The Left screams and moans about the pay differential between military members and military contractors..

And, to a certain extent, rightly so...

Yet, the Left is eerily silent when the pay for Federal Workers is TWICE that of private citizen counterparts..

http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/income/2010-08-10-1Afedpay10_ST_N.htm

Why is that???

Michale.....

For the record, I do not actually believe this statement...

I was simply responding to a completely and utterly moronic and bigoted comment with a completely and utterly moronic and bigoted comment of my own.

The only difference is I said it, tongue in cheek.

Harry Reid was dead serious....

Michale.....

Articulate...

Don't forget articulate... :D

Michale.....

Well, gee whiz, Harry..

I don't know how ANYONE who is an American could be a Democrat.... :^/

Michale....

As does all that money that CrapCare was supposed to somehow save the country with. ROFL. Remember that CBO report that Pelosi was gleefully waving around, which promptly tripled after the legislation was passed and the CBO was able to crunch REAL, actual numbers?

It's like a nightmare ya feel like you're never gonna wake up out of. Case in point: http://www.cnn.com/video/?/video/bestoftv/2010/08/04/cafferty.health.care.law.cnn

=8-O

But still, consider: We found WMD in Iraq. We only tortured really, really bad people, we did it only in non-fatal ways, and they provided us worthwhile information. Same-sex marriage is going to force churches to do things they don’t believe in. There will be death panels deciding your grandma’s fate. Climategate destroyed global warming science forever.

All are untrue,

Oh where to begin...

and they provided us worthwhile information.

According to Obama's own DNI, this is actually a true statement...

There will be death panels deciding your grandma’s fate.

And look who Obama chose to oversea Medicare and Medicade.. The king of rationed health care...

Climategate destroyed global warming science forever.

The global warming "science" can barely be called that.. More of a religion than science anyways...

And Climategate DID put that into the full public awareness, to be sure...

So, it seems that all the things the author says are "untrue" actually ARE true...

FUnny how that is, eh?? :D

Michale.....

That's likely owed to two things: (1) TARP was passed by a Democratic congress, which Americans are associating with Obama, because it's the same Pelosi/Reid congress; and (2) the average American doesn't give a crap which administration passed it so much as the fact that the bail-outs are still going on.

While liberals (who make up a big 20% of this country) are forever leaping into the WayBack Machine and screeching about Bush, what they don't understand is that the average American doesn't live in the past, like liberals do; they live in the here-and-now. They don't care what Bush did; they care what Obama is doing. Which is why the Dems' master campaign plan to resurrect the "all Bush's fault" battle cry is predestined to blow up in their faces — particularly since everything that Bush did is CONTINUING to done by Obama. He hasn't "changed" anything, except to force an HCR mandate upon the majority of Americans who never wanted it in the first place.

Even Howard Dean is saying that the Mandate is unconstitutional and will not fly...

And, once the Mandate is eliminated, then CrapCare completely falls apart..

Because the Insurance Companies won't (or more accurately CAN'T) go along with all the other provisions of CrapCare if they don't have the customer base that the mandate would have provided...

Michale.....

Well, at least the cost of our health care policies are gonna go down. Oh, wait...
http://www.chris11962.com/blog/files/9bfa0c76107863f4a74f20d1ac516f3f-157.html

Gee, who didn't see that one coming. With the grace of God this "mandate" will go before the Supreme Court and get shot down before every damned state in this nation goes bankrupt.

Managed ignorance

by E.D. Kain

Dave Weigel passes on this interesting tidbit from Pew:

Only a third of Americans (34%) correctly say the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) was enacted by the Bush administration. Nearly half (47%) incorrectly believe TARP was passed under President Obama. Another 19% admit they do not know which president signed the bank bailout into law. Notably, there is no partisan divide on the question.

Fortunately, according to Pew, most Americans know what Twitter is (85%). (You can take the Pew quiz yourself, here.)

This may be a symptom of what Jason Kuznicki has described as ‘managed ignorance’:

Ignorance has become a feature where it used to be a bug. Formerly it was the job of the media to correct ignorance, insofar as it was possible (and, truthfully, it wasn’t very possible). Now though it’s increasingly the job of the media to manage ignorance. To make a space for the ignorant, and to ensure that those kept in managed ignorance get just enough news, and never more than they need to remain exactly where they are.

We were probably due for some measure of managed ignorance, what with the already stupefying mix of rational ignorance, the cable news cycle, cognitive dissonance, and in-group loyalty that shapes public opinion today. But still, consider: We found WMD in Iraq. We only tortured really, really bad people, we did it only in non-fatal ways, and they provided us worthwhile information. Same-sex marriage is going to force churches to do things they don’t believe in. There will be death panels deciding your grandma’s fate. Climategate destroyed global warming science forever.

All are untrue, but there are those who believe every one of them, and these people’s opinions about where to go from here don’t count any less just because they’re based on untruth. Those who propagate such beliefs know them to be untrue, and they know it’s not worth the average person’s time, cognitive investment, and loss of group loyalty to discover otherwise.

Yes, these examples all show conservatives as the beneficiaries of managed ignorance. I’ve tried hard to resist the conclusion, but conservatives seem to bank on it a lot more than liberals. More than anything else, it’s this style of politics that turns me away from the Republicans. I’d pick “well-informed on basic facts but ideologically divergent” over “mis-informed on basic facts and ideologically divergent” every single time. Not that I’d enjoy the choice. But what other alternatives are there?

This is one reason why I’m not a Republican either, and why I’ve stated quite explicitly that left-leaning libertarians (or progressive conservatives even) would be better off working with Democrats than Republicans in most instances. This doesn’t mean I’m particularly fond of the Democratic party but at least it seems to care about governance. That may not always be the case of course. Managed ignorance can happen in the other direction, too. Any ideological camp can succumb to the rust of groupthink.
Posted in Domestic Affairs at 1:30 pm | No Comments

The second killer is the unions. The states have to do something about them, like Christie is trying to do in New Jersey. They can't have a stranglehold on entire industries, because it's quite literally forcing companies to leave this country.

If we had taken all that "stimulus" money and put it in the hands of the American people instead of following this unbelievably idiotic Keynesian model — where we're STILL doing bail outs; this time, rescuing the reckless, drunken-sailor-spending states — this would be a different economy today. This is why I'm raising the I-word, Michale. Because we QUITE LITERALLY cannot afford to stay on this child-CEO's "recovery" path much longer, where we're "recovering" at a snail's pace, with NO JOBS, and it's costing this country money that it. does. not. have. It's reckless and irresponsible and FRIGHTENING as hell and it has to stop. Preferably before the point of no return — provided we have not already PASSED that point.

I'm starting to get some real disturbing thoughts, like this president is TRYING to bring this country down so that he become the second FDR, with the entire country wholly dependent upon the federal government. I'm getting to the point where I don't know how else to explain what he and his economic team are doing.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-08-11/u-s-is-bankrupt-and-we-don-t-even-know-commentary-by-laurence-kotlikoff.html

THIS is where Obama's (and to a lesser extent, Bush's) policies has lead us...

This part is especially important..

"Let’s get real. The U.S. is bankrupt. Neither spending more nor taxing less will help the country pay its bills.

What it can and must do is radically simplify its tax, health-care, retirement and financial systems, each of which is a complete mess. But this is the good news. It means they can each be redesigned to achieve their legitimate purposes at much lower cost and, in the process, revitalize the economy."

Doing business the same old way will lead to the same old results...

We MUST totally revamp the system..

And we can't do that while we are putting band-aids on the economy..

Because band-aids will not cure the underlying sickness...

"Let them die."
-Captain James T Kirk, STAR TREK VI, The Undiscovered Country

Michale.....

Ya'all rail against the GOP as the Party with no new ideas...

The GOP should squash the libs' accusation by positioning itself, with great pride, as indeed the party with the oldest ideas in the country, otherwise known as the Constitution.

Ya'all rail against the GOP as the Party with no new ideas...

While that may or may not be true, it is undeniable to the Party agnostic, that the current ideas are doing more harm than good..

The Democrats argument seems to be that to vote in the GOP would be to go back to the way it was..

It is obvious that the way it was is BETTER than the way it is now.. And TONS better than the way it's going to be in the near future, thanks to the Democrats total frak-up job that they have done.

To be perfectly honest, the way things were under the GOP appeals to a LOT more Americans than the Democrats want to believe.

No ideas are infinitely preferable to BAD ideas... Especially when the BAD ideas keep coming and coming and coming and coming...

I find it very hard to believe that ANYONE can defend a Party that put forth the abomination that is CrapCare and advocate 2 more years of the same..

It boggles the mind.

Michale.....

No Republican has declared his/her candidacy yet, so how the heck would I know. Frankly, I think my dog could beat out Obama at this point. And I think whomever wins the 2012 Republican primary is gonna take the Oval. I wouldn't be the least bit surprised to see a hard-core rightie such as Gingrich win — and with a whole lot of "Reagan Democrats" behind him, to boot, as I think the country is gonna be looking for a serious conservative to reverse legislations that the majority of Americans have been against from the start, yet have nevertheless had forced upon them. You do realize that 55% of likely voters find "socialist" a befitting description for Obama, right? Last I checked, that's not exactly the direction the vast majority of Americans want this country to be moving in.

Liberals still steamed at Gibbs
http://www.chris11962.com/blog/files/fc668157f9c610754381aac180a87e29-154.html

Digest this, D:

U.S. Incomes Tumbled in 2009
On average, personal income dropped 1.8% in 2009, following a 2.7% increase in 2007.
http://www.chris11962.com/blog/files/3c19454bbdbbeaa48964a5ae7f3b9388-150.html

Are you conveniently forgetting that this country sustained the biggest attack on the homeland in the history of this nation and that something like that tends to rock the economy a tad? It's not exactly business as usual when something like that goes down, followed by war on two fronts, D. You're all over the map with your arguments. You're comparing Clinton's peacetime economy with Bush's homeland-attack/wartime economy, with Obama's Keneysian-recovery economy. Mix apples, oranges and elephants much?

LOL. I'm not attacking you. I'd just love to know if you're forty or fourteen. And where did you go to elementary school? In the former Soviet Union? Bwaha. 'D

nowhere in the Constitution does it say: "government's role is to assist business owners" :)

Oh, I do believe it's you who's having a little trouble defending your position, now, D. You know that the framers never intended for future generations to be ruled by the federal equivalent of a king; that the "government," whom YOU, the citizen, hire, pay and fire, is there to serve you, not the other way around. So why do you keep sounding like you think the boss's money belongs to the "chauffeur" and/or that the chauffeur has the authority to thwart and trip the boss up?

This is why parents are screaming about their kids being indoctrinated by liberal teachers, with textbooks that present the American government as some kind of Euro-style socialism, which is the exact opposite of how our unique government is designed to function.

Hahahah. Here's a tip that might prove handy for your advertising firm. When you start to attack people, it usually means you don't have a solid argument to stand on.

Just a helpful tip.

As far as my age, I'm old enough to know that nowhere in the Constitution does it say: "government's role is to assist business owners" :)

That is faulty logic for it fails to consider OTHER factors, totally unrelated to tax cuts, that might have been factors in the rise or fall of personal incomes.

This may be true. But we, the American people, were sold on these tax cuts using several arguments:

- Deficits don't matter
- Giving tax cuts to the wealthy will grow the overall economy for everyone
- Corporations must have these cuts in order to compete

And what I do know is that I haven't seen any evidence of this.

- Deficits do matter
- Trickle down has grown the economy for the wealthy and no one else
- Corporations seem to spend more time lobbying for tax cuts than working to compete. Is that a healthy corporation? Maybe it's time to ... Idunno ... let the market work?

What I also know is that they're trying to resell on us this supply-side idea. With no evidence that it works.

That's why I don't buy it, Michale. It's the same old supply-side argument dressed up.

Cheers
David

p.s. Here's an article I just stumbled on that I find interesting. I haven't had a chance to fully digest and am not sure I agree w/ all of the premises, but it's interesting:

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/reagan-insider-gop-destroyed-us-economy-2010-08-10?pagenumber=1

Are congressional Dems forgetting that THEY held the majority under Bush for the last couple of years of his administration, and that the "policies" that pissed the majority of Americans off most were enacted by THEMSELVES?

And there's Obama out on the campaign trail, talking about "amnesia" (LOL) and the perils of returning to the Bush policies, which he, himself, has been carrying out for the past year and a half. It's sounding more and more like he replaced his speechwriting team with stand-up comedy writers.

Veeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeery interesting technology. I like this concept a lot.

Yes, you have highlighted a very interesting proposal, strategically speaking ... in a silly sort of way. :)

I hope you stick around.

Hillary for Vice President?
http://www.chris11962.com/blog/files/42398f9b3f90952c16c56725bf7154dc-152.html

I think the Dems will lose the WH in 2012 with Obama. There's too much anti-big government sentiment and buyer's remorse out there for him to recapture the critical voting blocs he's since alienated with HCR and the other assorted massive fed-expanding things he's done. But if Hillary were to assume the veepship in 2010 and Obama were to decide not to seek reelection, I think she would give the Dems a fighting chance, if she can convincingly position herself as a centrist. I don't know how many Indies would buy it. But it sure is an interesting thought, strategically speaking.

Would you care to relate that piece of news to what we are discussing here?

Think of it as God's way of preparing you for November. Bwaha.

Now THAT was funny... :D

Liz,

You might consider preparing yourself ... for some serious treatment after November. :)

You really don't expect the Democrats to hold onto the majority, do you??

I could see maybe in the Senate.. Maybe...

But the House is as good as in GOP hands...

And Democrats, despite them wanting to duck responsibility (AGAIN) and blame Bush and the GOP, have only themselves to blame...

They are the ones that pissed on and pissed OFF 75% of the American people...

Michale.....

You might consider preparing yourself ... for some serious treatment after November. :)

It's OK, though, we'll all be here to console you.

Think of it as God's way of preparing you for November. Bwaha.

They're calling Obama a "CEO in training" and raging against the unions and all the typical garble garble.

Any particular reason why Obama SHOULDN'T be called a CEO in training??

Does he have any prior experience running a business???

No??

Then "CEO IN TRAINING" seems to be an accurate moniker, doesn't it?

If it doesn't, please explain why not.

As for Unions???

Please explain why they SHOULDN'T be raged against, considering how many jobs they have cost Americans..

Michale actually has the most common sense response:

Hay now!! Let's not be sayin' things we can't take back!! :D

And if you look at the last 8 years, after the tax cuts, to see if incomes increased, they didn't. Well, except for those at the top.

I am obviously not the economist that you are, David. I don't mean that facetiously, I am dead serious...

But, it seems to me that you are solely concentrating on the Tax Cuts... What I mean by that is you seem to be saying that 8 years ago there were tax cuts and personal incomes haven't risen so tax cuts must not work as advertised.

That is faulty logic for it fails to consider OTHER factors, totally unrelated to tax cuts, that might have been factors in the rise or fall of personal incomes..

It's like claiming, after seeing a red bird, that all birds must be red..

Michale.....

I admit, I've been absent from this comment thread. I plead mid-summer "playing hooky." I spent a few days with friends elsewhere, and then watched a very exciting baseball game between the SF Giants and the Chi-Town Cubbies. The Giants won (4-3), in the 11th inning, and as I said, it was a VERY close-fought and exciting game.

Tomorrow... oh, I guess it's "today" now... Tuesday, at any rate... I will be coming back here to address a few things. Until then, behave yourselves and play nice, as things have been getting a little pointed here. As I said, I'll chime in tomorrow, and I apologize for the delay, and have no excuse other than "I haven't seen a ball game all year... and it has been a GRIM GRIM GRIM year for Orioles fans, on the whole." Sigh.

Until tomorrow...

-CW

Ah ... that was really very sweet ... thanks for sharing ... :)

I describe myself to forum members as an old hippie, to give people a sense of my age and the times I grew up in. I'm a native NYer. I graduated from one of those universities that tend to make liberals swoon. I'm an advertising copywriter and the creative director of a mid-sized, boutique agency in NYC. I spent the first half of my career at one of the top-ten international agencies, doing consumer campaigns (TV, print, radio) for some of the biggest brands on the planet. I then moved over to the trade side of the business, so that I could learn that industry, too. I've been a political junkie since I was about twelve, or so. And I'm female, not male.

Now you know everything I've shared with others on this board and/or at the HuffPo. And all you ever had to do, from the start, was ask me.

And? Does that, therefore, give you some kind of special license to make insulting remarks to me, and mock me via that trusty potshot tactic of making comments about me to other forum members? I'm on this board because Chris Weigart invited me over here, Kev. He and I exchange political views at the HuffPo. We don't agree with each other's political philosophies, but that's what makes for good, robust conversations.

People with differing views can honestly, intellectually, and RESPECTFULLY disagree with each other. My best friend on the planet is a hard-core liberal with the NYC Board of Ed. Do you think we walk away from political discussions mocking and insulting each other? Do you think we refuse to read the articles we email each other because the publication doesn't lean in our preferred direction? Quite the opposite. I want to know how she arrives at her beliefs and how her bureaurocratic school-system world operates. She wants to know how my corporate-America world operates. It's called intellectual curiosity.

Allow me to say this for the third time, Kev: If you can't tolerate my disagreeing with your personal view of the world, you're completely free to scroll past my posts. You're not, however, free to hurl personal insults, and mock me in conversation with other posters — at least not as I understand the very simple request made by the owner of this board with regard to posting etiquette. I've met some very nice people here, Kev. I enjoy this posting atmosphere. And I'll contact my host, CW, if it comes to that, and ask him to intercede with a friendly reminder to you that civil, respectful discussion is the tone he's set for this forum. So make a decision whether you wish to hold civil conversations with me or stick to chatting with others.

Who's "they"? What ERA are you talking about? And what are you expecting to "trickle down" to you? I can only imagine. 'D

As for this garbage of talking to others on this board ABOUT me, pay me the courtesy of doing that via email, huh?

Now, THAT was funny. Seriously!

You have to admit, you've given us all quite a lot to discuss. Still pretty sensitive, I see - can dish it out but can't take it.

I don't suppose you noticed the links to the liberal sites, which are also there. I read both sides of the news, Kev. (A fascinating concept, indeed.) Is that okay with you? You seem to have some sort of problem with my reading about what Republicans have to say. Am I only supposed to be informed of what what liberals are saying? Is there something tabu about reading the commentary from both sides? Do get back to me on that, won't you?

Hey, Kev? If you'd like to know where I'm coming from, all you have to do is ask. I put links to my own website on this board for the express and exclusive purpose of inviting people to see what I read, and what I perceive to be important.

As for this garbage of talking to others on this board ABOUT me, pay me the courtesy of doing that via email, huh?

They're calling Obama a "CEO in training"

Well, jeepers, David, do ya think maybe that's because this is his first Chief Executive gig? He's the chief of the Executive branch of this government, just like a CEO is the chief of a company, with lots and lots of assorted departments doing lots and lots of assorted jobs, to keep this country OPERATING. Obama has never held an executive job before. He's never run a company, or of a state, or a city. This is his first shot at it.

In future, you should avoid all form of Limbaugh links ... life is too short.

That's the government's role in this country, David. Think of the business owner as the boss and the federal government as the chauffeur. It's the federal government's job to SERVE the boss, not run him off the road and over a cliff. Sheesh. If you don't know THAT much about the design of this government, I really don't know what to tell you except to suggest that you review the intentions of the framers when they created this republic. The Declaration of Independence is a laundry list of their grievances, addressed to the King, telling him that he didn't have the right to rule their lives; that human beings had inalienable rights that derived from the Creator, including the right to pursue their goals without having their efforts thwarted by a ruler. They didn’t want future generations to suffer the same oppressive crap, only under a federal overlord instead of a King. So they made the PEOPLE the ruler of the government and gave the federal government enumerated, LIMITED powers to ensure that it wouldn't grow in power to the point where it began ruling the people, instead — as in telling them they had to buy a product from the private sector or suffer punishment. Why the hell do you think people are running around in tricorne hats, railing against this MANDATE that the federal government, for the first time ever, is trying to FORCE upon the people?

Ya know, David, I truly don't mean to be insulting, but I'm beginning to wonder what age you are, because you don't seem to know even the basics of how this government is structured, or just as importantly, WHY. I mean, given some of the things you say, I don't if I'm talking to somebody in their thirties, twenties, or teens. Do you truly not know that the framers wanted to SPARE future generations from having to live under a ruler, like they themselves had been forced to endure? They wanted the government to, instead, SERVE the people in their endeavors to pursue and achieve success, not stand in the way of it by throwing financial obstacles up, and taking so much of their money away that they could barely even make a profit at the end of the day!!!!!! Are you kidding me????

Here's another perfect example:

"CB- Honestly, you keep proving my point. Conservative philosophy benefits corporations."

Well, HELL, is that supposed to be a BAD thing??? Is it the role of the government, in your mind, to THWART the efforts of citizens with businesses????

Two things ... apparently, CB is a she.

And, she enjoys her on-line annonymity. Wouldn't you, in her place? :) Besides, you don't need to know!

1. This is a fantastic example of an idea to make highways pay for themselves. Exactly the type of thing we should be leading the world in.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pnj8Y5PbFTI

2. The alternative is to always lower costs. This is the "race to the bottom" that I would not want to invest in.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704913304575370950363737746.html

And honestly, I don't give a rats' ass if the change comes from Democrats or Republicans. But there has got to be a change in our economic policy.

Business (especially big business) has become dependent on the government and overly influences our government and I do not think this is a good idea.

They're calling Obama a "CEO in training" and raging against the unions and all the typical garble garble.

Rage, rage, rage ... garble garble.

But still no one has shown any evidence that supply side economics did what they said it would do. Grow the economy and "trickle down" to the rest of us.

Michale actually has the most common sense response:

What I *think* CB is saying is that the government has to quit taking so MUCH money from the businesses thereby increasing the bottom line of said business. This will provide incentive for the businesses to keep their jobs here in the US instead of sending them overseas.

And I'd agree with you, Michale, that on the surface this seems logical.

But when you start looking at the evidence, it hasn't worked.

From today's business news:
The S&P 500 extended last week’s 1.8 percent gain, which was driven by better-than-estimated profit reports. Of the 420 companies on the benchmark gauge that have reported quarterly results since July 12, about 77 percent have beaten analysts’ estimates for per-share profit.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-08-09/stocks-u-s-futures-climb-on-stimulus-speculation.html

77% of the S&P has beaten analysts estimates so far.

And, as CB pointed out, many companies are sitting on lots of cash.

Why then is everyone complaining about the economy? Well, obviously, because people are still out of work. It is, so far, a jobless recovery.

And if you look at the last 8 years, after the tax cuts, to see if incomes increased, they didn't. Well, except for those at the top.

So what's going on?
- We've been sold on the idea of "trickle down" economics and the idea that this will make things better for all.
- So we cut taxes for the wealthy and through everyone else a bone.
- Now, businesses are trying to keep these tax cuts by once again convincing us that the effects will trickle down.
- Even though they are sitting on excess cash, beating market expectations, and not lacking investment capital.

The problem is there's no problem. But boy do they want those tax cuts!

Problem is there's simply no evidence that corporations will spend it on creating American jobs. Just like the banks didn't start lending when we gave them stimulus funds.

So I see no reason to keep the tax cuts for the wealthy when they will likely use it to invest offshore. Let's get rid of the deficit instead by removing the tax breaks.

Or, if we're going to give them these tax breaks, I want some guarantees. Not just fancy promises of "trickle down" wonders.

No, the government's role is to assist business owners in achieving the success they seek.

Now this is funny. The Constitutional scholar raging about how the government should stay out of this and stay out of that wants the government to aid businesses.

What happened to "government by the people, for the people"?

You want them to do nothing but aid businesses?

What about "letting the market" work?

CB- Honestly, you keep proving my point. Conservative philosophy benefits corporations. This is why they can say "let the markets" work when you want to deregulate, and "government's role is to assist business owners" when you want tax breaks or bailouts.

But since you seem to know the Constitution so well, maybe you can tell me where in the Constitution it says that the government should aid businesses?

Silly season indeed! ;)
David

This is the exact kind of inescapable logic that is simply impossible to argue with...

Michale.....

Don't you ever take a break?

:)

No, the government's role is to assist Business owners in achieving the success they seek by doing such things as NOT demanding so much in taxes that that it ends up hindering rather than enhancing a business owner's ability to compete, profit and thrive; And by NOT creating so many regulations that it's draining more profits than said business owner is financially ABLE to part with. Bottom line, the federal government should assist businesses by creating what is known as a pro-business environment, where business owners aren't wondering IF their taxes are going to go up, and IF so, how much so, because IF their taxes go up too high, they're gonna have to lay people off.

"Uncertainty" is one of the worst conditions the federal government can create, but businesses have to know what the deal is. They can neither create nor execute marketing plans without KNOWING how much money they'll dealing with, e.g., how much money they can appropriate to salaries, to facility improvements to technology updates, equipment maintenance, research and development, production supplies, travel per diems, client entertainment, building security, insurance policies, licensing fees, legal fees, warehousing fees, distributor fees, trucking fees, advertising fees, utility fees........

And then there are businesses that have "slow seasons," i.e., sales and profits are reliant upon particular climate conditions, or fashion seasons, or whatever the case may be. And that introduces a whole OTHER layer of expenses.

Do you have any idea how much it COSTS to run a business? Any business? You seem to be under the impression that any sale a business owner makes, the profit goes into the owner's personal banking account and voila: he's a fatcat. NOT QUITE.

Oh, but don't worry: This is surely going to create jobs. Because, as everyone knows, Business just loooooooves uncertainty. The only thing they love more than uncertainty is paying employees to fill out Pelosi-high stacks of government paperwork instead of doing their jobs.

Anybody seen Chris? Did he take another vacation?

Duuhhh...... :D

LOL. Gee, y'think? Meanwhile, there's Obama's razor-sharp CEO skills on parade again. The unions make it impossible for the industry to produce some cool little highly affordable cars that would invariably sell like wildfire. And what does Obama do? Does he allow the industry to fail, and kick off a national discussion as to whether unions have become more harmful than helpful? Why, no. He bails the industry out so that the unions can CONTINUE making it impossible for manufacturers to even survive, much less thrive.

And what's our first proud new product to emerge from the assembly line? A car that costs THOUSANDS AND THOUSANDS of dollars more than its closet rival, the Nissan Leaf. Just brilliant.

ROFL. Oh, my God. Now THAT'S embarrassing.

Oh that's easy..

Obama agreed to bail out the Auto Companies in exchange to give the Unions more power within the companies....

Duuhhh...... :D

Michale.....

Neither Bush nor congress had any other option, at that point. He AND congress were quite literally told that "by Monday, we won't have an economy anymore." Bailing out the financial institutions was a no-brainer decision. The president is sworn to protect this nation, and allowing the U.S. economy to simply collapse does not fall under that definition.

Why the hell we bailed out the auto industry, I have no idea. They should've been "allowed to fail." (Like the federal government has some kinda "permission" power?????) That was a royally stupid move, which Obama went on to make worse.

Y'know, D, I don't even know how to respond to this, because you seem to have a distorted view of the federal government's role in this country: like it's "in charge" of businesses and that businesses are somehow obligated to obediently "grow the middle class": like this is some kinda socialism or communism, or something. I'm not sure you understand how this government was designed to function. This republic was created with the intention of enabling individuals to freely pursue their individual ambitions, and achieve success — or not.

But you're making statements like you think this government was designed to ensure that every individual enjoys a nice life. It's a lovely thought, but that's not the case at all. People, themselves, are supposed to decide what kind of life they want, and what level of success they wish to achieve, and how many cars and boats and homes they wish to own. If one individual wishes to be a fat-cat, great. Go for it. If another wants to be a lazy slug and make just enough money to keep himself alive, that's fine, too. If you wish to be a struggling artist, because your passion for art is more important than the thread-count of your sheets, knock yourself out.

And all the federal government is supposed to do with the money that each individual hands over is to assist the citizens in (example): traveling from state to state on safe, pothole-free highways, and connecting states to each other with bridges so that people can travel around with as much ease as possible, and hopefully arrive at their destinations in one piece; collecting and distributing the mail in a speedy and cost-efficient manner, which is of great assistance to Business, for example, because they know that if they put a check in the mail on Tuesday, they'll get it by Thursday; creating and maintaining an army, and weapons, so that if a Hitler decides to pull a couple of dozen submarines up to our shores, each individual doesn't have to pull their rocket launcher out of the closet to protect him/herself; and so on.

As for Business, the federal government is there to assist Business, not rule over it. That money belongs to the Business owner, not Pelosi and Reid. Yet you're talking as though the government were being a big sport by giving "the wealthy" business owner a break on his OWN money; by letting him slide for ONLY x-amount, but ONLY if he comes through on his obigation to ensure that the starving artist and lazy slug live a middle-class lifestyle; like that's somehow mandated somewhere in the Articles.

Meanwhile, back on Planet Constitution, no such obligation exists; nor does any such authorization exist that permits the federal government to insist that "the wealthy" create a middle-class lifestyle for folks who don't feel like busting their hump to study a little harder, or learn a craft, or open a store, or invent a better mousetrap. The federal government has no authority to even so much as expect, much less demand, anything from Business owners. The government is supposed to collect ONLY enough money to pay for the roads, etc., and see that its all running smoothly. THAT'S IT. And if after those bills are paid and there's money left over, i.e., a "surplus," do you know what that means? That means that the citizens of this country are paying too much.

And you wonder why "Tea Parties" have taken to the streets, intent upon taking their government back and RETURNING to the Constitution, which the power-crazed government never had the right or authority to deviate from, in the first place?

I have to admit... That's pretty cute... :D

I wonder which one of Obama's speechwriters came up with that little gem... :D

Michale.....

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/Time-to-admit-Obamanomics-has-failed-1008050-100154469.html

How much more bad news do we all need to read about before we admit that there MIGHT be a problem here??

Michale.....

"Now, I don't know what all that means, but it sounds pretty bad.",
-Tom Cruise, A FEW GOOD MEN

Michale.....

You don't understand what caused the problem, David. The problem was caused by a totally unregulated, secret market of a very sophisticated, high-risk financial product, which only a handful of economic experts even understood. What made them so ultimately dangerous was that the financial institutions selling them were also offering the equivalent of an "insurance policy," which gave investors the confidence to buy them. The problem is that these weren't real, actual insurance policies but "credit default swaps." They were given that name because if the financial institutions selling them had called them "insurance" policies, instead, they would've been been bound by federal regulations to create cash reserves to cover them. By calling them "swaps," they were able to get around that.

Long story short, these "swaps" tied all the financial institutions together, because they were swapping these contracts with each other. So when one institution's toxic hedge fund started failing, and jittery investors started cashing in their so-called "insurance policies," virtually every major financial institution was destined to go under, because they were all tied into this monstrous $600 TRILLION derivatives market.

The FIRST time this near-collapse happened, under Clinton, it was manageable because banks were able to get together and pony up a couple of billion dollars each, and avert the collapse. But by the time this STILL-UNREGULATED market (courtesy of Greenspan/Rubin/Summers/Geithner convincing congress that the near-catastrophe was nothing but an anomaly, though KNOWING full well that it wasn't), this toxic market had grown so large that the only way to put the brakes on it this time was to involve the federal government, purse-string holders and distributors of we, the people's, hard-earned dollars.

And here we are today, with the same culprits now working for Obama.

Does the zippy new Financial Reform legislation ensure that this will never happen again, you might ask? Why, of course not. That would make far too much sense. Best the Dem congress just put together a convoluted piece of crap that doesn't fix the problem but DOES, none too surprisingly, give the federal government a stunning new level of power (the constitutionality of which, much like the HCR mandate, is being challenged). And, needless to say, we, the people, will be paying through the teeth for the humongous new financial regulatory agency that's being created.

Precisely. It's not a matter of the government giving but taking away, and not just through taxes but the man-hours and monies it takes to figure out and comply with this ton of new regulations. The child-CEO in the Oval Office doesn't understand the basic mechanics of running a business. He doesn't "get" such things as having to take employees away from their job of building THE BUSINESS and devoting those paid hours, instead, to sitting with paid lawyers and consultants, and filling out reams of new government paperwork, and modifying operations (and/or equipment) to conform with these new federal regulations, some of which may conflict with state regulations, which is a whole other EXPENSIVE nightmare.

All of those things drain LOTS of money away from the bottom line. And that's not even counting all the new tax money that has to be forked over at the end of the day. Think about how all this is gonna affect SMALL businesses.

This is how Obama thinks you create jobs.

=:-O

And you wonder why I bring up the I-word.

Obama seems to think it means, "IF IT IS BROKE, CONTINUE THE SAME OLD POLICIES THAT BROKE IT

And fill your economic positions with the same guys who broke it.

How many times has the thought crossed your mind that these guys are actually trying to bring this economy down. Tell the truth.

Stopping the CFTC from regulating derivatives for fear of putting a damper on the the roaring-90's economic party is what nearly destroyed this economy, David. Trickle-down economics had nothing to do with it. Let's recall that these reckless morons colluded to shut down the CFTC at a time when Clinton might very well have been removed from office if not for the booming economy. They lied to congress, who had looked to them for advice as to whether derivatives needed regulating. And they sat with their mouths shut for ten years thereafter while these toxic derivatives — which had nearly wrecked the economy on their own watch — grew into a $600 trillion festering market.

These are the same people whom on-the-job-training CEO Obama felt would be best to fill his economic positions — directly on the heels of a near-meltdown that they, themselves, had created. Think about that. There is something extremely wrong with that picture, alone.

We would be well on our way to a major recovery with a brand new economic system that is logical and rational and, above all else, actually works.....

Instead we are on ANOTHER downturn looking at a double dipped recession...

It's actually funny in a way..

Obama seems to have misunderstood the old Engineers adage, "IF IT AIN'T BROKE, DON'T FIX IT"...

Obama seems to think it means, "IF IT IS BROKE, CONTINUE THE SAME OLD POLICIES THAT BROKE IT AND ADD A WHOLE BUNCH OF OTHER USELESS CRAP TO MAKE IT WORSE"...

Obama seems to be doing the same old things, over and over again, hoping for a different result..

The very definition of insanity... :D

Michale.....

Are you saying the government has to give money to businesses in order for them to invest? Please clarify.

What I *think* CB is saying is that the government has to quit taking so MUCH money from the businesses thereby increasing the bottom line of said business. This will provide incentive for the businesses to keep their jobs here in the US instead of sending them overseas..

As I am constantly saying, I am not any kind of economist.. But it seems to me that this is just common sense.

If the government makes it MORE expensive for businesses to operate, then the businesses will have to cut back somewhere...

Invariably this "somewhere" is usually the work force..

More business taxes means LESS jobs...

Like I said, it seems to be common sense to me..

Funny how conservatives loved these folks when times were good for business.

Much in the way that the Left loves people who say what they want to hear. The minute people start saying things that the Left DOESN'T want to hear, they get thrown under the bus as well.

Throwing people under the bus that don't toe the party line is, by NO means, a sole province of the Right...

I'm sorry but I don't see how a return to what caused the problem is going to fix the problem.

Of course not.. The only thing that will "fix" the problem is let the whole thing collapse and start over.

With all the bailouts from the Left AND the Right, it's obvious that fixing things is not on the agenda of the politicians.

Therefore, the next best choice is to go back to when things were LESS bad...

If it's a choice between going back to the Republicans trickle down theory, or going with Obama's -SPEND, SPEND, SPEND.. Ignore Jobs!! Oh Crap!! The Hole Ain't Deep Enough!! SPEND MORE!!! Ignore Jobs!!!- plan.....

Well, guess which option the American people are going to choose come November??? And in 2012??

Nice Tom Clancy analogy, Michale. And somewhat terrifying.

Given our security AND economic situation, it's eerily amazing how much Life Imitates Art..

Michale.....

It would be different if a former governor were in the Oval right now, or a former CEO. But that's not the case here. We've got a smooth-talking fast-tracker, who didn't exactly win this election by a landslide and who's since lost the support of those who put him over the top.

I'm not crazy about raising the I-word myself, Michale, but when you step back and look at the big picture here, somebody's gotta be the first to say it. I mean, this on-the-job-training "CEO," who's convinced the government can create jobs, is a year and a half into no jobs, yet is STILL convinced of it and showing no signs of altering "the course" — except to RAISE TAXES in the face of a double-dip recession. This is getting seriously scary.

Good point, Liz. For the record, what I most disagree with about the bailouts is that they didn't break up the big banks. I agree that something had to be done, but writing them blank checks was a bit too lenient.

This creates an implicit government guarantee for the TBTF banks and encourages them to take risks. I'm not sure if the legislation which was put in place fixes this. I'd of broken them up and brought back Glass-Steagull.

That's the only way jobs are created. That's the foundation of the basic business transaction. How do you believe it works?

The government is at the heart of the basic business transaction? I'm not sure I understand you, CB.

Are you saying the government has to give money to businesses in order for them to invest? Please clarify.

What I'm saying is that the past 8 years of tax breaks for the wealthy have shown no increased job growth or wage growth for the middle class. The government has gotten no return on its investment and only increased the deficit. If there's no supply side benefit, let's end these tax breaks and lower the deficit.

What he, Greenspan, Summers and Geithner did in the 90's nearly did destroy the economy — twice.

Now this is funny. The minute Greenspan says anything that conservatives don't like, he gets thrown under the bus. The god of supply side economics.

Funny how conservatives loved these folks when times were good for business.

What did these folks do that nearly destroyed the economy? Two things: deregulation and "trickle down" economics.

What are conservatives currently proposing as a solution? Take a guess.

Deregulation and more "trickle down" theory.

I'm sorry but I don't see how a return to what caused the problem is going to fix the problem.

Cheers
David

This article isn't saying anything different than what CB has been saying for weeks and I have been saying for months..

What I don't understand is why the rest of ya'all here simply cannot accept what everyone else (sans the hardcore Left) is coming to realize as true..

Obama is not doing himself any favors and, by extension, is all but insuring dominance from the Right for ANOTHER generation...

Michale.....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAWsy7VV8oE&feature=player_embedded

Michale.....

2 corrections. One, it was Bush who bailed out the banks with the help of a Democratic Congress. And two, I did not support it. In fact, I seem to recall writing many posts about how wrong I felt it was.

I was actually referring to the Auto Bailouts...

Sure lots of folks here at CW disagreed with Bush, but I don't recall these awful, horrible personal attacks you're describing.

If I get time today, I'll find some examples..

But, regardless, I don't see any "horrible personal attacks" against Obama here..

I have stated he is incompetent, which he is (IMNSHO), I have stated he is inexperienced, which he is. I have stated he has made some big mistakes, which we all agree he has. I honestly don't recall any horrible personal attacks. At least nothing compared to the attacks on Bush.. The whole "Bush Lied" mantra which has proven false time and time again was especially tiresome...

I have tried to be fair to Obama.

Kevin,

Michale, now that you've explained your position, I apologize again for my pettiness. I at least understand precisely where you're coming from. Truce. Let's just agree to continue to disagree.

No worries.. :D

In my defence, I did enough pre-2000 election research on Bush to know before he was elected that he would be a disaster as President...

And yet, he will likely go down as one of the best presidents we have ever had. :D

And since I know that you are a nice, personable sort, I wouldn't wish a return to Republican "leadership" on my worst enemies, let alone caring folk like you and the rest of CW's American readership. For your sake, I hope you're hugely wrong with your predictions of the near future. Place my hoard of quatloos with Elizabeth :-)

I better take stock of my quatloos!! :D

CB,

WHEN, if ever, do you think it's going to occur to Obama — the CEO of the world's superpower, with zippo CEO experience — that perhaps he should get himself a new economic team?

Ever read EXECUTIVE ORDERS by Tom Clancy??

I refer to it a lot, because it seems to apropos to our current situations, both economically and National Security wise...

One particular part reminds me of Obama's economic team.

In this part of the book, an Iranian deep cover agent has just assassinated Saddam. Iran has rolled in the troops and "assisted" Iraq in it's recovery, in essence annexing Iraq. Iran and Iraq went before the UN to request that sanctions be lifted. The former Iraqi officials were falling over themselves trying to explain that they WANTED to come clean about everything, but the evil Saddam wouldn't let them..

That reminds me of Obama's economic team. The ones that REALLY caused our economic messes.. Now that they are part of the government, they are falling over themselves trying to say, "Well, we WANTED to do the right thing and not destroy the economy, but the evil Republicans wouldn't let us.."

Once again, Art imitates Life. :D

I think the Obamas are two of the most politically tone-deaf people I've ever seen on the national stage. In fact, I can't even think of anyone who comes close. Brilliant idea to go sailboating in the sparkling waters off the coast of Maine while thousands of Gulf residents struggle to put their lives back together.

I have to agree with this and I think everyone here would also, begrudgingly, agree as well.

I mean, seriously.. We're in one of the worst economic messes of our lifetimes and the First Lady and the First Daughter go on a jet set tour of Spain. I mean, it doesn't take a political genius to see how something like that will play out back here...

All that's left is for the First Lady to be quoted, "Oh the people back home?? Let them eat cake.."

I agree. Hillary was right, IMO. Obama was not ready for primetime. This is a one-term president if I've ever seen one. I'd bet the ranch on that.

I am definitely no fan of Hillary, to be sure... But she pegged Obama dead on..

Seriously, at what point does Obama either admit his error and fire this economic team, or America admit its error and impeach/remove this president on the grounds of incompetence.

I don't know if I would go as far as the "I" word yet..

But if Obama has proven one thing, he has proven that he doesn't like to own up to or take responsibility for his mistakes...

He has the same "stay the course" mentality that Bush had...

With Bush, that has been proven to be the proper course of action at the time..

I don't think Obama will be as lucky as Bush was..

Michale.....

Seriously, at what point does Obama either admit his error and fire this economic team, or America admit its error and impeach/remove this president on the grounds of incompetence. I don't bring the "impeach/remove" topic up lightly, either. But this country's economy is a little too important, on a global scale, to have come crashing down all because Obama is too stubborn, or clueless, or whatever the case, to admit — or even realize — that HE, as this nation's CEO, has got to do some firing and reorganizing, and game-plan revamping.

After Romer's firing — oh, I mean weariness — I'm praying that this is the White House signaling that Bernake/Geithner are {{ahem}} tired, too:

Obama's economic team exhausted
http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/113141-white-house-economic-team-exhausted

I believe he is utterly and completely inexperienced and he is way over his head..

I agree. Hillary was right, IMO. Obama was not ready for primetime. This is a one-term president if I've ever seen one. I'd bet the ranch on that.

Obama is doing a pretty good job of that all by himself...

I think the Obamas are two of the most politically tone-deaf people I've ever seen on the national stage. In fact, I can't even think of anyone who comes close. Brilliant idea to go sailboating in the sparkling waters off the coast of Maine while thousands of Gulf residents struggle to put their lives back together.

Ummm... is this man certifiably insane? What he, Greenspan, Summers and Geithner did in the 90's nearly did destroy the economy — twice. First, in '98 and again in 2008. WHY is anybody still listening to him? He's one of the CEO's whose financial institution had to be bailed out by Bush.

And, so, who does Obama have advising him, on the campaign trail? Why, Rubin, of course.

And here we are today, a year and half into this utterly FAILED Keynesian so-called recovery, and with Bernake and Geithner still on the payroll, for God knows what reason, and Whatshername Romer freshly fired, and Business sitting on $1.8 trillion, afraid to make a move, because these total incompetents can't figure out if they should raise taxes in an economy that's on the verge of a double-dip recession. WHEN, if ever, do you think it's going to occur to Obama — the CEO of the world's superpower, with zippo CEO experience — that perhaps he should get himself a new economic team?

Huh? That's the only way jobs are created. That's the foundation of the basic business transaction. How do youbelieve it works?

Have you all forgotten just how dire the situation was in the fall of 2008?

I mean, good God! If our short to medium term memories are that poor, then we had better start bracing ourselves now because we'll be heading into very choppy waters with attitudes like those towards the "bailouts" being displayed here.

Not at all CB. I think I've talked about this ad nauseum actually. There's no evidence that "trickle down" theory has helped the middle class or created new jobs here in America. In fact, the evidence points to the fact that its primarily benefited those at the top.

Here's former Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin talking about the lack of a supply side effect from tax cuts for the wealthy:

"I would put an estate tax in place right now, immediately, because we have no estate tax right now. There is no supply side effect in having an estate tax. And we should fill that void. Number two, I would increase the tax on the higher brackets, those top two brackets, and bring them back up to the Clinton rate. I believe there's no supply side effect there. We did it in 1993 people said we were going to destroy the economy, in fact we had the longest expansion...in American history. I would leave the middle-class tax cuts intact for a limited period because I do think that the probability is higher that we're going to have slow and bumpy growth than vigorous growth, and I think that given the vulnerability, the high unemployment rate, one thing and another, I wouldn't want to have that contractive effect right now."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704268004575417503318495276.html

Oh, but I forgot. He's a "liberal". You can't listen to him. Unless he's talking about all the deregulation that he did under Clinton. I'm not a fan of Rubin, but I think he's got it right this time.

@Michale
Funny how back then you supported Obama in all the bail-outs.

2 corrections. One, it was Bush who bailed out the banks with the help of a Democratic Congress. And two, I did not support it. In fact, I seem to recall writing many posts about how wrong I felt it was.

I'd of much rather seen the bailout money either go directly to the taxpayers or to banks who hadn't taken huge risky bets. I'd of let those who bet poorly on the market fail or at least broken them up.

I'm not trying to blame Bush, just get the facts correct. In fact, I do give Bush some credit for trying to do the right thing. I just disagreed w/ his method of saving the "too big to fail" banks. If I recall, this was one point where I know we shared some common ground.

Even here on CW.COM ...

You must be reading a different site than I am, Michale.

Sure lots of folks here at CW disagreed with Bush, but I don't recall these awful, horrible personal attacks you're describing.

Again, I admire your passion, Michale. But sometimes I think in your haste to go after Obama, you have a curious way of "adding color" to what actually happened.

Cheers
David

It's been a while since *I* have had to play catch-up... :D

David,

What they followed under Reagan, Bush, Clinton, and Bush II is a particular philosophy of laissez-faire economics. Under Obama, they have taken steps in the right direction, but yes, I fear the underlying philosophy is still much the same.

Where do you see the "right direction" steps you are referring to???

Are you with me, Michale, in being against laissez-faire economics? Or are you just against the Obama administration?

" I object to intellect without discipline. I object to power without constructive purpose."
-Spock, STAR TREK, The Squire Of Gothos

That pretty much sums it up for me... :D

Let the @ssholes who created this mess go under. Start from scratch.

That's what I have been saying since the first bail-outs..

Let the whole damn house of cards collapse and THEN we can rebuild a better economy..

Funny how back then you supported Obama in all the bail-outs..

NOW you want those that "created" the mess to go under.

Make up yer mind, will ya!!?? :D

Kevin,

Michale & CB...I asked quite seriously who the Republican white knight was that would meet with your approval and slay the Obama-demon you both take such pleasure in denigrating...crickets...

First off, let me say that I don't believe Obama is a "demon" or is inherently evil.

I believe he is utterly and completely inexperienced and he is way over his head..

As many people who are like that do, Obama is flailing around, trying to stay afloat..

And, like many people who have been a big fish in a small pond, they try to apply those same ideas and plans when they are a big fish in a big pond..

What Obama is finding out is what is appropriate in Chicago politics doesn't sit very well with the rest of the country..

Look at things logically and rationally... We are in an economic disaster. Obama has been on the PR bent, telling ALL Americans that the time to tighten our belts is here.. We have to make sacrifices..

And his wife takes one of the kiddies out on the Riveria for a 7-day jaunt that will likely cost the taxpayers (that's me and you) a cool million..

Now, seriously... Ignoring the reality, what kind of message does that send to John Q Public..

The Right doesn't HAVE to "demonize" Obama...

Obama is doing a pretty good job of that all by himself...

I apologize for previous testiness,

"The cause was sufficient"
-Surak, Father Of Vulcan Reformation

:D

But Michale and CB, if you continue to protest that your country was better under Bush, and cannot come up with a SINGLE present Republican who is sane/not bought and paid for; then your collective litany of "facts" will continue to only impress each other. It cannot be repeated enough, but this is a REALITY-BASED site. Yeesh.

Kevin, you may not realize it, but what you see from me and CB is NOTHING compared to the virulent anti-Bush sentiment that was displayed all over the blogosphere and yes.... even here on CW.COM....

Yes, I admit.. Sometimes I go overboard in my anti-Obama rhetoric...

The reasons are two-fold..

1. I am sincerely pissed off that I was made a fool of.. I don't like it when someone takes me for a ride and convinces me that they just might be something different... I HATE it when that happens..

2. I am giving ya'all a taste of what it was like to see, day in and day out, "BUSH LIED", "BUSH IS EVIL", "BUSH IS SATAN", "BUSH IS HITLER" etc etc etc ad nasuem...

And I can guarantee you one thing..

When the GOP takes back Congress in less than 90 days and when there is a GOP president in 2012, the roles will, once again, be reversed...

Ya'all will, daily, be screaming to high heaven about how evil and nasty the Republicans are etc etc etc ad nasuem..

"And so it goes... And so it goes... And so will you soon I suppose.."
-Billy Joel

Michale.....

Like President Obama said, "Well, that's what Elections are for..."

Pretty interesting "reality" that went down in Missouri the other day. It would appear that about 71% of voters REALLY do not not want the Dems' HCR "mandate."

Were you expecting an answer from me, after having requested that we ignore each other's posts?

I apologize for previous testiness, but you both go ON and ON and ON ad nauseam about how wrong the Dems are on everything without presenting a sensible Republican counter-proposal.

The Republican counter-proposal to raising taxes on the "2%" is not to raise them.

I hate to agree with everyone, but the Democrats lack of spine in watering down most of their legislation to appease the do-nothing crowd has lead to the present gloomy situation.

Who's "the do-nothing crowd"? The Dems watered down most of their legislation to get enough Dems on board to vote for them.

But Michale and CB, if you continue to protest that your country was better under Bush

The unemployment rate sure was. Beyond that, I didn't approve of a lot of things he did in the spending department, so I don't know what you're talking about.

..and cannot come up with a SINGLE present Republican who is sane

"Sane" in whose opinion?

/not bought and paid for;

Bought and paid for by whom? I don't give a damn about anything other than reversing Obama's job-killing policies, repealing the HCR mandate, putting the brakes the out-of-control spending,bunker-bombing President Ahmanutjob's nuke facilities, and taking terrorism seriously again. And whichever candidate's laundry list comes closest to mine has my vote.

then your collective litany of "facts" will continue to only impress each other.

Care to give an example of what you're referring to?

It cannot be repeated enough, but this is a REALITY-BASED site. Yeesh.

"Reality" as perceived and defined by whom? You? I really haven't seen you do anything other bash people you disagree with, with broad, general statements that apply to no subject in particular. So I don't even know what you feel is "unrealistic" about Michale's or my comments. I know that the concept of abolishing the Board of Ed drove you to experience some sort of brain freeze, but you neglected to offer any explanation as to why the states couldn't, or shouldn't, control their own school system. Did you want to explain that now? Or is "you're a boor" pretty much the extent of your repertoire?

I'm here for civil discussion, Kev. If you're capable of sharing your views without resorting to personal insults, I'm happy to hear what you have to say. If not, count me out of your discussions.

WHAT?!?!?!? Helping corporations DOES help people, which is the point you're continuing to miss. When businesses operate in America, American people have jobs. When businesses can no longer afford to operate in America, because they can't meet their competitor's price point, some other country's people get those jobs. WHAT on earth is so difficult to understand about that very basic, fundamental, common-sense tenet?

Company-A can not hand out paychecks unless a retail buyer PURCHASES the shirts. And no retail buyer in his or her right mind is going to purchase a shirt for eight dollars from Company-A when it can get it for five bucks from Compnay-B. THAT'S how business works, David.

Then the next leg of the process occurs at the retail level. To make a profit, the store has to mark the shirt up. So if Store-A marks its five-dollar shirt up to $9, and Store-B, across the street, marks it up to $11, guess which store is gonna sell more shirts.

And if Customer-A, with twenty bucks in his pocket, buys the shirt for $9, and Customer-B buys it for $11, guess which customer returns home with more money in his pocket. More money in one's pocket enables one to purchase more items, which means more department store sales, which means more demand for stock replenishment, which means more sales for Company-B, which means more paychecks for Company-B's workers.

All while Company-A fires its workers and either closes its doors or starts manufacturing in China, or Taiwan, or Mexico, or ANY place that will enable it to turn out a 100% cotton shirt for three bucks OR LESS.

More talking-point phrases. "Government activism." Please, David. Whether lawmakers — otherwise known as the government — sets taxes high or low, they're still ACTIVELY setting tax rates. The only question is whether to set those rates high OR low. High taxes hurt businesses; low taxes help businesses.

And bear in mind that a lot of this so-called "corporate welfare" occurs at the state level. If New Jersey would rather not have Company-A move its operation to another state, it creates financial incentives to encourage the company to stay. Fascinating concept, ain't it?

You mean, that evil corporate America that provides PAYCHECKS to citizens? HOW, in God's name, did you ever get the impression that those corporations are the enemy? WHO taught you this? HOW do you think the average American is gonna put food on the table without a paycheck coming in? WHO benefits from a corporation HAVING to move its operation out of the country if it wishes to REMAIN in business?

Do you understand that Company-A's price points must be comparable, or less than, its competitor's if it wishes to remain in business? If it costs Company-A five bucks to manufacture a 100% cotton shirt here in America, and Company-B two bucks to manufacture a 100% cotton shirt in China, guess what happens when the department store's Buyer says "I'll take it for five bucks? Company-B walks away with a three-dollar profit while Company-A profits to the tune of zilch.

HOW does Company-A then pay its employees salaries and utilities and building rental, etc., with zero dollar? It doesn't. Company-A (manufacturering in America) is forced out of business by Company-B (manufacturing for LESS in China).

Do you understand that the government has a vested interest in keeping Company-A in existence, because if Company-A goes under, American jobs are lost, and so is the TAX REVENUE derived from business owner and employee alike??? So HOW does the government keep Company-A in existence? It says, "Wait! Don't move your operation over to China, where you TOO can manufacture a shirt for two bucks and actually stay in business. How about if we lighten your tax burden so that you can offer your shirts at a price point closer to two bucks than five?"

THAT gives Company-A impetus to hang in there, David. Without that "corporate welfare," Company-A has two choices: move out of America or shut its doors.

So DO tell me what's so God-awful egregious about giving the Company-A's of this nation financial incentive to remain in this nation.

Are you beginning to see what kind of pure crap you've been handed by the Democratic party — whose campaign dollars derive, conveniently enough, from unions? Y'know, those folks who make it impossible for Company-A to manufacture its shirt for anything BUT five bucks, because they keep demanding higher and higher wages and more and more benefits for everyone from the cloth weaver to the thread spooler to the seamstresses to the truckers, and on and on and on.

And you wonder why "corporate welfare" is offered to the Company-A's of this nation?

You latest post is factually wrong, on a number of points, your misguided opinions, notwithstanding.

Number one, the Obama administration has countless businesses advising it.

Secondly, the Obama adimistration, in general, and Secretary Geithner, in particular, have demonstrated a clear understanding that a careful and prudent balance must be struck in so far as how much is too much regulation. There is ample evidence for this.

And, the top 2% of wealthy Americans do not include most small businesses. Look it up!

Are you kidding me? The Obama administration has gone OVERBOARD with regulations. What this administration doesn't understand — because it has no BUSINESS people advising it — is that too much regulation can be just as damaging as too little, or none at all.

You're saying that tax cuts for the wealthy will create jobs. This sounds like government involvement to me.

What the...? The government is INHERENTLY involved because they're the ones creating the tax legislation.

And would you mind very much leaving the talking-point catch phrases at the door? That "wealthy 2%" includes SMALL business owners, with staffs of, like, three people, who are barely scratching by in this wretched economy, much less rolling in dough and living the sweet life. These tax increases aren't going to affect ONLY mega business owners pulling down gabillions of bucks, David. That's the problem. Business owners who are closer to the $250K end of the spectrum are gonna get hurt worse than they already are, if not put out of business all together, with HIGHER taxes and MORE regulations draining what little profit they're currently making.

And guess what happens to their "staff"? They get to join the ranks of the unemployed. And the zippy federal government LOSES the tax dollars it USED to collect from them.

Very zippy master plan, indeed. Oh, and who's gonna be paying for their health care, at that point, David? Would you happen to know?

Who's suggesting that? The answer is to lower Company-A's costs as much as possible, here in America, to give it has as much of fighting chance to compete with Company-B WITHOUT having to leave the country and (point) taking its JOBS with it. That's what big, evil "corporate welfare" boils down to, David. America needs its industries to stay here so that its citizenry has jobs to go to. Business provides around 85% of the jobs in this country. And a citizen who isn't working also isn't paying taxes. So its in the interest of governments at every level (fed, state, and local) to make it financially viable for companies to not only stay here but to stay in business.

Understood. And I'm not fond of this.

What they followed under Reagan, Bush, Clinton, and Bush II is a particular philosophy of laissez-faire economics. Under Obama, they have taken steps in the right direction, but yes, I fear the underlying philosophy is still much the same.

Are you with me, Michale, in being against laissez-faire economics? Or are you just against the Obama administration?

David, are you seriously contending that Company-A, who manufactures, say, garments in the U.S., is on a level playing field with its competitor, Company-B, who manufactures garments in China?

Of course not, CB. But I believe the answer isn't to lower the standards of our workers to those of China so we can compete. Why not instead fight for global standards of workers rights? Why not instead work to create new innovations that we can charge more for? The alternative is a race to the bottom.

Or are you saying that the government is ALWAYS the force behind creating jobs in this country?

You're saying that tax cuts for the wealthy will create jobs. This sounds like government involvement to me. I just thought conservatives wanted to "let the market work".

What I'm getting at is that "let the market work" is marketing. Marketing that gets used whenever corporate America wants something.

But conservatives believe in government activism when it comes to corporate tax cuts and deregulation.

Can you explain why you're pro-government when it comes to helping corporations and anti-government when it comes to helping people?

Cheers
David

Sure... I got quatloos to burn... :D

Okay, Michale, you're on.

But, this really is the equivalent of taking candy away from children and a case of heads I win, tails you lose.

Of course, that's never stopped me before. :)

ROFLMAO! Do you sometimes get the funny feeling that there are an awful lot of Dems out there who are completely unaware that Clinton's economic team — Greenspan, Rubin, Summers, and Geithner — are 100% wholly responsible for having successfully convinced congress NOT to regulate OTC derivatives? And right on the heels, no less, of the first near-meltdown, back in '98? The 2008 near-collapse would never even have happened if it weren't for those four men. Hell, the FIRST near-meltdown might not even have happened if they hadn't done everything in their power to stop the OTC regulatory agency (CFTC) from doing its job.

Yet the inevitable SECOND near-meltdown was all (wait for it) Bush's fault. Fascinating.

And then, just to add insult to injury, Rubin's Citigroup had to be bailed out by Bush. LOL. Ya can't make this stuff up. It's like some kinda sick Monty Python routine. And here's Obama, now, warning Americans that we can't afford "to go back to the Bush policies that got us into this mess." Gee, lie through your teeth much, Obama? Wow.

If Obama is truly on the side of Main St, why is it that the Administration cannot do the ONE thing, the VERY thing that Main St has been clamoring for, for years???

Create Jobs???

Why??

Why has the administration pushed a CrapCare package that the majority of Americans DID NOT WANT in lieu of creating jobs???

If, it is as ya'all say, that the government CAN create jobs.....

WHY hasn't it????

Michale.....

Let the @ssholes who created this mess go under. Start from scratch.

Uh... David??

The @ssholes who created this mess are now working for the Obama Administration..

And are busily setting up Part Duex....

Liz,

Because the truth of the matter is that the Obama adminstration is proposing to extend the Bush tax cuts for the middle class while allowing the Bush tax cuts for the top 2 percent of Americans (those with an annual household income of at least $250,000) to expire ... as they were originally scheduled to do.

Do you still want to make that bet? :)

Sure... I got quatloos to burn... :D

Michale.....