country all cares about is it's own political agenda causing people suffer until 2013. Doing this will also show how and why the Obama Administration is failing on the economy, because he has been blocked the whole time by house republicans. This strategy will be so exploited by the media and the Obama Administration. Obama will also expose this to the American people while on the election trail causing him to win by a landslide just like he did in 2008.

They don't agree just to be agreeable and they don't agree to gain political power. I fail to see a contradiction. I understand that power politics come into play anytime there is a lame duck situation brewing. Right now Obama is only half lame-duck and everyone is fighting over either making him one or saving him from becoming one. I'm well aware that this isn't a popularity contest, this is a tooth and nail fight for political supremacy which leads to other.. baser rewards.

If Obama wins the Presidency and the Republicans still control the House then you can expect more legislative stalemates. If Republicans win the Presidency, and the Democrats still hold the Senate or gains the House, it is still the same stalemate. I think the electorate will try to avoid any lame duck situation but they are hardly predictable.

If Obama wins the Presidency and the Democrats take control of both houses of Congress, my opinion is it will be a welfare spending nightmare. (I don't like Obamacare either) It will lead to at least 2 years of Republican impotence and then we will probably end up in same boat we are in now, for the second half of the next term, because Democrats will just tick everyone off with their unrivaled power and get booted in the next election. The only thing I am fairly sure of is that the Republicans will not win it all.

All politicians use the issues as blackmail and they use the laws and regulations they create as currency. I can understand that and to me it is quite acceptable. The saddest part is when they do it in time of economic crisis; when something needs to be done.

I also agree, BUT LOOK AT THE COST TO OUR CITIZENS this action is doing. How can anyone actually hate a desire for fair play so much. Republicraps can and will have this obstructionist attitude cost them in the next elections. I WILL DO EVERYTHING I CAN TO MAKE SURE OF THAT!

" It will be interesting to see if the plan succeeds or if it blows up in their face."

LOL, as if what you are insinuating is reality. It's funny how you guys can talk yourselves into anything. We'll see if your prediction comes true. The arguments are about how the bill is going to be payed for. Trying to get $30 billion from TARP to help small businesses is horse pucky among other things.

@ jerry Allensworth

Worse, the US actually paid GE $3.2Billion

cele2000

A VAT, as part of tax reform that eliminates or greatly reduces income tax rates, could work. Your objection that it would allow corps to "avoid" the tax - so what? It could be written to capture those "imports"

How do you "capture imports" when the company is merely shipping supplies that they already own (remember, they purchased them elsewhere)? The transaction is done, money changed hands somewhere else in the world and GE already took ownership of the supplies in this hypothetical. So how precisely do you tariff a shipment of a product where no transaction took place upon the event of its transfer to US shores? If anything, on GE's US books, it will apply for a foreign tax credit for the taxes they paid on the asset.

How combersome do you think it will be to track every asset and how it moves in a company to make sure that they are paying their taxes correctly

What do you suggest we do with foriegn tax credits in the event of a national sales tax?

since companies don't pay taxes, their customers do, reducing tax on American companies increases their ability to compete, no? It might even, (gasp) create growth in the American mfg sector.

How much do you think taxes effect the price of US manufacturing and its gobal competitive stance compared to other factors like exchange rates.

There's data to show that exchange rates are at least one of the most significant drivers to the amount the US exports. Where do you think taxes rank within this category? Particularly since so many of the large US companies pay almost nothing in taxes.

Lastly, show me where companies base their hiring on how much they pay in taxes and not based on increases in demand.

I think the number 1 rule for the GOP is not to agree on anything that Obama can take credit for

You make it sound like not agreeing with Obama is a bad thing. Where have you been for the last 3 years? Or do you believe failing epically is something to be praised?

Backcountry164

You're missing the point.My post was not about any policy or policies it is about election politics and partisanship OVER policy-making at all. Even now the Republicans would rather focus on the REINS Act, a political power grab, than the economy.

Our Policy has been abd always will be:

"Never negotiate with a terrorist"

JimTN-3229159

I think the number 1 rule for the GOP is not to agree on anything that Obama can take credit for, and to hold off on any major plan of their own until it gets closer to election time. That way the GOP doesn't give Obama a boost for the election and they can threaten the electorate with more blocking maneuvers if it looks like Obama will be re-elected. Basically, it is election blackmail or holding the economy hostage to get what they want. It will be interesting to see if the plan succeeds or if it blows up in their face

That's a "No Brainer". The GOP made that quite clear right after the election. They said it was their goal to block everything Obama wants. They did not hide it one bit from the beginning. They have already made up their minds that making Obama a no results president was more important than the American people. The only solution is to get the DNC behind him and re-elect a democratic congress in 2012. The last DNC Congresses, 2009 - 2010, never actually united with each other as the GOP did, nor did they rally behind their elected leader. Unless the DNC can become a unified front on all sides, they don't deserve the legislature or the White House. And yes, this is coming from a left wing democrat. If the DNC cannot unfy itself, it needs to let the GOP run things till they can.

Jim a lot of congress have their factories and they see $ (dollar) signs. Yes sir reese, you put the person in charge setting the incomes and your going to have some very wealthy republicans without them putting much back in federal taxes. If you remember the deregulation with GW and how many mines had people trapped in them and how many died because the owners didn't have to spend a few dollars to make things right down there. To the republicans it just means they don't have to pay SS to the ones they lose in these kind of accidents. I'm sorry to point out to them that these people have families, children that want to see their dad when he comes home from work, unlike the TP and repubes they don't care about greeting family after work, thats what they pay the maid for. Busting unions will give them free reign over their business and the poor women out there working for a living will have even less of a word to say and the facts in life will mean nothing to the TP's and repubes, so what if your pregnant and you want to start a family, you can work til your water breaks and then if delivery needs to be done at work, your co workers can assist with it. To pick and choose the things they agree on so the TP's and repubes ratings go up and not Obamas is not what we pay these people for. Its time to get rid of all of them and we don't have no choice with electing Obama but when his term is done hopefully Hillary will run and make things right in this country again. Come on 2016.

The GOP has not hidden their agenda at all. They publicly announced that their goal was to make Obama fail. If that means taking down the whole country or crashing the stock market to cause another recession, well, too bad. For us.

The fat cats are going to do just fine. In fact, they will have cheap labor for years, because jobs are scarce. Nobody can get a raise, except in the cost of food, gas, etc.

It is a perfect right wingnut storm, and Rush and Bortz are out there everyday, blaming the target instead of the idiots pulling the trigger.

confused, how is he in favor of illegals?

a_s: your post is nonsense. Stop watching Fox Noise. It rots your brain, causes acute ignorance, and a terminal loss of touch with reality.

Arizona— Seahawk illegals were in the US way before 2008.

Robert - He just had Fedearal prosecutors start calling local officals a cople of weeks ago to stop the deportation of illegals who hadn't been caught violating "enough other laws" yet. As if the lawsuit against Arizona wasn't bad enough.

Try to read the news once in a while.

O s

Try to get at least some things correct.

Obama has deported significantly more Illegals than Bush ever did.

If you're 69 years old, you're old enough to remember Reagan's amnesty program.

Robert - It is called backdoor amnesty. Obama needs the votes

theCavalier, are all of your posts cut-and-paste? All you seem to do is accuse people of taking their talking points from Fox.

if obama is pro illegals why is it republicans for 30 years have voted against everything that would help get it under control maybe they are afraid they would have to clean their own toilets and take care of their own kids and the billion friends might have to take a million or so less in their multi-million dollar salaries

How can you say he's in favor of illegals when he has deported more than any other recent president? Did anyone ever run legality stats on Bush's ranch hands? Oddly enough, that was never questioned.

dialysis nurse 7.11

Not only has he deported many times more illegals than any previous president, the number of LEO/national guard on the border has never been greater.

The deportation system is overwhelmed. That is why they are focusing on those illegals with criminal backgrounds, and not the more complicated cases where citizen kids and legal spouses are involved. It's called prioritization. But no doubt the Republicans want to defund all this in the name of austerity, and than amplify their complaints about all the illegals.

(I'm in Tucson, so I kind of keep up on this subject)

The deportation system is overwhelmed. That is why they are focusing on those illegals with criminal backgrounds, and not the more complicated cases where citizen kids and legal spouses are involved. It's called prioritization

Yeah, the fact that it is exactly the same as the thing he couldn't get passed through congress is just a total coincidence.

btw Sane, in case you're interested, I've got this bridge...

Backcountry164 7.13

"btw Sane, in case you're interested, I've got this bridge..."

I won't ask where you are keeping it.

This is soooo interesting. Here's Rick Perry's current views on immigration and then his views in 2001 regarding Mexico.

From:

Rick Perry on Immigration

Republican Governor (TX)

Click here for 7 full quotes by Rick Perry OR click here for Rick Perry on other issues.

• Secure the Mexican border against drug cartels. (Feb 2011)
• Illegal immigration cost TX $928M in one year. (Nov 2010)
• End the notion of sanctuary cities. (Jan 2009)
• $100 million investment in a more secure border. (Feb 2007)
• Share costs of legal immigration between states & federal. (Feb 2001)
• Federal government should deal with criminal repatriation. (Feb 2001)
• Import farm workers from Mexico. (Sep 2001)

And then we have 2001 (sorry it's so long...I just don't know what part to take out....all of it is so telling):

www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/44

Perry's 2001 remarks on study of joint health plan with Mexico get scrutiny

By

Robert T. Garrett/Reporter
rtgarrett@dallasnews.com | Bio
6:00 AM on Wed., Aug. 31, 2011 | Permalink

Ten years ago, Gov. Rick Perry spoke at a border summit held in South Texas. It's a safe bet that few remember his comments that day, back in the halcyon days before the war on terror.

But some Texas tea party adherents have dusted off the Perry text and found an objectionable reference to a legislatively required study of "the feasibility of bi-national health insurance," or coverage of both U.S. and Mexican residents along the border.

Not to mention some other friendly gestures Perry made that day toward Mexico, including a boast about how he'd just signed a Texas DREAM Act that granted in-state college tuition rates to the children of illegal immigrants who are academic achievers. "Texas took the national lead in allowing such deserving young minds to attend a Texas college at a resident rate," he said.

Perry also spoke glowingly of how the Legislature in 2001 passed a children's Medicaid simplification bill and increased funding for Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program.

"More checking under the hood needed before we buy the car," tea party activist JoAnn Fleming of Tyler wrote this week. A blogger weighed in with similar criticism in this post on RedState.com. Alice Linahan, a North Texas tea party activist and media aggregator, circulated the comments. She later told me in an email, "Rick Perry is like most politicians right now. They are beholden to their large donors vs. the voters who put them in office."

You can be the judge of Perry's remarks, available here on the governor's office website.

Perry campaign spokeswoman Katherine Cesinger downplayed the reference to bi-national health insurance.
"A bill was passed by the Legislature that authorized a study to look into this issue, which ultimately concluded there were numerous barriers to accomplishing that idea, and the Legislature took no further action on this concept," she said.

Perry's speech, delivered a few weeks before the Sept. 11 terrorist attack, brimmed with optimism. He talked about NAFTA , hailed the then-new administration of Mexico President Vicente Fox (above, AP photo from 2004) and extolled the prospect of peace and prosperity along the U.S.-Mexico border. It sure seems like a distant era ...

Dallas News.....google it and see his speech that he gave to Mexico. The first paragraph is in the body of the speech and the second paragraph is how he ended.

With Texas serving as the Gateway to Mexico, it is time that we receive congressional funding that reflects the instrumental role our state plays as a port of entry. With a Texan in the White House, I believe there is no greater opportunity to end the funding discrimination that crippled Texas infrastructure under the previous administration. Good infrastructure is essential to the free flow of commerce. It is a matter of economic fact that free trade lifts the tide for all the boats in the harbor. U.S. trade with Mexico has increased by 500% since 1994. Exports and imports between Texas and Mexico now exceed $100 billion dollars annually. Thousands of jobs have been created for Texas and Mexican workers, confirming the indisputable fact that trade with Mexico is big business for Texas.

Today, as we look to the south, we see a rising sun. It is perched above a people whose best days are in front of them. Let us endeavor to make the most of this new day through a new dialogue. Let us work together to combat disease, expand trade and provide educational opportunities. If we do, there are no limits to what we can accomplish for the betterment of all of our citizens. Thank you, and God bless you.

Truthfully? I don't see either side doing anything about illegals. It's here to stay and we need to adjust. Do I like it? Hell no but it's a reality. Clinton didn't do anything, Georger W. didn't do anything and Obama isn't going to either.

Google to see what candidates had to say.

Immigration: 2008 contenders' views

Sorry, bob, I see not reason to answer the same idiot with different words. I used my orignal statement twice for the same guy. Get over it.

We could reduce the number of Presidential candidates to just one that makes sense---Jon Huntsman

Everybody else can go back to the Psychiatric Ward from whatever hospital they escaped.

no corporation in the USA would ever have 50 different offices employing 50 different governors, 50 different lieutenant governors, etc,etc,

we only need about 5-10 states at the most

tremendous savings

IRESPOND-2315268

Actually, I would like to see a debate between Jon Huntsman and Buddy Roemer. The rest can stay home at the zoo.

I remember talking to a guy that was starting a small factory in North Carolina a few yrs. ago and he told me himself that he asked people he interview if they didn't mind working for minimum wage and told me he was embarassed to pay these people that wage but I guess no one complained and thats what they got. He told me himself that he would never work for that wage himself and it wouldn't matter how tough things were he wouldn't work for those wages but yet he's paying that and somehow its a contradiction in what he thinks and what he does at least when it comes to that almighty dollar and the things he was saying but I can understand it but I just don't agree with it. Then the people he will have working for him will put him out of business but he might get a part of the stimulis and he'll at least will be able to bail himself out and sell the place to someone that knows how to run a factory. I'm sure if he did pay a reasonable wage, one that he was willing to work for doing that job himself he would see the bigger profits himself and it would be a better thing for everyone involved. Happy people are productive people. I know that for a fact.

If those people agreed to take those minimum wage jobs , they did it because they needed those jobs. They were looking for work and they found work. I am sure that they were happy that they did not have to keep searching, at that point and that they would be receiving some income. They accepted those jobs voluntarily.

And democrats are any better? Hate to break it to you, quieteye, they're two sides of the same coin, one tapestry woven of the same cloth.

"Republicrat, Democran: One Party System!" -- Sage Francis

both parties got us into this mess

quite - "Vote the obstructionist Republicans to where they can do the most good for We the American People"

That's what we did last November, you must have been sleeping.

I am represented by Republicans... soooo.... So you only want a 1/2 a chance of Democrats being represented?

You lost me. It's a two party system with a lot of independents mixed in. Everyone is represented.

Many of Obama's ideas are not very good. Frankly, I am glad that there is someone willing to question those ideas and subject them to debate. I do NOT want a bunch of sycophants in Congress who will fall at the feet at whoever is in the White House. If I want that I can always read the postings on this blog!

Many of Obama's ideas, were first proposed by Reps.

Funny how those who are so against ALL of Obama's ideas, would support those same ideas if they came from "their side".

Debate, discussion and compromise IS good. Obstruction and creating crisis is not.

Hello, I'm from the government and I'm here to help you...

Pjam,

I agree with Mach - please, show me where the jobs are that these corporations receiving the tax cuts have created??? The GOP only give a crap about the people wealthy enough to contribute to their campaigns. If ignorance is bliss, you must be a really blissful person.

I agree that it is unconscionable for the republicans to block any progress to resolving our economic distress based on political stance that essentially says, "ok, we'll go for the payroll tax cuts and employer tax cuts, but we will not discuss improving infrastrcture(roads, bridges) and education." That's ludicrous and self serving. I agree with the intent of this plan if not in its entirety. Someone has to do something, why not the government?

The American people see through the tp's motives and thats why they have the 17% approval rating right now. They have to go along with some of Obama's plans now, they have no choice with that low of a approval rating. I don't know how blocking a lot of the stuff on the plan will make them have a higher approval rating either, but hey its their plan lets see what they got. They sure are taking their time, they only have 14 months left. They'll get the southern states. Then if anyone noticed yesterday that Boehner is getting pretty dark and he isn't orange as he was at the deficit, I thought it was the burbon he was drinking that was turning him orange but now he's darker than Obama. Whats up with that? I don't think its what it looks like. He's dark is all I know. I wonder if its part of the pan for them, if thats the plan then they aren't messing around, they're going after all the votes. They whitewash Obama and the dems at the elections. I can't believe it. Good thinking on their part, brillant!

Obama has no plan, only a collection of vague ideas. Plans include steps of execution and risk analysis among other elements. Obama has never had a plan because he has never been responsible for carrying one out to completion and then measured against the results. He is a fake.

mach tool, The Tea Party is about fiscal responsibility, job creation and the need to save entitlements for the next generation! What will you tell your grankids?! Ummmmm, something like.... "Honey, we fought hard to explode govt. SPENDING. So, YOUR generation is now bankrupt. Oh well, I guess you kids will be taxed so high that your standard of living declines and the entitlement programs ( Medicare,SS etc.) are broke. I hope you kids can get a job to pay the high taxes WE laid on you."

I like how the GOPTP was pretty agreeable about everything except infrastructure and education. It is in their best interest to try to keep us immoble and stupid.

LEONA please,

you can vote for a bachmann if you like but don't tell us thats good for the country

Leona, why should we save entitlements for our grandchildren? I say let them scratch and claw just like the rest of us.

pery, bachmann and palin are all part of the new apostolic reformation movement, a religious extremist group that wants to re-establish the primacy of the church over government

iseeconfused... I think YOU are confused. Not one thing any of them has ever said would leave you with that information. You like to spread lies? Have nothing better to do?

You blooming idiot - - - how can the GOP enact policies to promote job growth, ETC. while the goons you support control the presidency, the supreme court, and half of congress!!!!!!!!!

LEONA, if the Tea Party is so interested in paying down the debt so the kids won't have to worry about it, then they should be all about paying the highest tax rate they can bear, so the next generation doesn't have to. Don't pretend to care about the next generation. The TP marching orders are "we have ours, screw you."

catfish-4073723 Please provide proof for your statements.

catfish-4073723 Have you seen the rethugs passing any bills in the house of representatives similar to those that President Obama proposed??

Why haven't they done it????

.....because the Senate won't bring them up for a vote? Like normal, the Democrats are playing politics, holding up ELEVEN jobs bills in the Senate so you libtards can continue to proclaim "WHERE ARE THE JOBS, REPUBLICANS?!?!?!".

http://www.majorityleader.gov/JobsTracker/

Most of you only agree to disagree for you are not running the country only your mouth and you are die hard democrats so what else is new besides your mouth??much like msnbc reporters you are ignorant to the fact that someone else may have a better way to do things, since obama has spent us out of #1 to #5 spot in the world economy.

Despite some overlap between Obama and the Republican contenders on the need for tax cuts and on easing federal regulations on businesses, there's a significant difference in attitude and in allegiances between Obama and Republicans Rick Perry, Mitt Romney, Jon Huntsman and the rest of the 2012 GOP pack. Notice the GOP is called pack since they are republicans this is the verge of slander.

Show us the jobs created from the stimulus program, Shovels are still stacked up along the white house gates, but the MONEY IS GONE!!!

we need honesty....we are only lied to.......stop the lobbying by big business...they run this country, politicians help them do this by excepting there money in return to give them anything they want. Lobbying and big campaign contributions have got to be illegal or we will never find honesty for the people!

AJ - "Republican / Tea Party Dictator!"

Obama is actually a Democrat.

We have seen (especially in Ohio) that the Republicans are most certainly NOT for the PEOPLE, unless by people you actually mean the corporations.

Only ones mad seem to be the union thugs on tv.

I propose that we pay for jobs by raising tarriffs on imported goods,especially those imports that once were made in America!Companies that export their jobs are considered traitors by me,and I intend to not buy their products(including GE) anymore!Now,if Congress could only agree on these things,and Obama would bring them up to do,then,I will have more confidence in our nation's future.In two more years of the status quo,you won't have much to worry about but survival itself.For now,I'm buying guns,ammo,and food.

The tariff issue was raised by Donald Trump, who is self-proclaimed business genius but doesn't undertand how they work. In reality they are the equivalent of a tax that is passed onto the consumer. If the consumer has a choice and can buy a domestic alternative, then they can avoid the tax. Otherwise they just see an increase in their costs. By the way, if the foreign country retaliates and raises tariffs on something we sell them, you have a trade war where everyone loses. Check your history and you'll se that the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act in the 1930's had exactly that effect.

Can I recall you?

Sure, I'll be back frequently.

The president says "Pass the Bill" several times. What bill, the one that isn't written and that nobody has read? The republicans have passed several bills in the house that your guy, Harry Reid, will not bring up for debate in the senate. Just who is stalling job creation? Just how long will it take to weather strip schools, 2-3 months and those people are unemployed again? Obama doesn't have a clue nor is it the duty of the government to create jobs, and Reid and Obama will not get government out of the way for the private sector to create jobs. The stock market reflects on the president's speech. All baloney. Just give him more money and an infrastructure bank with no congressional regulation and watch him spend. He needs to be derailed.

17 times OMG!

So there's something wrong about republican tactical theater of "LIE until it sounds like the truth?" funny nobody seems to complain when they say things like "we're all about jobs" and then do nothing about jobs since they took control of the house.

What is in the bill? Do we have to pass it to find out? And why does creating jobs cost 450 billion anyway? B.O. says it's paid for. By whom?

Stop the over regulating of business and lower their tax rate; then repeal Obamacare. Get unions off this planet and let the private sector do what they do best. Create jobs. Government can't create jobs because they have to steal your money to pay for them. And look at what they DO create. The Postal Service which is going bankrupt and the IRS which is nothing more than a terrorist organization.

B.O. doesn't know how to create anything because he has never had a real job in his life. He is nothing more than an agitator and instigator who hung around with misfits from the communist party and union thugs. Both hate America and are trying to destroy what she stands for. They are all on the same page...

Postal Service is going bankrupt due to regulation imposed by W. Get your facts straight. Up until this regualtion, it was THE ONLY profit making arm of the US govt. Don't counter with the Anti-Union BS either. I love the "Union Thug" tag. You are really being played by the right. Union jobs make up 9% of the jobs in this country. 9 PERCENT! A tiny minority. But it really gets your Fox News junkies panties in a knot. It's called preaching to the choir. Love it how middle class people earning a decent wage riles you up, but CEO's getting multimillion dollar bonuses after getting bailed out by Bush then Obama is OK. You may not hate America as you claim others do (laughable). But it sounds like you DO hate (what's left of) the Middle Class.

ask not what u can do for your country, but what your country can do for you. The government should just send everyone in the us a check for 500$ every week.. then none of us will have to work anymore and we'll have tons o money to spend on worthless junk. like ipads and starbucks woooohooooo

Wasn't the PO privatized?

The government should just send everyone in the us a check for 500$ every week.. then none of us will have to work anymore and we'll have tons o money to spend on worthless junk.

You make it sound like $500 a week is rich. Where do you live? I want to move there because the cost of living must be Extremely low.

@ AirThief

It must be the cost of rent+groceries for living in one's mother's basement.

The next stimulus should be called

Operation "Move in with parents"

You may ask, "well, what if they're dead?"

I'd reply, "think of how much you will save yourself and society if you died right now!"

Against Union Thievery: I guess I have to do the hard one line google work for you too...

whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/09/08/fact-sheet-american-jobs-act

Why waste our time by asking questions that you can easily find the answer to?

You are not smart enough to work for MS. This is bull****.

You should take action if that was the reason you were fired. Good luck

It sounds like you need to go to your association/ union and get representational help with a grievance or lawsuit. Oh, wait, you're a republican. They don't believe in unions...sorry!

Beth-1918533,

Excellent comeback Beth. My previous employer didn't like me because I was a Democrat. Politics at work were a no no unless they were Republican politics. But you are right to let him know, not a union member? You are screwed my friend!