I think one of the problems is partisanship. Both "sides" are so infatuated with taxes, the right with cutting them, the left with (usually) raising them, especially on the wealthy (not necessarily always a bad thing), that both are seemingly blind to the fact that the big problem is deregulation.

Deregulation isn't something that began with Bush, and in fact the only major piece of regulatory legislation enacted under his presidency was Sarbanes-Oxley, which increased regulation.

Meanwhile the CFMA, which exempted credit-default swaps (the very instruments that brought down the banks) from regulation, as well as Gramm-Leach-Bliley, which repealed Glass-Steagall, re-introducing "Too big to fail" into fiscal policy, were both enacted by Clinton.

Nor am I saying that Clinton was the start. That can probably be traced back to the bailout of Chrysler and mass deregulation under Carter. As both parties have held power since then, it's not like either party's track record of regulation is much to write home about.

The issue, I guess, is one of contributions. Big business means big fat donation checks, and increasing regulation tends to anger the people who bankroll Presidents. It's self-preservation, plain and simple.

Unfortunately we've yet to see a President willing to buck the trend.

i agree that obama's corporate tax breaks are less terrible than bush's, but there still is no stick to go with the carrot. as i said, there's nothing inherently wrong with rewarding companies commensurately with their use of wealth to create more local jobs. however, there also needs to be a tax penalty and increased regulation for companies who don't. without that stick, the incentive to lay off workers and import or outsource labor is simply too great.

Editorial Note: I fixed it -- you had one italic tag that wasn't closed (you forget the / slash mark) and one pair that was correct, but with the square brackets. Anyway, fixed both of them for you.

:-)

-CW

I've always liked the idea of tying the tax breaks to the intended outcome you want the business to achieve.

Want banks to lend more to small business? Give them a tax break if x% of their total loans in any given fiscal year are for small businesses.

Want waste treatment plants or other similar business to pollute less? Give them tax breaks for reducing their carbon footprint by y%.

Want more job creation? Give business a tax break only if z% of their staff are American-based jobs, and additional breaks if they continue increasing their American-based workforce by a specified amount.

If I recall rightly, a lot of Obama's stimulus tax breaks were actually of this type, and at the time I gave him credit for them.

I actually got a lot of comments on "protester" versus "protestor" and I think I'm going to keep using "protester" because it just looks more correct to my eye.

Good call. According to most dictionaries (including the OED) I've consulted, "protester" is still the "correct" spelling, although "protestor" remains in use. Interestingly my English (UK) spell-check just flagged "protestor" as mis-spelled so I think you're spot on.

As for DOMA, the Justice Department is in no way bound to appeal every single case to the Supreme Court

Oh I agree, I just think Obama's on slightly shakier ground on this one compared to several other incidents. If, as dsws says at [5], it's only in circuits where there is no precedent, that's stronger than if the DOJ is actually declining to defend it in circuits where there's precedent.

I just think such constitutional struggles are especially dangerous where the Executive defies both of the other branches, since the Executive is the only one with the power to enforce its rule. Even the Courts "own" enforcement arm, the US Marshals, is part of the Executive branch.

If Executive power is left totally unchecked you open the door to rule by Presidential fiat, enforced by the armed forces and federal law enforcement, all of which report, ultimately, to the President.

As for the "200,000 jobs" well, I take that with a grain of salt.

My point was less about the number and more that to say that the quote had nothing to do with the broader number of jobs that may end up being lost as a result of the House budget bill, but rather it was specifically "on point" regarding federal job losses that could result from a shrinking of the size of the federal government.

But since we're on the subject of numbers, tying his quote about "some" of the "200,000" jobs being lost to a projected "800,000" jobs that might be lost as a result of the House budget bill is incredibly misleading.

And therein lies the problem..

We need someone who will say, "SCREW POLITICS!!" and do what's right...

I *THOUGHT* Obama was that person...

I was so wrong as wrong could be..

Michale.....

But regulating and taxing corporations to death ALSO doesn't work when it comes to job creation..

agreed. BUT both could work if they were ever used at the same time; generous incentives for local job creation, AND heavy penalties/regulations for layoffs, outsourcing and importing cheap labor. it's not exactly rocket science, just no one has the stones to actually do it.

handing out money and hoping that corporations will find a way to use it to create local jobs, doesn't work.

But I thought that Obama was ALL about hope! :D

Seriously, I see your point..

But regulating and taxing corporations to death ALSO doesn't work when it comes to job creation..

Michale.....

While HRC may have been "mandated" by the American People, it's clear now (as it was clear then) that CrapCare was anything BUT reform...

I think we can all agree that CrapCare wasn't what the American People had in mind when they gave the Dems a "mandate" in 2008..

Which clearly was the major factor in the Dem Shellacking in 2010...

Again, you can debate how effective it was, but his priorities were in the right place (even if you didn't agree with his methodology).

Obama's big on plans and "hope" and "change"..

He's got the rhetoric down pat, to be sure.

But, when the rubber hits the road, he is found wanting..

Good intentions are great.. Follow thru is much more important..

My big point is: the GOP isn't even pretending to care about jobs now that they're in control of the House. Their priorities are seriously out of whack with (as they like to cite) "the American people" and sooner or later, independent voters are going to notice this.

True, all true..

I just think that Independents and NPAs are willing to give the GOP a few more months before they start calling the GOP on it..

Which is why I suggest Democrats help them raise their awareness.

The danger is that Dems run the risk of being ridiculed by the Independents and the NPAs with responses like, "Yea??!! You had 4 years. Look at what YA'LL did!!"

But I do admire your openmindedness on economics in general, as I've long considered economics to be closer to voodoo than science. Which is why, for instance, it is too easy to say "Obama's stimulus failed miserably" or (conversely) "Obama's stimulus saved 2 million jobs," wouldn't you agree?

My openmindedness on economic matters simply comes from acknowledged ignorance. :D Economics is like the three blind men trying to describe an elephant.. Each man is perfectly accurate and factual about what they are describing, yet all are as different as different can be.

Consider it a TARSUS II scenario.. :D (Kewpie if you can fathom THAT reference.. :D)

Michale.....

The GOP's view is (I am sure) that they are, in their minds, looking out for the interests of the people who voted them into power..

After two years of having Democrats force thru legislation that the majority of Americans were against, time and time and time again, it's actually refreshing to have representatives in DC who actually LISTEN to the people...

Your bias is showing. BOTH sides, in their minds, were doing exactly the same thing -- "looking out for the interests of the people who voted them into power." Whether either side overreached (or "is overreaching") is debatable, of course, but Obama and the Democrats in the 2008 elections specifically campaigned on, for instance, healthcare reform. Why does it affront you so that they followed through on their mandate from the American people?

Again, as I said, your bias is showing. Plus, this is Friday, when we're all about making political hay here. The point is not that Republicans haven't waved a magic wand and created jobs -- the point is that they have not even attempted anything along these lines. Love "the stimulus" or hate it, Obama BEGAN his term by getting Congress to pass a jobs bill. Again, you can debate how effective it was, but his priorities were in the right place (even if you didn't agree with his methodology).

My big point is: the GOP isn't even pretending to care about jobs now that they're in control of the House. Their priorities are seriously out of whack with (as they like to cite) "the American people" and sooner or later, independent voters are going to notice this. Which is why I suggest Democrats help them raise their awareness.

Heh.

Moderate -

I actually got a lot of comments on "protester" versus "protestor" and I think I'm going to keep using "protester" because it just looks more correct to my eye. Maybe it's one of those things where we Yanks changed British spelling (perhaps some Canucks can weigh in on how it's spelled in their "Queen's English" type dictionaries?), I don't know.

As for DOMA, the Justice Department is in no way bound to appeal every single case to the Supreme Court, so there are lots of decisions which the government just "gives up" even thought they don't win the case, I would warrant. Several examples from previous presidents abound on the net right now. But I do tend to agree with others who warn what a future "President Palin" (to give a "worst case scenario") would do in this regard.

When you get right down to it, the Constitution is incredibly vague when it comes to these power struggles between the branches, so a lot of it is merely tradition and in no way law. Presidents have defied Supreme Courts (Andy Jackson, for instance), Presidents have defied Congress (Nixon, and Dubya ignoring congressional subpoenas), and Congress has done its own thing as well plenty of times. There really are LARGE grey areas between the three branches, which is why wonks like me get interested when they are explored in real time.

As for the "200,000 jobs" well, I take that with a grain of salt. The way I've heard it is that Boehner just added up everyone who was hired since Obama took office. This takes no notice of which jobs were NEW jobs, which jobs were hired as replacements for retirees and people who left other jobs, and which were hired as (for instance) political appointees which change whenever any new administration takes power. When you can show me "total federal workforce" figures for (a) before Obama took office versus (b) now, then I'll believe you, otherwise Boehner's trying to wildly inflate this number. When pressed, I've heard Boehner say things like "since Obama took office, 200,000 people have been hired," which is NOT the same thing at all, even if he's trying to fudge things.

And, [4], you're always welcome here...

:-)

dsws -

That is an excellent point about urgent v. important. I gotta think about that one, I admit.

As for Arabic, up until 9/11, the US goverment was still using "Usama Bin Laden" (or "UBL") -- there simply are no real standards. And Gaddafi, Ghadafi, Ghadafy, Qaddafi, and all the rest of them just give me a headache, I have to admit. Even "Al Qaeda" took some time for the American media to settle on.

As for the tiger suit, we don't know exactly what was in the text of those emails which may have added to the "offensive" nature of them. Reports have come in saying that he was sending tweets out "from his children" saying things about "my daddy" trying to shame staffers into not quitting. There's more to this story than may meet the eye. But I fully admit, I just thought the photo was hilarious, myself. Rowr!

Michale [6] -

I would argue that all tax breaks are not created equal. Some do much more to stimulate jobs than others.

But I do admire your openmindedness on economics in general, as I've long considered economics to be closer to voodoo than science. Which is why, for instance, it is too easy to say "Obama's stimulus failed miserably" or (conversely) "Obama's stimulus saved 2 million jobs," wouldn't you agree?

Heh.

Oh, and don't forget, 40% of the Obama stimulus (as a bipartisan gesture) was tax breaks. So be careful how you answer...

-CW

Checkerboard laws are generally a bad idea. That's a reason to have taxes collected at higher levels of government and doled out to states by the federal government and to municipalities by the states and/or federal government.

regarding lower taxes for the wealthiest businesses, i would say they may or may not have the potential to create jobs. the difficulties arise in the details; the fine print, if you will. in my opinion, you can't just blame the housing crisis for the bush economy. the tax code signed by dubya was ultimately ineffective because it was all carrot and no stick.

handing out money and hoping that corporations will find a way to use it to create local jobs, doesn't work. there has to be some sort of dire consequence if they don't. otherwise, as has repeatedly happened in the past decade, the corporation keeps the money and uses it to open a factory in china or buy out their smaller competitors, both of which decreases competition and costs even more local jobs. corporatists of both parties either don't understand this, don't care, or are intentionally pursuing an anti-american, anti-job agenda. i don't know if that's the prevailing opinion, but it's mine.

IF I have misstated the prevailing opinion regarding the tax breaks, someone please correct me... :D

Michale.....

Michale.....

The prevailing thinking around here is that tax breaks don't do anything to stimulate job growth..

The evidence used to support this conclusion is that there were tax breaks during the Bush years but the economy still went in the tank..

That logic is faulty as it presupposes that the tax breaks where the reason that the economy went in the tank.

It's akin to saying that a house destroyed during an earthquake was destroyed because of shoddy workmanship. It doesn't take into account any other factors other than the one the claimant wants to focus on...

All things being equal, tax breaks DO stimulate job growth.. This is fact..

But, they cannot do it on their own... Other factors can and do have bearing..

Michale.....

Fatigue isn't the same as boredom. You get fatigued with something that tries to keep being urgent for too long. Also of course, urgent is not the same as important. Global warming, nuclear proliferation, and the rising cost of medical care are important. Events that, over the coming days, will decide the fate of a country half-again as populous as the Boston metro area -- on a global scale, they're mostly just urgent.

Which spelling is more acceptable -- "protester" or "protestor"?

I consider them both acceptable. I use "protester".

"there is no correct English spelling,"

I just took a glance at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romanization_of_Arabic. There are a bunch of systems all right, none of which apparently has anything like the pre-eminence of pin yin in Chinese transliteration. I hope someone works out a standard soon.

Wu sent a few "unprofessional" emails to his staff including this photo of him, in a tiger suit, from Hallowe'en

Oxycodone, yes, that's a problem. But an inoffensive Halloween costume at Halloween? What's wrong with that?

"Here, however, Obama's argument against the validity of DOMA has been struck down by circuit courts almost a dozen times."

Precedent in a circuit court is binding in that circuit, not in other circuits. The administration has defended DOMA where there is binding precedent, even though that precedent is undermined by Supreme Court precedent that suggests it will be overturned. The administration is now declining to defend DOMA in circuits where there is no such precedent. I don't know enough to say for sure, but it sounds proper to me.

Good ta see ya!!

Michale.....

As for Obama and DOMA, despite the fact that I actually agree with his stance, I think there is an important distinction between his action and those of earlier Presidents. While a President is not bound under the constitution to defend duly enacted law, the presumption is that he usually will, unless there's court decisions that back him up.

Here, however, Obama's argument against the validity of DOMA has been struck down by circuit courts almost a dozen times. In other words, this is not merely a power struggle between governmental branches but Obama defying BOTH of the other branches of government.

It really makes me laugh when Americans complain about the prospect of paying $4 a gallon for petrol. We currently pay over $8 a gallon!

Boehner's exact quote was “Over the last two years, since President Obama has taken office, the federal government has added 200,000 new federal jobs. And if some of those jobs are lost in this, so be it. We’re broke.”

It's hardly his fault that the Obama "recovery" created lots of cushy public sector jobs that don't actually do anything of value (this isn't new teachers, fire fighters or police we're talking about, but lots of administrators) that drain the public purse more than they'll ever add to it and hurt the economy more than help it.

Heh, Chris, you're not serious about Goldman Sachs, are you? You do realise they were Obama's biggest commercial donors, right?

As far as I'm aware the Wisconsin tax breaks were for businesses. They weren't "tax cuts for the wealthy". There's a difference, and you can hardly berate the Republicans for not doing anything about jobs then bash Gov. Walker for tax breaks to stimulate job growth.

Democrats were blaming Bush and the GOP right up to AND INCLUDING the shellacking of Democrats at the Mid-Terms...

Shirley you can't expect that the GOP would be able to turn things around, job-wise, in less than 2 months, eh??

Don't get me wrong. I think some of the GOP's "priorities" are seriously out of whack.. Concentrating on abortion and the like is way off the reservation...

BUT....

The GOP's view is (I am sure) that they are, in their minds, looking out for the interests of the people who voted them into power..

And for THAT, the GOP should be applauded..

After two years of having Democrats force thru legislation that the majority of Americans were against, time and time and time again, it's actually refreshing to have representatives in DC who actually LISTEN to the people...

If, after 6 months to a year, the jobs are not materializing, then I will concede ya'all have a valid argument against the GOP for their lack of ability...

But after less than two months??

That seems a tad premature to me...

To borrow the old dead horse sentiment from Democrats...."It took 4 years for Democrats to royally frack this country up. It's going to take the Republicans a bit o' time to clean up the mess and set things right."

Now, if the GOP is still using that sentiment a year or two from now, then I'll join you in telling them to shut the frack up and get to work...

Just like I told the Democrats the same thing when they drove that sentiment into the ground... :D

Michale.....