Congress Can Move Now to Prevent Layoffs, Plant Closings

Recognizing the social, economic and political threat posed by double-digit unemployment numbers, and by the prospect that those numbers are continuing to rise, key Democratic senators are proposing an innovative two-year plan to spend as much as $600 million to avert layoffs.

The plan to support so-called "work-share" strategies -- where firms keep workers on the job with reduced hours and state programs then step in to fill the pay gap -- is a classic government intervention. Yet it has won the backing not just of progressive economists but of a top economic adviser to Republican John McCain's 2008 presidential campaign.

Unfortunately, this smart alternative to layoffs has yet to earn the embrace of an Obama administration that -- despite a growing sense of urgency on the part of the president who has scheduled a December 3 forum on job creation and a cross-country "economic recovery tour" -- remains far too resistant to immediate and necessary responses to the unemployment crisis.

If the administration gets serious about addressing joblessness, however, the anti-layoff initiative proposed by Rhode Island Senator Jack Reed, a key Democratic member of the Senate Banking Committee, merits serious attention.

No, Reed's legislation is not the answer to every challenge facing a country with an official unemployment rate of 10.2 percent and a real rate that (when frustrated job-seekers and the underemployed are counted in) is closer to 17.5 percent.

There are other bold plans out there, including a call made Tuesday by the AFL-CIO for the government to spend as much as $3 trillion on schools and highway repairs to help create jobs.

But Reed's proposal has generated excitement because it is a proven approach that can be put in place immediately in states across the country.

And it could save as many as 500,000 jobs a year.

Yes, 500,000.

How so?

Reed's proposal is designed to strengthen existing state programs and to immediately develop new ones with an eye toward bringing a halt to the hemorrhaging of jobs that continues even as some in Washington continue to chirp about upticks on Wall Street.

Because of the ease with which it can be implemented, as well as its flexibility and cost effectiveness, the Reed plan has begin to attract key allies in the Senate. Massachusetts Senators John Kerry and Paul Kirk are co-sponsors, as is Vermont Senator Patrick Leahy.

In addition, Reed is talking to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, the Nevada Democrat who last week signaled that the Senate would make development of new job-creation legislation a top priority.

Harry Reid has not yet embraced the legislation advanced by Jack Reed. But the two men have been talking, and the buzz about the Rhode Islander's proposal suggests it could become part -- perhaps a major part -- of the emerging congressional response to rising joblessness.

The genius of Reed's bill is that, while it borrows from European economic strategies that have successfully averted layoffs, it builds upon programs that are already in place in much of the U.S.

The Rhode Island senator's plan does this by significantly increasing federal support for so-called "work-share" programs that now exist in 17 states and that could easily be developed in the other 33 states.

Work-share straegies, which have kept Germany's unemployment rate well below that of the U.S. and a number of other industrialized nations, are designed to keep workers on the job rather than shifting them onto unemployment rolls.

Firms that might otherwise respond to tough economic times by laying off even their most skilled workers are encouraged to keep all their employees on the job. They can do this by reducing the hours worked by employees, with an associated reduction in pay. The state, in turn, make up some or all of the lost wages from their unemployment funds.

The appeal of the scheme is that it prevents layoffs while at the same time reducing costs for the states -- as the cost of bridging the gap in pay for workers whose hours are cut is far less than the cost of providing full unemployment pay and benefits for workers who lose their jobs.

Studies suggest that Reed's proposal, if adopted and fully implemented, could preserve between 400,000 and 500,000 jobs annually.

For businesses on the brink of a plant closing, this strategy could also tip the balance in favor of keeping going -- and keeping work in communities that cannot afford to lose any more employers.

To be sure, those are saved jobs -- not newly created ones. Infrastructure initiatives, job-tax credits and New Deal-style federal, state and local employment programs are going to get renewed attention, especially if joblessness figures keep going up.

But preventing half a million layoffs annually and keeping employers functioning slows the bleeding and makes the prospect of healthy economic growth far more likely -- especially in the hardest hit cities and states.

"This plan will help prevent layoffs, make businesses more productive, and save taxpayers money by keeping people on payrolls and off unemployment benefits," said Reed. "My goal is to expand this program to allow more companies to take advantage of it and help more employees keep their jobs and their benefits as we work our way through these tough economic times."

Reed's not alone is getting excited about work-share programs as a smart, effective response to the challenges posed by rising unemployment.

Earlier this month, a leading economist, Mark Zandi wrote: "the government could help minimize the number of new job losses by promoting work-share programs. Nothing damages morale at a company more than layoffs; the experience not only is crushing for those who lose their jobs, but also weighs on those who remain, including managers. Layoffs are also costly, given severance expenses and the costs of rehiring or training new employees when business picks up again. Seventeen states offer effective work-share programs. Under these arrangements, employers cut workers' hours -- not their jobs -- and states make up a portion of workers' lost wages with unemployment insurance payments. Congress should provide financing to expand such programs nationwide."

Zandi is currently the chief economist at Moody's Economy.com, but he had another gig last year: economic adviser to John McCain's presidential campaign.

Another backer is economist Dean Baker, the co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research, who argues that:

This logic is as simple as it gets. The process is also quick and cheap. In principle, the government can go this route to save jobs at a cost of a bit more than $20,000 per job - far less than the cost per job saved through the stimulus package.

Germany has used this policy to keep its unemployment rate at 7.6 percent, about the same as it was before the recession. Imagine if workers in the United States, like workers in Germany, were dealing with the recession by putting in four-day weeks (while getting paid for five) or getting an extra two weeks of paid vacation. This sure beats being unemployed.

Last week, New York Times columnist Paul Krugman joined the chorus of supporters for the work-share proposals, explaining that:

Just to be clear, I believe that a large enough conventional stimulus would do the trick. But since that doesn't seem to be in the cards, we need to talk about cheaper alternatives that address the job problem directly. Should we introduce an employment tax credit, like the one proposed by the Economic Policy Institute? Should we introduce the German-style job-sharing subsidy proposed by the Center for Economic Policy Research? Both are worthy of consideration.

The point is that we need to start doing something more than, and different from, what we're already doing. And the experience of other countries suggests that it's time for a policy that explicitly and directly targets job creation.

A strategy that unites economic advisers to John McCain, progressive economists and a recent winner of the Nobel Prize for Economics should be an easy sell.

Unfortunately, White House economic advisers continue to express doubts about this sort of focus on job creation. For instance, Lawrence Summers, Obama's top economist, recently told the Washington Post that: "It may be desirable to have a given amount of work shared among more people. But that's not as desirable as expanding the total amount of work."

Fair enough.

But, as the U.S. continues to expand the total amount of work at a slower pace than it loses existing jobs, Summers' reluctance to protect those existing jobs make no sense for Main Street America.

Senator Reed, on the other hand, makes a great deal of sense when he says: "These kind of work-share programs work. The 17 states that have adopted work-share programs have already saved 150,000 jobs this year alone. They have helped people keep their jobs, their health benefits, and saved taxpayers millions of dollars. We should expand work share nationwide so that more businesses and workers can take advantage of this program."

A jobs forum at the White House is fine.

So, too, is a cross-country "economic recovery" tour.

But, ultimately, the Obama administration needs to get a lot more serious about keeping workers working.

And Jack Reed is offering them a smart, proven way to do just that.

Comments (241)

1. Naturally, our "fiscal conservative" friends on the Right would balk at such an idea....

   "MORE hundreds of billion in deficit spending?!?!?!...forget it, we're WAY over-leveraged as it is. The dollar would collapse!!!!"

   To which we could ask them, "Okay, what SHOULD we do to create jobs?" and if finally pressed to answer they would, naturally, say...

   "Hundreds of billions in tax cuts....oh, and we'll grow our way out of the hundreds of billions in deficits that they would cause!"

   BTW, this is their 2012, not 2012 strategy. For the midterms the GOP is going to run on "dangerous deficits" and "crippling debt"...because they know they're not going to win back the House or Senate and can appear as "fiscal conservatives" and it won't demand anything from them.

   For 2012 though, watch Romney/whoever to push for tax cuts....all talk of "deficits" and "debt" to "magically" (that's for HAPP) disappear and suddenly they'll be back to "Deficits don't matter" Cheneyism as their main selling point...tax cuts...take center stage.

   Posted by Mask at 11/17/2009 @ 07:51am

2. Correction-

   "BTW, this is their 2012, not 201o strategy..."

   Posted by Mask at 11/17/2009 @ 07:52am

3. PANIC TIME!

   The Libs can sniff & nibble around the edges all it want, burn piles of freshly printed money and keep as many AFSCME & SEIU workers on the payroll as they like.....and it won't mean squat.

   Magic's `econ team' projects average UE in 2010 at 9%. We'll be entering 2010 at likely 10.5 to 11.0%....so, to average 9% means at YE 2010, the UE needs to be at <8%. How many NEW, not saved, jobs are needed? Try nearly 4 MILLION!

   Now, does anybody want to bet on this Magic `econ team' that has done marvelously well since shoving $787 Billion to their buddies?

   Posted by Happy at 11/17/2009 @ 08:46am

4. Actually, JOHN NICHOLS, work share is not a "classic Government invention" The private sector has been doing it for months in cooperation with state unemploymemt facilities. Your faith in an entity that steals your freedom is most troubling.

   And regarding your notion about it "working in Germany". What is it with you Libs that makes you want to do everything "the way Europe does?" Who gives a red rats ass how Europe does it? Europe is now #4 in the world of wealth and power politics. Their wealth is all tied up in taking care of their own. And politically the reason people came over here in the first place was to get away from the way "Europe does it."

   When I here that it reminds me of the old question about jumping off a bridge just 'cause everyone else does it.

   Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 11/17/2009 @ 08:50am

5. Posted by Happy at 11/17/2009 @ 08:46am

   Happy, how would you spur the economy and create jobs?

   (heheh...yeah...I know!)

   Posted by Mask at 11/17/2009 @ 09:10am

6. Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 11/17/2009 @ 08:50am

   So you would ignore something that works just because Europe does it?

   As for the "faith in an entity that steals your freedom", it doesn't have to be government to steal your freedom. Those on the right always think it is just government that can do that. Can anyone tell me why that is?

   Posted by !immutable at 11/17/2009 @ 09:14am

7. When a person has a gangrene infection, is there anything Congress can do to delay amputing the infected appendage as well?

   Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 11/17/2009 @ 09:31am

8. Democratic senators are proposing an innovative two-year plan to spend as much as $600 million to avert layoffs. -- Nichols

   Yeah, the layoffs they are trying to prevent are their own in the 2010 election. They think they can prevent these layoffs by temporarily changing the calculation of the unemployment percentage.

   Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 11/17/2009 @ 09:33am

9. Because, TIMMUTABLE, that's who usually does, although I agree that they have no monopoly over the abilty.

   As for Europe, I'm sure it works for THEM. I'm not sure I want my economy looking like theirs.

   Once ,a right winger said to me that Russia spent umpteen billions on their military in an effort to prove how unready we were to fight them. I responded that that was true, although the average Russian also lived in drab one room apts where half the utilities didn't work, and did he want to live like the Russians?

   Same Principle.

   Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 11/17/2009 @ 09:35am

10. <Another backer is economist Dean Baker, the co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research, who argues that:

    This logic is as simple as it gets. The process is also quick and cheap. In principle, the government can go this route to save jobs at a cost of a bit more than $20,000 per job - far less than the cost per job saved through the stimulus package.

    Germany has used this policy to keep its unemployment rate at 7.6 percent, about the same as it was before the recession. Imagine if workers in the United States, like workers in Germany, were dealing with the recession by putting in four-day weeks (while getting paid for five) or getting an extra two weeks of paid vacation. This sure beats being unemployed.>

    SOCIALISM FOR AMERICA-

    That is the only solution that the left can offer

    Posted by antisocialist at 11/17/2009 @ 09:36am

11. And it could save as many as 500,000 jobs a year.

    Yes, 500,000.

    How so? -- Nicols

    How so? By counting a half of a job as a whole job, not for the purposes of the amount of money that goes into the worker's bank account, but for the purposes of calculating the officical unemployment figures.

    Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 11/17/2009 @ 09:36am

12. The Democratic Party will do nothing effectual to address the economic crisis deeply affecting the broad population. There will be symbolic and weak measures passed. People who work are not ultimately a priority for the politicians and officials of either party.

    Posted by syfriendly at 11/17/2009 @ 09:42am

13. Their wealth is all tied up in taking care of their own. And politically the reason people came over here in the first place was to get away from the way "Europe does it." Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 11/17/2009 @ 08:50am +++

    "All tied up in taking care of their own." [Laughter] Yep, it's really stupid to take care of the people in your own country. Only the idiots in Europe would think of something so lame. You know, Europe -- the countries that are leading us in terms of relative wealth, health, and happiness. (Have you checked out the USA infant mortality rates lately?)

    By the way, when those people fled Europe, it was a different Europe than today. You might not realize it, but Hitler, Mussolini, Franco, they're gone.

    Posted by Citizen54 at 11/17/2009 @ 09:44am

14. I'd just as soon see another CCC and WPA - those worked for FDR and they put millions to work when the population of the US was only half of what it is today, and saved America from 'Hoovervilles'.

    Since there are 'no' solutions as usual coming from the GOP 'Party of No'(you know the one, no brains, no ideas, no plans, no leadership, no guts, no conviction, no family values), the Dems are going to have to bail out again a failed Republican Adminstration mess. FDR did it, Clinton did it and now Obama will have to do it.

    Can the GOP just stay out of our lives. And take Lieberman with you. Take your Tea baggers and go follow the Palin bus tour - that's as close to problem solving as you're going to get.

    Posted by LarryB at 11/17/2009 @ 09:54am

15. I'd just as soon see another CCC and WPA - those worked for FDR and they put millions to work when the population of the US was only half of what it is today, and saved America from 'Hoovervilles'.

    Since there are 'no' solutions as usual coming from the GOP 'Party of No'(you know the one, no brains, no ideas, no plans, no leadership, no guts, no conviction, no family values), the Dems are going to have to bail out again a failed Republican Adminstration mess. FDR did it, Clinton did it and now Obama will have to do it.

    Can the GOP just stay out of our lives. And take Lieberman with you. Take your Tea baggers and go follow the Palin bus tour - that's as close to problem solving as you're going to get.

    Posted by LarryB at 11/17/2009 @ 09:54am

    Is there a special brainwashing school that liberals attend to bring about such a lack of factual knowledge? Or maybe they just spout these things because if they say it often enough, then history will change and their alternate reality will become the true history.

    FDR didn't do it-WWII did it.

    Clinton didn't do it-the dot.com tech bubble did it.

    Obama will certainly not do it-he has saddled us with a deficit that cannot be erased with even more deficit spending. It's never been done before and is mathematically impossible now.

    Posted by antisocialist at 11/17/2009 @ 10:01am

16. Imagine this conversation in your home:

    "Honey, I know our income has been reduced and the bills have gotten larger as we have borrowed on the credit cards to keep things going. Now our bills are 5 times what we make each month.

    But don't worry, I have a plan to get us out of this mess. I'm going to call our creditors and have them expand our credit line. We will simply spend our way out of this situation".

    The wife wouldn't buy it and the American taxpayer isn't buying it either.

    Posted by antisocialist at 11/17/2009 @ 10:04am

17. CITIZEN54, If you want to be "taken care of" feel free. I don't, and I am not responsible for you if you choose otherwise.

    Being "taken care of" sounds pretty kind and harmless on the surface-until the bill comes, which usually states: "Since I'm taking care of you, you'll do as I say." If thats your idea of freedom, run with it. Not this boy.

    Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 11/17/2009 @ 10:17am

18. We could sell the world, cars.

    The government owns the auto companies and is willing to charge fees to businesses that ignore the looming AlGorealypse.

    Why not catch up with Iran on natural gas burners? Then surpass them, then sell the world cars.

    Then leave the Saudis broke to stew in their wahabbist filth.

    At least the government has found one way to save money: their telling women to wait longer before they get mammograms.

    Posted by gangpapist at 11/17/2009 @ 10:19am

19. GDP.

    European Union 18,387,785[4] 1 United States 14,441,425 2 Japan 4,910,692 3 China 4,327,448h 4 Germany 3,673,105 5 France 2,866,951 6 United Kingdom 2,680,000 7 Italy 2.313.893 8 Russia 1,676,586 9 Spain 1,601,964

    note: Germany is smaller in area than US, Japan and China. they also absorbed the basket case economy of the former East germany. All their citizens enjoy comprehensive health care, including dental coverage, and a gov't pension. those poor fools, when they could have it as bad as we have it.

    Chip is an Arsch mit Ohren.

    Posted by emile duBois at 11/17/2009 @ 10:23am

20. The intent here has nothing to do with jobs. The intent of Obama's policies is to marginalize our economy to the point that a confused electorate can only look to the government and the federal reserve to "save" us from this "crisis".

    This is nothing more than an obvious power grab and neither political party is against it.

    By the way, Mask, you are an idiot with your constant dribble about hypocrisy inside the two political parties. No shit Sherlock!

    Repeat after me: Government doesn't create wealth. The President (democrat or republican) doesn't create jobs.

    If you believe they can and do, that is the root of your problem. It has never worked that way in human history. And it never will.

    When the left cries "power to the people", it really just means power to our dependence on the government.

    Fortunately, this is an upside to having the left in an actual position of power... People are getting a good look at just how dangerous and ignorant the left is.

    Posted by freiheit1 at 11/17/2009 @ 10:28am

21. Posted by emile duBois at 11/17/2009 @ 10:23am

    Wieso wohnst du denn bei uns, wenn's so viel besser ist in Europa?

    Posted by freiheit1 at 11/17/2009 @ 10:30am

22. Posted by Happy at 11/17/2009 @ 08:46am | ignore this person | warn this person

    knew i'd find you over here.

    you made some interesting observations on nichols' last blog. things i'm thinking about, believe me...

    1st of all...hell yes gubbamint is putting $ into this and hell yes, gubbamint is helping nurture the industry...

    and i am a politically active person for many reasons, one of which is indeed a concern for the well being of me and mine.

    its nice that at this point in time and place, my well being and path coincide so nicely with goodness, decency, wisdom, and the new american way.

    right now i personally am living on the ragged edge of a society that has been dominated by your tribe for far too long, no offense. sitting on the ragged edge here and haven't heard any indication that you are a potential investor...lol...

    but there is a new capitalist class emerging from this wreck, a new breed of small businessmen with big dreams and who understand the raggedy edge and who do not think like the expiring dinosaurs who cut this ragged edge.

    even if oil prices plummet in the near future as a result of oil producer and supplier trickery, i believe the ball is rolling on renewable energy and have confidence that as a result of a few years of frenetic technological breakthroughs and wise gubbamint involvement in a nascent industry, we will be able to weather such a storm and maintain a significant, growing percentage of overall power generated.

    and considering who the republicans still represent (big oil, saudi arabia, big parasite health, haliburton), it would be PROFOUNDLY STUPID of me to not support with all the money, passion, and energy left after taking care of my own business...mr. obama or whatever democrat vomited up to oppose the republicans...

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/17/2009 @ 10:32am

23. Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/17/2009 @ 10:32am

    Obama's policies will make it impossible for you to take care of your own business. That is the danger of collectivism. It is totalitarian. You will be told what to do, for the greater good. Not for your own good.

    Funny how few on the left ever mention the CONSUMER and their position of power through their free choice... Gee, I wonder why?...

    Posted by freiheit1 at 11/17/2009 @ 10:40am

24. Posted by emile duBois at 11/17/2009 @ 10:23am | ignore this person | warn this person

    amen brother. germany is a very nice place to live. people are rich, secure, and happier than we, according to some studies i've seen.

    money is made, meaning is found, high quality goods and services are produced...

    no place is perfect, no paradise on this earth, but industry and the quest for perfection is in no way impaired by wise ordering of society.

    nor is "freedom". quite the opposite. anarchy leads to slavery far quicker than wise compassion and reasonable order.

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/17/2009 @ 10:44am

25. GDP.

    European Union 18,387,785[4] 1 United States 14,441,425 2 Japan 4,910,692 3 China 4,327,448h 4 Germany 3,673,105 5 France 2,866,951 6 United Kingdom 2,680,000 7 Italy 2.313.893 8 Russia 1,676,586 9 Spain 1,601,964

    note: Germany is smaller in area than US, Japan and China. they also absorbed the basket case economy of the former East germany. All their citizens enjoy comprehensive health care, including dental coverage, and a gov't pension. those poor fools, when they could have it as bad as we have it.

    Chip is an Arsch mit Ohren.

    Posted by emile duBois at 11/17/2009 @ 10:23am

    I have to laugh every time someone on the left posts a comparison on economic output against the US and leads with the EU which is comprised of 27 nations.

    Yes JR, you can add up 27 nations and find a greater GDP than the US. But it's a pretty pathetic attempt.

    Posted by antisocialist at 11/17/2009 @ 10:46am

26. Posted by freiheit1 at 11/17/2009 @ 10:40am

    Like I hinted at above to CHIP, the consumer, like the electorate and the government, can be controlled by the options and choices given to them when corporate entities are too big and influential.

    Corporate Collectivism is alive and well now, today.

    Posted by !immutable at 11/17/2009 @ 10:49am

27. I see EMILE hasn't changed much. Posts filled with nonsense followed by insults.

    Foolish.

    Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 11/17/2009 @ 11:09am

28. "There are other bold plans out there, including a call made Tuesday by the AFL-CIO for the government to spend as much as $3 trillion on schools and highway repairs to help create jobs. "

    Nothing bold here but economic stupidity.

    These expenditures do not create or even save jobs...once the project is done so are the jobs...nothing lasting as in a private business that is growing.

    the only jobs that last and are real come from wealth created by the selling of a good or services..in other words, generating the wealth to hire more people where before there was none. The wealth created is taxed and those dollars are used to pay for services the govt uses mand at that point the welth and job s generation are over..and the pay those govt jobs hands out creates nothing but the service and no addition wealth...it is nothing more than a govt expenses,the spending of wealth generated by some other entity.

    Mask is either stupid or refuses to see the numbers...and he is not stupid... so....to create jobs govt must get out of the way of those who do...and this group is in the way like a road block...cut the taxes and regs on business..and watch it explode. The first politician to do that will have to step back fast as the economy will explode in growth.

    Of course the unions want it stupid spending in the article. It is a bribe just like the stymulus and help to GM...it costs them nothing and the dems want their votes, so..presto..it is labeled, packaged and sold to the public as a job saver...complete fraud..even one who has run a lemonade stand can understand it...but then, no one in this government has even that experience. The higher one goes in govt the less experience in the real world one finds...

    explains a lot.

    Posted by YourJomamma at 11/17/2009 @ 11:11am

29. The only power corporations can yield is by leveraging politicians and government force. With government in their pockets, corporations can control their competition and exploit their consumer markets.

    That is the only way.

    If government would stay within its proper regulatory role (including anti-trust) corporations could be held in check by consumers via competition.

    Corporate collectivism is only possible through political manipulation.

    Posted by freiheit1 at 11/17/2009 @ 11:13am

30. "cut the taxes and regs on business..and watch it explode."

    Posted by YourJomamma at 11/17/2009 @ 11:11am

    I keep looking at that line and the thing that scares me is that you, and a lot of others that post here, truly believe that.

    I am not saying that what Nichols suggests is the way to go but I am pretty sure the road you point out won't get us there either.

    Posted by !immutable at 11/17/2009 @ 11:18am

31. Posted by !immutable at 11/17/2009 @ 11:18am

    So you content that workers, if allowed to keep more of their earnings and spend, save or invest as THEY see fit instead of having it forcibly taken and spent by politicians, is a bad thing?

    How can you even conceive of that? So you feel your politicians know better how to efficiently use your capital than YOU do?! REALLY?

    Posted by freiheit1 at 11/17/2009 @ 11:27am

32. The higher one goes in govt the less experience in the real world one finds...

    explains a lot.

    Posted by YourJomamma at 11/17/2009 @ 11:11am

    Yes, and it is that way by design!

    Posted by freiheit1 at 11/17/2009 @ 11:28am

33. jomamma,

    if government creates a new job, and the person employed in that job receives a paycheck, and then spends a portion of that paycheck every week (groceries, electricity, rent, etc), then doesn't that spent cash stimulate the economy?

    chipthornton,

    "Who gives a red rats ass how Europe does it?"

    so, if you were in the whitehouse, and were scrambling for ideas, you wouldn't look towards.....other countries for ideas?

    if so, then you're really, really stupid.

    Posted by darladoon at 11/17/2009 @ 11:43am

34. Obama will certainly not do it-he has saddled us with a deficit that cannot be erased with even more deficit spending. It's never been done before and is mathematically impossible now. Posted by antisocialist at 11/17/2009 @ 10:01am

    --bush inherited a surplus. when he left we were massively in debt and the economy was in a recession. if the gov't didn't borrow under obama, we'd be in a depression.

    thanks W!

    Posted by urmygyro at 11/17/2009 @ 11:50am

35. if government creates a new job, and the person employed in that job receives a paycheck, and then spends a portion of that paycheck every week (groceries, electricity, rent, etc), then doesn't that spent cash stimulate the economy?

    Ultimately, no, Darla. That is not wealth creation, it is wealth redistribution. Have you ever heard of Frédéric Bastiat? Probably not, based on your views.

    Darla writes, "so, if you were in the whitehouse, and were scrambling for ideas, you wouldn't look towards.....other countries for ideas?"

    Thank you! At least you admit that the White House is "scrambling for ideas". Most honest you've ever been. Too bad they don't have any wisdom or experience at all, isn't it?

    Posted by freiheit1 at 11/17/2009 @ 11:52am

36. Imagine this conversation in your home: "Honey, I know our income has been reduced and the bills have gotten larger as we have borrowed on the credit cards to keep things going. Now our bills are 5 times what we make each month. But don't worry, I have a plan to get us out of this mess. I'm going to call our creditors and have them expand our credit line. We will simply spend our way out of this situation". The wife wouldn't buy it and the American taxpayer isn't buying it either. Posted by antisocialist at 11/17/2009 @ 10:04am | ignore this person | warn this person

    --in your analogy, the husband and wife talk long, expensive trips to afghanistan and iraq because they bought into their travel agent W's idea that spending money their would be wise.

    Posted by urmygyro at 11/17/2009 @ 11:52am

37. "So you content that workers, if allowed to keep more of their earnings and spend, save or invest as THEY see fit instead of having it forcibly taken and spent by politicians, is a bad thing?"

    (quote of the day)

    "forcibly taken and spent by politicians"

    Posted by darladoon at 11/17/2009 @ 11:52am

38. "That is not wealth creation, it is wealth redistribution."

    i don't care what it is.

    do you think the grocery store owner cares where the money comes from?

    answer the question, frei.

    Posted by darladoon at 11/17/2009 @ 11:54am

39. Darla, since you probably don't really pay taxes, you may not know, but if you don't pay taxes, unless, of course you are a prominent democrat, you could face jail and or fines.

    Gee, to me that is actually FORCE, don't you agree?

    Let's try an experiment. Next time you're buying a bottle of Ripple, tell the cashier that you refuse to pay the sales tax and bottle deposit.

    Posted by freiheit1 at 11/17/2009 @ 11:55am

40. if the private sector is so reliable, frei, then what happened last september, 2008?

    and if the private sector TANKED, and nobody's spending money, then what do you expect congress/white house to do?

    nothing??

    that's what you seem to be proposing. that the white house do NOTHING, and let americans fend for themselves.

    47 million americans are now going hungry.

    Posted by darladoon at 11/17/2009 @ 11:55am

41. Repeat after me: Government doesn't create wealth. The President (democrat or republican) doesn't create jobs.

    Posted by freiheit1 at 11/17/2009 @ 10:28am |

    --Repeat after me: a Republican inherited a budget surplus and in 8 years left with a massive deficit and an economy in deep recession and on the verge of depression.

    the tax cuts worked brilliantly, huh?!

    at least W's father had the guts to do what was damaging in the republican party and raise taxes when the deficit was spiraling out of control (not to mention reagan did the same).

    Blame W.

    Posted by urmygyro at 11/17/2009 @ 11:55am

42. Funny how few on the left ever mention the CONSUMER and their position of power through their free choice... Gee, I wonder why?... Posted by freiheit1 at 11/17/2009 @ 10:40am | ignore this person | warn this person

    --bush left the "consumer" with a recession and a plummeting dollar.

    gee--tax breaks after inheriting a surplus were brilliant!

    Posted by urmygyro at 11/17/2009 @ 11:57am

43. freiheit, you're a total f*cking dick head.

    why do you think i don't pay taxes?

    do you pay taxes?

    Posted by darladoon at 11/17/2009 @ 11:57am

44. "cut the taxes and regs on business..and watch it explode." Posted by YourJomamma at 11/17/2009 @ 11:11am

    --George W. Bush did this. He left with a recession. Try again.

    Posted by urmygyro at 11/17/2009 @ 11:58am

45. No Darla, of course the grocery store owner doesn't care, nor does he even care that the currency he's accepting is FIAT!

    But that's only showcasing your ignorance Darla.

    As Margaret Thatcher once remarked, "The problem with socialism is eventually you run out of other people's money!"

    I would like to believe Obama's economc advisors aren't as foolish as you are. But I have my doubts.

    Posted by freiheit1 at 11/17/2009 @ 11:59am

46. So you content that workers, if allowed to keep more of their earnings and spend, save or invest as THEY see fit instead of having it forcibly taken and spent by politicians, is a bad thing? How can you even conceive of that? So you feel your politicians know better how to efficiently use your capital than YOU do?! REALLY? Posted by freiheit1 at 11/17/2009 @ 11:27am | ignore this person | warn this person

    --ah, yes...the dollars given back under Bush are worth so much!

    Posted by urmygyro at 11/17/2009 @ 12:00pm

47. As Margaret Thatcher once remarked, "The problem with socialism is eventually you run out of other people's money!"

    Posted by freiheit1 at 11/17/2009 @ 11:59am | ignore this person | warn this person

    --W. cut taxes and left office with a recession...which if the gov't didn't borrow money to try to stimulate the economy...would now be a full-blown depression.

    Thanks W!

    Posted by urmygyro at 11/17/2009 @ 12:04pm

48. Posted by darladoon at 11/17/2009 @ 11:55am

    Darla, amongst the poor, as I've read on the pages of THE NATION, the problem is obesity, not starvation. 47 Million americans are not going hungry.

    What happened in 2008? The federal reserve shifted all risk taken on by Wall Street mostly via the CRA (Community Reinvestment Act) to the backs of the american taxpayer. This is what the banking cartel known to you as the Federal Reserve was designed to do.

    Capitalism wasn't to blame. We don't have anything close to capitalism when it comes to our banking and financial systems, do we now?

    Posted by freiheit1 at 11/17/2009 @ 12:04pm

49. Capitalism wasn't to blame. We don't have anything close to capitalism when it comes to our banking and financial systems, do we now? Posted by freiheit1 at 11/17/2009 @ 12:04pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    --woah--don't tell the happy passive investors that!

    Posted by urmygyro at 11/17/2009 @ 12:07pm

50. "The federal reserve shifted all risk taken on by Wall Street mostly via the CRA (Community Reinvestment Act) to the backs of the american taxpayer. "----Posted by freiheit1 at 11/17/2009 @ 12:04pm

    Oh? So how many CRA mortgages went bad, Frei?

    ((Hint- Here's where you say "That's not the point, the point is..." and dodge the question))

    Posted by Mask at 11/17/2009 @ 12:08pm

51. Not sure how cutting taxes and regs on business went to a personal income tax question. My comment was directed more towards the "regs" part of this.

    But in answer to your question individuals and corporations tend to think only of their own interests (understandably). Governments are supposed to think of the big picture.

    It isn't a matter of if they will invest my money wisely (I am sure we all could come up with something we felt was unwise). They are a necessity to take care of what we as individuals cannot. Now, how much should they be responsible for is the big contentious issue that we all bat around but I doubt anyone here doesn't like a well paved road.

    Posted by !immutable at 11/17/2009 @ 12:09pm

52. Posted by urmygyro at 11/17/2009 @ 12:04pm

    I respectfully disagree. Politicians caused the problem. They are hardly the solution.

    The government didn't invest us out of a depression, Urmy! Taking a bucket from the deep end and pouring it into the shallow end of the pool doesnt raise the water level, does it?

    Posted by freiheit1 at 11/17/2009 @ 12:10pm

53. "As Margaret Thatcher once remarked, "The problem with socialism is eventually you run out of other people's money!""

    and eventually, britain rejected thatcherism.

    Posted by darladoon at 11/17/2009 @ 12:13pm

54. Governments are supposed to think of the big picture.

    Posted by !immutable at 11/17/2009 @ 12:09pm

    I see. Not sure where that's in the Constitution, but I don't disagree.

    But, explain how political farm subsidies for sugar, for example, are "thinking of the big picture" and not an outright constituiency purchase using our tax money? Or why health insurance is not allowed to cross state lines? Or how about Iraq and Afghanistan (Both unconstitutional in my view). Is that the big picture view you're talking about - you know, that our politicians are taking?

    Posted by freiheit1 at 11/17/2009 @ 12:16pm

55. Posted by urmygyro at 11/17/2009 @ 12:04pm I respectfully disagree. Politicians caused the problem. They are hardly the solution. The government didn't invest us out of a depression, Urmy! Taking a bucket from the deep end and pouring it into the shallow end of the pool doesnt raise the water level, does it? Posted by freiheit1 at 11/17/2009 @ 12:10pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    --the gov'ts borrowing most certainly did keep us from a full-blown depression. the "politician" that caused the problem is George W. Bush. Assign the proper blame.

    Posted by urmygyro at 11/17/2009 @ 12:16pm

56. and eventually, britain rejected thatcherism.

    Posted by darladoon at 11/17/2009 @ 12:13pm

    Yep, if you rob Peter to pay Paul, you can definitely count on Paul's vote....

    Posted by freiheit1 at 11/17/2009 @ 12:17pm

57. Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/17/2009 @ 10:32am

    Obama's policies will make it impossible for you to take care of your own business. That is the danger of collectivism. It is totalitarian. You will be told what to do, for the greater good. Not for your own good.

    Funny how few on the left ever mention the CONSUMER and their position of power through their free choice... Gee, I wonder why?...

    Posted by freiheit1 at 11/17/2009 @ 10:40am | ignore this person | warn this

    "Obama's policies will make it impossible for you to take care of your own business."

    obama's policies are currently making it easier for me to do business. more money is becoming more easily available every day, it seems and in terms of strings attached...not so bad from what i've seen...hell - it IS the taxpayer's money - i hope they don't just vomit it up willy nilly to any chick that sqwauks loud enough...

    unlike "incentives" for renewable energy development from the bush era, these are accessible and not enmeshed in so many silly caveats and restrictions as to make them effectively un-qualifiable...for...

    "That is the danger of collectivism. It is totalitarian. You will be told what to do, for the greater good. Not for your own good."

    well first of all if we are to parse words and terminology, your assertion that collectivism is identical to totalitarianism is arguable, to say the least. i often impute my own meanings to words as well, but am nonetheless aware of more accepted and standard terminology, as are you, i suspect.

    i assure you, what i am doing now is indeed for my good as well as for the greater good. preach to the faithful, but remember i am not one of the faithful. from what i'm see

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/17/2009 @ 12:18pm

58. --the gov'ts borrowing most certainly did keep us from a full-blown depression. the "politician" that caused the problem is George W. Bush. Assign the proper blame.

    Posted by urmygyro at 11/17/2009 @ 12:16pm

    Okay. Add Barney Franks & Chris Dodd to the list then.

    Posted by freiheit1 at 11/17/2009 @ 12:18pm

59. freiheit conveniently changes the subject when we point out the limitations of his arguments.

    Posted by darladoon at 11/17/2009 @ 12:20pm

60. Posted by darladoon at 11/17/2009 @ 12:20pm

    Politicians are at the root of our problem.

    Seriously, where have I changed the subject from that Darla? And where has anyone pointed out a limitation to that argument?

    By the way, when I refer to "politicians" I'm not assigning a party label.

    Darla, you should really study the history of money. Please read the Creature from Jekyll Island. You will see that the one thing above all that you and I have in common is we are BOTH duped.

    Posted by freiheit1 at 11/17/2009 @ 12:25pm

61. continued response to FREIH

    "Funny how few on the left ever mention the CONSUMER and their position of power through their free choice... Gee, I wonder why?..."

    funny how that statement cleverly inverts truth, using the boldness of the lie to reinforce a sense of truthiness and conventional wisdom.

    still not true, though. the left is all about the consumer, the demand side of the equation, that which is conspicuously missing from satano-aynrando ideology except in the most cynical and denigrating fashion.

    the free choice for the millions living on the raggedy edge these days in this land of IMMENSE WEALTH AND POWER, in terms of basic health care, is starve or enrich a wicked parasitical kraken.

    dying is cheaper, of course.

    your ideology has poisoned enough, has ruined enough lives. it is destructive and deceptive, a sketchily scientific ready made excuse for wickedness and has ripped into the very fabric of or society.

    its the way of the grasshopper.

    i'm all for capitalism unshackled by second rate ideology which pretends to espouse it.

    socialism? collectivism? really?

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/17/2009 @ 12:28pm

62. No Darla, I'll always be open to other ideas.

    And as soon as I find a worthy one, I'll act on it.

    Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 11/17/2009 @ 12:29pm

63. "That is not wealth creation, it is wealth redistribution."

    i don't care what it is.

    do you think the grocery store owner cares where the money comes from?

    answer the question, frei.

    Posted by darladoon at 11/17/2009 @ 11:54am

    And here is the problem...

    the "I dont care what it is.."

    You SHOULD care..

    ..but don't therefore, exhibiting for all to see your complete lack of understanding how the econmic engine of the US works and has worked...and why it is sputtering now...tooo much govt meddling, but don't feel alone..no one in govt does either, from Obama on down.

    And yes, the grocery store owner does care where it comes from, for if he is suppling the groceries as well as the money to pay for them, he is no longer a business nor an employer...

    he is merely another govt redistributer of wealth...and doomed.

    Posted by YourJomamma at 11/17/2009 @ 12:31pm

64. i'm all for capitalism unshackled by second rate ideology which pretends to espouse it.

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/17/2009 @ 12:28pm

    Finally with that statement we are on common ground!

    Posted by freiheit1 at 11/17/2009 @ 12:34pm

65. "Politicians are at the root of our problem."

    this is a fundamentally flawed proposition.

    Posted by darladoon at 11/17/2009 @ 12:34pm

66. Posted by darladoon at 11/17/2009 @ 12:20pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    its funny finding myself here on the business side, seeing it up close, experiencing all the obstacles and challenges involved.

    and its hard work.

    but thus far i'm finding it no harder than trying to teach something to 35-40 gang bangers and a sprinkling of desperate little future obamas and sotomayors...four times a day...

    really. i get tired now, pass out sweetly at the end of the day, but i don't feel that horrid, impending sense of unavoidable, intense, unpleasantness and dread of a ton of meaningless busy work designed to justify my salary and make me appear more professional in order to justify my ok salary...

    so when i here some anarcho-libertarian crowing over their own cleverness and how they are the only emmer effers who put in a solid day's work...

    i want to punch the blowhard in the face.

    thank god for the internet and a fully developed frontal brain lobe...

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/17/2009 @ 12:37pm

67. Finally with that statement we are on common ground!

    Posted by freiheit1 at 11/17/2009 @ 12:34pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    i like you, frei, and promise to never punch you in the face...

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/17/2009 @ 12:38pm

68. "Politicians are at the root of our problem."

    this is a fundamentally flawed proposition.

    Posted by darladoon at 11/17/2009 @ 12:34pm

    And thus defines the part of the population who deems all things govt good.

    nope...no flaws here in thought process or reality.

    sigh...

    Posted by YourJomamma at 11/17/2009 @ 12:48pm

69. "And thus defines the part of the population who deems all things govt good.

    nope...no flaws here in thought process or reality. sigh..."

    jomamma, what about the politicians with whom you agree?

    are they part of the problem?

    reagan was a politician, after all.

    and please tell me maasch: if government creates a job, and that person goes out and spends money, how does that NOT stimulate the economy?

    Posted by darladoon at 11/17/2009 @ 12:50pm

70. i get it: politicians should do NOTHING. then, watch the economy grow and grow!!

    (see: dubya)

    Posted by darladoon at 11/17/2009 @ 12:51pm

71. whether you think politicians are part of the problem or not, you are STILL LEFT WITH POLITICIANS.

    so if you want to live with your head in the sand, then by all means (see: maasch)....

    Posted by darladoon at 11/17/2009 @ 12:53pm

72. since things are really bad, it must be obama's fault.

    when things were good, then it's the free market's love and compassion.

    Posted by darladoon at 11/17/2009 @ 12:57pm

73. hey maasch,

    what should obama do to create jobs?

    please. tell us.

    Posted by darladoon at 11/17/2009 @ 12:57pm

74. OK Jommama, I get it, just cut taxes, yours and the rights answer to everything. Only isn't that what bush did and isn't that a large part of why we are in the mess we are in? P.S. I don't mind paying my fair share, you shouldn't either.

    Posted by Denise29 at 11/17/2009 @ 12:58pm

75. single payer health care. get that crap off of business' shoulders.

    pension portability and assurance. get that crap off of business' shoulders.

    government support for the veryparasites who drag down our productivity for their own personal gain and whine to high heaven about the awful horrible old gubbamint - cut that crap out.

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/17/2009 @ 1:06pm

76. "government support for the very parasites who drag down our productivity for their own personal gain and whine to high heaven about the awful horrible old gubbamint"

    they only whine about the government when their own bad decisions put them into an awful mess. and when government's abilities are strained by.....their decisions (see: the right wing), then they blame the government.

    but when they needed tax cuts and deregulations? the government was their best friend.

    sure, people. run off to whatever godforsaken hell hole to find slave labor and no environmental regulations, and find your fortune, and screw the american workforce.

    yeah, maasch loves america (only when it stays out of his backyard).

    as we all know, maasch does business in COMMUNIST CHINA, where things are just booming right now. way to go maasch!

    Posted by darladoon at 11/17/2009 @ 1:16pm

77. and please tell me maasch: if government creates a job, and that person goes out and spends money, how does that NOT stimulate the economy?

    Posted by darladoon at 11/17/2009 @ 12:50pm

    Again, you are as dense as redwood...

    Government can't create jobs. Period. 4th grade econ.

    hey maasch,

    what should obama do to create jobs?

    please. tell us.

    Posted by darladoon at 11/17/2009 @ 12:57pm

    HE CAN'T CREATE JOBS. YOU WILL NEVER GET IT...HE CAN CREAT CONDITIONS SO PRIVATE SECTOR IS WILLING TO TAKE RISK AND EXPAND...OR NOT. HE IS IN THE "NOT" PART AND IS PUTTING US IN WORSE CONDITION THAT YOU EVER DREAMED GWB COULD.

    Cut corporate taxes, stop competing in the markets with private companies for certain services as well as capital..

    and cut regulations .

    Eliminate income taxes and install a consumtion tax system, with exemptions for low income levels...wanna give an hourly guy a raise? Stop taking anything out of his check.

    Posted by YourJomamma at 11/17/2009 @ 1:18pm

78. what should obama do to create jobs?

    please. tell us.

    Posted by darladoon at 11/17/2009 @ 12:57pm

    Yes indeed! That would be helpful, since Obama and his advisors don't seem to have a clue. hahaha! Just kidding, Obama and his folks know EXACTLY what they're doing.

    Darla, Obama doesn't want to "create jobs" he wants to create political and social dependencies. Could that be any more obvious? If Obama WANTED to create an environment of job stimulous, he knows the fundamental economics to do so.

    Your problem is in the belief that the goal is an improved economy... Now where would the crisis be then and how could Obama leverage power that way?

    One world government based on collectivism requires the destruction of US automomy. Obama is right on track to that end.

    Posted by freiheit1 at 11/17/2009 @ 1:18pm

79. OK Jommama, I get it, just cut taxes, yours and the rights answer to everything. Only isn't that what bush did and isn't that a large part of why we are in the mess we are in? P.S. I don't mind paying my fair share, you shouldn't either.

    Posted by Denise29 at 11/17/2009 @ 12:58pm

    No, it is much ,more complicated than that..

    look at automatic increases, increasing populations with mandates that were never accounted for in the initial calculations by govt "experts" when designing expenditures as well as growth in new programs(see Health care experts)....

    Bush spent more that the last guy...is the problem not enough money coming into the treasury or is the problem too much going out? A cut in the rate of increase in a govt program is labeled draconian cuts by the left...just look at the name..entitlements....my god...entitled to my check? yours?

    I dont mind paying my fair share...but according to whose idea of fair? I dont want to pay your share either..

    Posted by YourJomamma at 11/17/2009 @ 1:25pm

80. Posted by YourJomamma at 11/17/2009 @ 1:18pm

    So spending money on our infrastructure, doesn't that fall in your "...CAN CREAT CONDITIONS SO PRIVATE SECTOR IS WILLING TO TAKE RISK AND EXPAND" comment?

    Posted by !immutable at 11/17/2009 @ 1:25pm

81. "cut the taxes and regs on business..and watch it explode." Posted by YourJomamma at 11/17/2009 @ 11:11am

    --George W. Bush did this. He left with a recession. Try again.

    Posted by urmygyro at 11/17/2009 @ 11:58am

    Total leftist BS-you are back on the dark side.

    Posted by antisocialist at 11/17/2009 @ 1:27pm

82. yeah, maasch loves america (only when it stays out of his backyard).

    as we all know, maasch does business in COMMUNIST CHINA, where things are just booming right now. way to go maasch!

    Posted by darladoon at 11/17/2009 @ 1:16pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    hey Einstein!!!

    I sell AMERICAN PRODUCT S.....listen now...its coming....

    TO CHINA ...

    ....creating ...listen now...AMERICAN JOBS FOR AMERICANS AND CREATING TAX PAYERS.

    and yes I love America ..I just don't want you in my back yard univited and claiming it as yours.

    Posted by YourJomamma at 11/17/2009 @ 1:29pm

83. Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/17/2009 @ 12:38pm

    Thanks Ibble, right back at ya! ========================

    i get it: politicians should do NOTHING. then, watch the economy grow and grow!!

    (see: dubya)

    Posted by darladoon at 11/17/2009 @ 12:51pm

    Now Darla, that's not what anyone is saying. Obviously we need government and taxes. Government, kept inside its constitutional limitations is spectacular and absolutely necessary. Our system is brilliant in design. But if all branches collude against the people in favor of the plutocracy and special interests, as we are seeing today and most of the past century, we have a real problem. What I find hilarious is that you don't even know what side you're on. You don't have the slightest concept of reality. You picked a side, you know, the one with the cool people. And you stopped questioning.

    How sad.

    Posted by freiheit1 at 11/17/2009 @ 1:31pm

84. --the gov'ts borrowing most certainly did keep us from a full-blown depression. the "politician" that caused the problem is George W. Bush. Assign the proper blame. Posted by urmygyro at 11/17/2009 @ 12:16pm Okay. Add Barney Franks & Chris Dodd to the list then. Posted by freiheit1 at 11/17/2009 @ 12:18pm

    --the investment bankers taking wild risks on debt most likely unable to be paid off certainly want you to blame dodd and franks. they like you've assigned names other than theirs to the problem.

    Posted by urmygyro at 11/17/2009 @ 1:32pm

85. maasch STILL can't answer the question:

    if the government builds a bridge, and pays a bunch of guys to do it, and those guys go out and spend money on things they need: how is that NOT stimulating the economy??

    Posted by darladoon at 11/17/2009 @ 1:35pm

86. "Obviously we need government and taxes"

    -freheit

    here's another doozy:

    "But if all branches collude against the people in favor of the plutocracy and special interests, as we are seeing today and most of the past century, we have a real problem"

    and this is a right-wing point of view? funny how i didn't hear any republicans saying this the past 8 years.

    Posted by darladoon at 11/17/2009 @ 1:36pm

87. ..but don't therefore, exhibiting for all to see your complete lack of understanding how the econmic engine of the US works and has worked...and why it is sputtering now...tooo much govt meddling,

    -- like when reagan gave tax breaks and realized it would cause much long term harm and increased taxes? like when bush the elder said "no new taxes" but bit the bullet and raised taxes to make sure the deficit didn't spiral? then we get W...who inherited a surplus (which had been running for 4 straight years under clinton) and cut taxes, and cut taxes...and left office with an immense deficit and an economy in recession and on the verge of depression?

    And yes, the grocery store owner does care where it comes from, for if he is suppling the groceries as well as the money to pay for them, he is no longer a business nor an employer... he is merely another govt redistributer of wealth...and doomed.

    --happy's a landlord...you think he cares whether the tenant pays with a social security check? you think he turns down that rent? por favor.

    Posted by YourJomamma at 11/17/2009 @ 12:31pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    Posted by urmygyro at 11/17/2009 @ 1:36pm

88. So spending money on our infrastructure, doesn't that fall in your "...CAN CREAT CONDITIONS SO PRIVATE SECTOR IS WILLING TO TAKE RISK AND EXPAND" comment?

    Posted by !immutable at 11/17/2009 @ 1:25pm

    depends...if govt hires the people and uses the taxes collected from the people to pay for it(say a bridge), then it is not job creation but redistribution...the short term gain for the infrastrucutre project is out weighed by the long term effect of those jobs ending when , say, the bridge project is finished...if the same construction worker was working for a private company who built offices or houses in an expanding economy then the result of his labor is increasing the wealth..and his job has been created as a result of expanding welath, which in turn, keeps his jobs moving as the new projects start in an expanding economy..

    Posted by YourJomamma at 11/17/2009 @ 1:37pm

89. after bush destroyed the economy, what would maasch have proposed obama do on january 20, 2009?

    come on maasch, break it down for us:

    1. unemployment rising dramatically

    2. foreclosures rising dramatically

    come on maasch, save us!!!!

    what would YOU do?

    Posted by darladoon at 11/17/2009 @ 1:38pm

90. And thus defines the part of the population who deems all things govt good. nope...no flaws here in thought process or reality. sigh... Posted by YourJomamma at 11/17/2009 @ 12:48pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    --like the commander in chief and wars...no criticism from people on your side...

    Posted by urmygyro at 11/17/2009 @ 1:38pm

91. Posted by urmygyro at 11/17/2009 @ 1:32pm

    The investment bankers took the risk because in the United States government has privatized profit and socialized risk.

    Every banker knows that the federal reserve will ensure their losses are covered by the taxpayer. that is the system we have.

    So, when politicians bought votes by expanding home ownership to people unqualified, risky loans were made because risk was assumed by the government (taxpayers) not the banks. this fresh demand raised housing costs across the board.

    Franks and Dodd oversaw all of this. They knew the consequences would be a manipulated financial crisis that, in the words of Rahm Emmanual, would not go to waste.

    Posted by freiheit1 at 11/17/2009 @ 1:38pm

92. "the short term gain for the infrastrucutre project is out weighed by the long term effect of those jobs ending when , say, the bridge project is finished"

    except, of course, the BRIDGE IS A LONG TERM GAIN. and not only that, but the ENTIRE POINT OF A FISCAL STIMULUS IS SHORT TERM.

    maasch = dumb as a bag of hammers

    Posted by darladoon at 11/17/2009 @ 1:39pm

93. maasch STILL can't answer the question:

    if the government builds a bridge, and pays a bunch of guys to do it, and those guys go out and spend money on things they need: how is that NOT stimulating the economy??

    Posted by darladoon at 11/17/2009 @ 1:35pm

    Your question has been asnwered...you just are incapable of understanding the answer...its so painfully obvious.

    Posted by YourJomamma at 11/17/2009 @ 1:40pm

94. maasch just loves to throw that term "wealth redistribution" around as if it has any meaning at all.

    Posted by darladoon at 11/17/2009 @ 1:40pm

95. "cut the taxes and regs on business..and watch it explode." Posted by YourJomamma at 11/17/2009 @ 11:11am --George W. Bush did this. He left with a recession. Try again. Posted by urmygyro at 11/17/2009 @ 11:58am

    Total leftist BS-you are back on the dark side.

    Posted by antisocialist at 11/17/2009 @ 1:27pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    --bush inherited a surplus. he cut taxes more than once. he left with a massive deficit and a recession. you have no retort, so you provide a non-response. a personal attack. you've got nothing, no counter.

    Posted by urmygyro at 11/17/2009 @ 1:41pm

96. --the investment bankers taking wild risks on debt most likely unable to be paid off certainly want you to blame dodd and franks. they like you've assigned names other than theirs to the problem.

    Posted by urmygyro at 11/17/2009 @ 1:32pm

    They are partialy to blame for the atmosphere of fearing for not giving loans to those who never should have had one...

    but no one is entirely to blame, rather all in Washington are to blame and we as voters are to blame for keeping assholes there for more than 6 years.

    Some who says, " I have serve for 30 years"..has indeed sreved...himself.

    Posted by YourJomamma at 11/17/2009 @ 1:42pm

97. ".if the same construction worker was working for a private company who built offices or houses in an expanding economy then the result of his labor is increasing the wealth"

    and when bush destroyed the economy and construction of new projects HALTED, then what would maasch do???????

    nothing??????

    no the government must step in....

    maasch just can't seem to admit that the government must play a role in situations like this.

    and bush caused that situation. not obama.

    Posted by darladoon at 11/17/2009 @ 1:42pm

98. maasch STILL can't answer the question: if the government builds a bridge, and pays a bunch of guys to do it, and those guys go out and spend money on things they need: how is that NOT stimulating the economy?? Posted by darladoon at 11/17/2009 @ 1:35pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    --of course it does. they won't say it doesn't because they'd have to admit defense contracts are a burden, not a boon...and they won't dare say that.

    Posted by urmygyro at 11/17/2009 @ 1:43pm

99. "bush inherited a surplus. he cut taxes more than once. he left with a massive deficit and a recession"

    how can one deny this?

    Posted by darladoon at 11/17/2009 @ 1:44pm

100. --happy's a landlord...you think he cares whether the tenant pays with a social security check? you think he turns down that rent? por favor.

     Posted by YourJomamma at 11/17/2009 @ 12:31pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     Posted by urmygyro at 11/17/2009 @ 1:36pm |

     Sure he does..on the macro level.

     Posted by YourJomamma at 11/17/2009 @ 1:44pm

101. epends...if govt hires the people and uses the taxes collected from the people to pay for it(say a bridge), then it is not job creation but redistribution...the short term gain for the infrastrucutre project is out weighed by the long term effect of those jobs ending when , say, the bridge project is finished...

     --same can be said about defense contracts...except they always have wars to supply with machinery.

     if the same construction worker was working for a private company who built offices or houses in an expanding economy then the result of his labor is increasing the wealth..and his job has been created as a result of expanding welath, which in turn, keeps his jobs moving as the new projects start in an expanding economy..

     --the housing market severely slowed under W....a tax cutter.

     Posted by YourJomamma at 11/17/2009 @ 1:37pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     Posted by urmygyro at 11/17/2009 @ 1:45pm

102. Posted by urmygyro at 11/17/2009 @ 1:32pm The investment bankers took the risk because in the United States government has privatized profit and socialized risk. Every banker knows that the federal reserve will ensure their losses are covered by the taxpayer. that is the system we have. So, when politicians bought votes by expanding home ownership to people unqualified, risky loans were made because risk was assumed by the government (taxpayers) not the banks. this fresh demand raised housing costs across the board. Franks and Dodd oversaw all of this. They knew the consequences would be a manipulated financial crisis that, in the words of Rahm Emmanual, would not go to waste. Posted by freiheit1 at 11/17/2009 @ 1:38pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     --kind of like 9/11 didn't go to waste...oh, wait, Saddam was responsible for that, right?

     Posted by urmygyro at 11/17/2009 @ 1:46pm

103. maasch just loves to throw that term "wealth redistribution" around as if it has any meaning at all.

     Posted by darladoon at 11/17/2009 @ 1:40pm |

     It does for those who earned the wealth...

     and for those like you who want it....redistributed.

     Posted by YourJomamma at 11/17/2009 @ 1:47pm

104. Posted by darladoon at 11/17/2009 @ 1:36pm

     Darla, I can certainly be labeled conservative, but I am hardly right wing. I've even contended in this blog today that both iraq and Afghanistan are unconstitutional. I entertain the belief that the War on Terror is mostly contrived and Osama Bin Laden is our creation. The GWOT is the neocon strategy for our future based on collectivism, but it is not based on the internationalism of Obama's fabianism.

     Our left vs right paradigm, Darla, is nothing more than hegalian dialectic. My criticism of you is you can't see that.

     Posted by freiheit1 at 11/17/2009 @ 1:48pm

105. --happy's a landlord...you think he cares whether the tenant pays with a social security check? you think he turns down that rent? por favor. Posted by YourJomamma at 11/17/2009 @ 12:31pm | ignore this person | warn this person Posted by urmygyro at 11/17/2009 @ 1:36pm |

     Sure he does..on the macro level. Posted by YourJomamma at 11/17/2009 @ 1:44pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     --oh, right, he cares on a "macro level"...as in, he's gonna cash the checks anyway, no matter where they come from, and pay lip service to your "concerns"

     Posted by urmygyro at 11/17/2009 @ 1:49pm

106. --kind of like 9/11 didn't go to waste...oh, wait, Saddam was responsible for that, right?

     Posted by urmygyro at 11/17/2009 @ 1:46pm

     YES! Thank you Urmy, EXACTLY LIKE THAT!!

     Could it be you're actually getting it?

     Posted by freiheit1 at 11/17/2009 @ 1:49pm

107. "It does for those who earned the wealth... and for those like you who want it....redistributed."

     whenever maasch is cornered, he talks nonsense.

     maasch, just admit, bush destroyed the economy.....and private investment halted.....and without private investment, unemployment rises, etc......so, in a situation like this.....what's your strategy?

     more tax cuts?

     if so, and the deficit goes up even further.....how can you complain about.....the deficit....if you, cut taxes?

     you're not too bright, are you maasch? or at least you are bright, but too stubborn to admit that your philosophy is.....arcane.

     Posted by darladoon at 11/17/2009 @ 1:50pm

108. Work share is the way to go. Reduce drudgery & wage slavery & allow people the time to develop their own sense of self & place rather than serving an arrogant & pampered plutocracy.

     Develop the attitudes & skills necessary to living for yourselves in harmony with your neighbors rather than in competition with them for jobs & the capricious & tenuous favor of a boss.

     Uncle Sam can be a valued ally in assisting in our maintaining the health & independence necessary to pursuit of our individual dreams.

     Posted by Sorelish at 11/17/2009 @ 1:50pm

109. maasch just loves to throw that term "wealth redistribution" around as if it has any meaning at all. Posted by darladoon at 11/17/2009 @ 1:40pm |

     It does for those who earned the wealth... and for those like you who want it....redistributed.

     Posted by YourJomamma at 11/17/2009 @ 1:47pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     --wealth is created by natural resources. which belong to us all. we allow people to buy land and use those resources...but the trade off is paying taxes, something people like you bitch about til you're blue in the face.

     Posted by urmygyro at 11/17/2009 @ 1:51pm

110. And by "getting it" I mean you are seeing the deception we have from the perceived left AND right.

     We agree that Saddam wasn't the issue.

     Posted by freiheit1 at 11/17/2009 @ 1:51pm

111. --bush inherited a surplus. he cut taxes more than once. he left with a massive deficit and a recession. you have no retort, so you provide a non-response. a personal attack. you've got nothing, no counter.

     Posted by urmygyro at 11/17/2009 @ 1:41pm

     but he spent more than he cut...he ran up the deficit..he is part of the problem.

     In the same mold, Obama is magnifying the problem by a factor of 10...

     if the loon DARLA is correct that Bush destroyed the economy(she is wrong), and Bush had deficits of $300-400 billion....then Obama is burying the economy with deficits 4 times that...plus job losses...

     The problem is 40 years old...not 8, but it is accelerating with every new social engineer who has a new idea to "fix" it...

     Posted by YourJomamma at 11/17/2009 @ 1:52pm

112. --kind of like 9/11 didn't go to waste...oh, wait, Saddam was responsible for that, right? Posted by urmygyro at 11/17/2009 @ 1:46pm

     YES! Thank you Urmy, EXACTLY LIKE THAT!! Could it be you're actually getting it?

     Posted by freiheit1 at 11/17/2009 @ 1:49pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     --I get that invading Iraq was based on pretext to enrich people you claim are "creating" wealth. you don't voice criticism of them though.

     Posted by urmygyro at 11/17/2009 @ 1:52pm

113. Work share is the way to go. Reduce drudgery & wage slavery & allow people the time to develop their own sense of self & place rather than serving an arrogant & pampered plutocracy. Develop the attitudes & skills necessary to living for yourselves in harmony with your neighbors rather than in competition with them for jobs & the capricious & tenuous favor of a boss. Uncle Sam can be a valued ally in assisting in our maintaining the health & independence necessary to pursuit of our individual dreams.

     Posted by Sorelish at 11/17/2009 @ 1:50pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     --it's not in America's DNA to live like you describe. We destroyed the natives and used slaves to help build the economy. Don't forgot how this place started. It explains a lot.

     Posted by urmygyro at 11/17/2009 @ 1:54pm

114. "Our left vs right paradigm, Darla, is nothing more than hegalian dialectic. My criticism of you is you can't see that."

     it's hegelian dialectic. not hegalian.

     Posted by darladoon at 11/17/2009 @ 1:54pm

115. Posted by urmygyro at 11/17/2009 @ 1:51pm

     Urmy, I have to admit, I don't see JM complaining about paying taxes. His gripe is having to pay more than he should have to because of the government's rampant waste fraud and abuse. That's his gripe from what I'm reading. Oh, and mine too.

     Posted by freiheit1 at 11/17/2009 @ 1:55pm

116. "but he spent more than he cut...he ran up the deficit..he is part of the problem."

     but he spent more? ok, so you admit, then, that bush destroyed the economy.

     or did someone else spend the money?

     Posted by darladoon at 11/17/2009 @ 1:55pm

117. And by "getting it" I mean you are seeing the deception we have from the perceived left AND right. We agree that Saddam wasn't the issue.

     Posted by freiheit1 at 11/17/2009 @ 1:51pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     --I'm not a fan of Obama. But what was your solution to the disaster Bush left behind for him to deal with? The economy would be in a depression if the gov't didn't massively borrow like it has this year.

     Posted by urmygyro at 11/17/2009 @ 1:55pm

118. i believe it was bush who got us into afghanistan and iraq, did he not?

     well, if he did, then bush.....destroyed the economy.

     Posted by darladoon at 11/17/2009 @ 1:56pm

119. "bush inherited a surplus. he cut taxes more than once. he left with a massive deficit and a recession"

     how can one deny this?

     Posted by darladoon at 11/17/2009 @ 1:44pm

     Like Obama, Bush inherited a recession. The much discussed "Clinton" surplus was nearly extinguished in 2001 when 9/11 occurred. That single event and it's subsequent shut down of the US economy (anyone remember the shut down of Wall Street and the airlines?), put the US into a recession. Without the taxcuts, we would never have come out of that recession.

     And for the umpteenth time, TAX CUTS DO NOT CAUSE DEFICITS.

     Excess spending causes deficits.

     And the deficit at the end of Bush's term was 456 billion. It is now nearly 2 trillion under Obama. Bush did not pass a 787 Billion dollar stimulus bill in February. Nor did Bush put through an additional 410 Billion in April of this year

     That is all Obama and the Democrats.

     Posted by antisocialist at 11/17/2009 @ 1:59pm

120. --wealth is created by natural resources. which belong to us all. we allow people to buy land and use those resources...but the trade off is paying taxes, something people like you bitch about til you're blue in the face.

     Posted by urmygyro at 11/17/2009 @ 1:51pm

     I bitch about confiscatory taxation...and govt "solutions" at the cost of private when not necessary....

     And natural resources are one part of wealth creation...ideas are another...and taxes are part of the equation to be sure...

     and I believe you are correct in regards to defense contractors...that money used to pay for missiles and boats, ammo, ect., ...is redistributed wealth...

     Those jobs can and do help...but are not wealth creation, which is the point of it all...defense jobs spend money someone else already earned and taxed on...or govt borrowed.

     As far as bridges...yes, bridges last...but the job of building it didn't, which is the point... and as far as the "stimulus" working...our economy doesnt even show a blip in the charts....

     watch the unemployment numbers after January....

     It will make you sick.....

     and the people are waking up, and 2010 could be a watershed for Obamas cabals...

     we still may be able to save our ship.

     Posted by YourJomamma at 11/17/2009 @ 1:59pm

121. but he spent more than he cut...he ran up the deficit..he is part of the problem.

     --Bush is "part of the problem"? haha! understatement.

     In the same mold, Obama is magnifying the problem by a factor of 10...

     --if the gov't didn't borrow to try to stimulate the economy, we'd be in a depression. you'd call obama a do-nothing who's sticking to principle and ignoring the practical concerns and needs of our society. he inherited a lose-lose situation. I'm not sure the massive borrowing which will create a massive deficit will be able to be brought down any time soon. But W. put this into action. He's far more to blame.

     if the loon DARLA is correct that Bush destroyed the economy(she is wrong),

     --no she's not. bush inherited a surplus. he left with a massive deficit and a recession bordering on depression. you think he did well? por favor.

     and Bush had deficits of $300-400 billion....then Obama is burying the economy with deficits 4 times that...plus job losses...

     --he's trying to limit the damage created by bush. if he did nothing, you'd still be blaming him.

     The problem is 40 years old...not 8, but it is accelerating with every new social engineer who has a new idea to "fix" it...

     --the problem is 40 years old? what do you contend started the problem? and how much blame do you assign reagan and the older bush? and if it's been such a problem for so long...why did clinton have 4 straight years of surplus and leave a surplus to W?

     Posted by YourJomamma at 11/17/2009 @ 1:52pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     Posted by urmygyro at 11/17/2009 @ 2:00pm

122. it's hegelian dialectic. not hegalian.

     Haha, danke schoen. typo.

     But at least I know you are looking it up. Progress Darla. Well done. Read about it.

     And then ask yourself how Obama AND McCain joined hands with George Bush and Congress - in the heat of a campaign - to sign a $TRILLION over to wall street with no strings attached - yet nothing happened to improve the slide, did it?...

     Oh, that's right... It COULD have been MUCH worse.

     You that stupid? I don't think so.

     Have a luncheon meeting. gotta run.

     Posted by freiheit1 at 11/17/2009 @ 2:01pm

123. Posted by urmygyro at 11/17/2009 @ 1:51pm Urmy, I have to admit, I don't see JM complaining about paying taxes. His gripe is having to pay more than he should have to because of the government's rampant waste fraud and abuse. That's his gripe from what I'm reading. Oh, and mine too. Posted by freiheit1 at 11/17/2009 @ 1:55pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     --it's an amorophous claim that you're paying too much. you'll always claim that. you weren't complaining under bush 'cause he cut taxes and created a huge deficit that passes the problem along to another generation. now when obama's trying to deal with the present day problems bush created you're all over him--but no blame to bush.

     Posted by urmygyro at 11/17/2009 @ 2:02pm

124. it's not in America's DNA to live like you describe. We destroyed the natives and used slaves to help build the economy. Don't forgot how this place started. It explains a lot.

     Posted by urmygyro at 11/17/2009 @ 1:54pm

     And no one who takes a risk to build a company on an idea..would hire anyone of that ilk, for that is not the goal of an entrepenur......it comic book idealism that always sounds nice but in reality..fails everytime it is forced upon us...

     Posted by YourJomamma at 11/17/2009 @ 2:06pm

125. Like Obama, Bush inherited a recession.

     --no he didn't.

     The much discussed "Clinton" surplus was nearly extinguished in 2001 when 9/11 occurred.

     --it's on the new president to create a surplus. clinton had 4 straight years of surpluses.

     That single event and it's subsequent shut down of the US economy (anyone remember the shut down of Wall Street and the airlines?), put the US into a recession.

     --bush and co. certainly want you to assign the blame to 9/11.

     Without the taxcuts, we would never have come out of that recession.

     --nonsense.

     And for the umpteenth time, TAX CUTS DO NOT CAUSE DEFICITS.

     --of course they do. that's why reagan and the older bush raised taxes. read your recent history.

     Excess spending causes deficits.

     --it's never excess when it's on nation building though, according to people like you.

     And the deficit at the end of Bush's term was 456 billion.

     --you act as if that's nothing. he inherited a surplus!

     It is now nearly 2 trillion under Obama.

     --we'd be in a depression right now w/out massive gov't borrowing.

     Bush did not pass a 787 Billion dollar stimulus bill in February. Nor did Bush put through an additional 410 Billion in April of this year That is all Obama and the Democrats.

     --to deal with bush's recession.

     Posted by antisocialist at 11/17/2009 @ 1:59pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     Posted by urmygyro at 11/17/2009 @ 2:06pm

126. "That single event and it's subsequent shut down of the US economy (anyone remember the shut down of Wall Street and the airlines?), put the US into a recession"

     let's see.......who was president when 9.11 happened? who ignored the briefing, "bin laden determined to strike inside the US"?

     "Without the taxcuts, we would never have come out of that recession."

     (quote of the year)

     "And for the umpteenth time, TAX CUTS DO NOT CAUSE DEFICITS. Excess spending causes deficits"

     (quote of the week)

     Posted by darladoon at 11/17/2009 @ 2:08pm

127. I bitch about confiscatory taxation...and govt "solutions" at the cost of private when not necessary....

     --like money taken to build other nations?

     And natural resources are one part of wealth creation...ideas are another...and taxes are part of the equation to be sure...

     --you can have a million ideas. if your land has nothing your ideas are worthless.

     and I believe you are correct in regards to defense contractors...that money used to pay for missiles and boats, ammo, ect., ...is redistributed wealth...

     --yeah, no shit.

     Those jobs can and do help...but are not wealth creation, which is the point of it all...defense jobs spend money someone else already earned and taxed on...or govt borrowed.

     --and they make sure the gravy train keeps rolling...and you're part of the problem b/c you don't complain about the wars (read: nation building)

     As far as bridges...yes, bridges last...but the job of building it didn't, which is the point... and as far as the "stimulus" working...our economy doesnt even show a blip in the charts....

     --the job of building anything doesn't last forever.

     watch the unemployment numbers after January.... It will make you sick.....

     --imagine the numbers if it wasn't for the borrowing. you'd die choking on your own vomit.

     and the people are waking up, and 2010 could be a watershed for Obamas cabals...

     --you give away your partisan attitude by that comment...you assign no blame to bush and co.

     we still may be able to save our ship.

     --we are saving our ship. obama was willing to put large tax cuts into the stimulus bill. the republicans scoffed, cause they have nothing to gain if it works...they'd get none of the credit.

     Posted by YourJomamma at 11/17/2009 @ 1:59pm | ignore this person | warn this perso

     Posted by urmygyro at 11/17/2009 @ 2:09pm

128. Like Obama, Bush inherited a recession.

     --no he didn't.

     Posted by urmygyro at 11/17/2009 @ 2:06pm

     One thing you usually don't do is lie.

     We entered a recession in March of 2000, 10 months before Bush took office.

     Secondly, these comments of yours display either a extreme partisanship or stupidity that I wouldn't normally attribute to you. Did something happen to you?

     Posted by antisocialist at 11/17/2009 @ 2:10pm

129. it's not in America's DNA to live like you describe. We destroyed the natives and used slaves to help build the economy. Don't forgot how this place started. It explains a lot. Posted by urmygyro at 11/17/2009 @ 1:54pm

     And no one who takes a risk to build a company on an idea..would hire anyone of that ilk, for that is not the goal of an entrepenur......it comic book idealism that always sounds nice but in reality..fails everytime it is forced upon us...

     Posted by YourJomamma at 11/17/2009 @ 2:06pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     --i agree whoever made the assertion that we should live that way is living in a dream world. it's not in our dna.

     Posted by urmygyro at 11/17/2009 @ 2:12pm

130. How about $7.2 billion to expand broadband access across the U.S and to spur investments in technology and infrastructure for broadband.

     Will this help the economy?

     If stimulus money keeps someone out of a welfare line and allows them to build something needed does that help the economy?

     Posted by !immutable at 11/17/2009 @ 2:15pm

131. "That single event and it's subsequent shut down of the US economy (anyone remember the shut down of Wall Street and the airlines?), put the US into a recession"

     let's see.......who was president when 9.11 happened? who ignored the briefing, "bin laden determined to strike inside the US"?

     "Without the taxcuts, we would never have come out of that recession."

     (quote of the year)

     "And for the umpteenth time, TAX CUTS DO NOT CAUSE DEFICITS. Excess spending causes deficits"

     (quote of the week)

     Posted by darladoon at 11/17/2009 @ 2:08pm

     How do you debate someone that shows as much ignorance as Darla?

     BTW Darla, the Bin Laden determined to strike in US was a repeat of an intel report from December 1998. It was not new intelligence.

     Posted by antisocialist at 11/17/2009 @ 2:16pm

132. antisocialist-You are incorrect when it comes to many things.When you're incorrect does that mean that you're lying?Your comments show extreme partisanship.

     Posted by i'm nobody at 11/17/2009 @ 2:18pm

133. Like Obama, Bush inherited a recession. --no he didn't. Posted by urmygyro at 11/17/2009 @ 2:06pm

     One thing you usually don't do is lie.

     --and I haven't here.

     We entered a recession in March of 2000, 10 months before Bush took office.

     --a slow down in growth is not a recession. and unemployment in 2000 was very low.

     Secondly, these comments of yours display either a extreme partisanship or stupidity that I wouldn't normally attribute to you. Did something happen to you?

     --it's ironic seeing you accuse someone of partisanship or stupidity. Posted by antisocialist at 11/17/2009 @ 2:10pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     Posted by urmygyro at 11/17/2009 @ 2:18pm

134. How about $7.2 billion to expand broadband access across the U.S and to spur investments in technology and infrastructure for broadband. Will this help the economy? If stimulus money keeps someone out of a welfare line and allows them to build something needed does that help the economy? Posted by !immutable at 11/17/2009 @ 2:15pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     --we only want our broadband pure. no poor people touching the cables!

     Posted by urmygyro at 11/17/2009 @ 2:20pm

135. whenever conseratives say "spending is the problem" that's code word for: only liberal spend money.

     conservatives NEVER spend money. unless it's on two trillion dollar permanent wars in dangerous, unstable foreign countries.

     Posted by darladoon at 11/17/2009 @ 2:20pm

136. Why are we still avoiding the sad fact that we have shipped all our sweat equity to China, thanks to Nixon, Clinton, and Reagan and our corporate owned congress? The only way we will change the unemployment numbers from the real numbers of 18 to 20 percent is by loading all the unemployed on ships and sending them to China where they can work for sub human wages for a Communist economy for names like; Whirpool, Caterpillar, IBM, Volvo, Philco, Corporate invester like Berkshire Hathaway, Key Bank, Microsoft, etc... China doesn't need to invade us they only have to buy us out with our money. They have recently held joint military exercises with Russia and they are pumping as much Iran oil at 3.00 dollars a barrel as they can and starting one coal fired plant a week while we dither with cap and trade and pour blood and trillions in two unwindable wars. Why do we make all our decisions based on the most shallow emotion? I don't like Chris Hitchens politics,but his thinking is always crisp and well articulated in spite of bourbon

     Posted by julien38 at 11/17/2009 @ 2:21pm

137. "We entered a recession in March of 2000, 10 months before Bush took office"

     bush didn't seem too concerned about it.

     "the Bin Laden determined to strike in US was a repeat of an intel report from December 1998. It was not new intelligence"

     even more evidence that bush.....fucked up. big time.

     in order to spend, you need to tax. if bush had such serious spending priorities then Why did he cut taxes?

     Posted by darladoon at 11/17/2009 @ 2:22pm

138. Why do we make all our decisions based on the most shallow emotion?

     Posted by julien38 at 11/17/2009 @ 2:21pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     --if by "we" you mean the rich running this country and by "shallow emotion" you mean the bottom line---well, the answer seems self-explanatory.

     Posted by urmygyro at 11/17/2009 @ 2:24pm

139. in order to spend, you need to tax. if bush had such serious spending priorities then Why did he cut taxes? Posted by darladoon at 11/17/2009 @ 2:22pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     --irresponsible spending, the very thing larry decried in an earlier post on this thread--is what Bush engaged in. Larry keeps his criticism to Bush to a minimum though.

     Posted by urmygyro at 11/17/2009 @ 2:25pm

140. in order to spend, you need to tax. if bush had such serious spending priorities then Why did he cut taxes?

     Posted by darladoon at 11/17/2009 @ 2:22pm

     We didn't have "spending priorities". That is lib speak

     Posted by antisocialist at 11/17/2009 @ 2:26pm

141. --irresponsible spending, the very thing larry decried in an earlier post on this thread--is what Bush engaged in. Larry keeps his criticism to Bush to a minimum though.

     Posted by urmygyro at 11/17/2009 @ 2:25pm

     total BS. what irresponsible spending did bush sign off on in 2001?

     Posted by antisocialist at 11/17/2009 @ 2:31pm

142. in order to spend, you need to tax. if bush had such serious spending priorities then Why did he cut taxes? Posted by darladoon at 11/17/2009 @ 2:22pm

     We didn't have "spending priorities". That is lib speak

     Posted by antisocialist at 11/17/2009 @ 2:26pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     --your retort to darla is another non-response. bush had spending priorities--he was willing to deficit spend and pass the tab onto the next guy. "lib speak"--weak.

     Posted by urmygyro at 11/17/2009 @ 2:32pm

143. "We didn't have "spending priorities". That is lib speak"

     yeah, only liberals have spending priorities. conservatives don't need to spend any money. they just needed to drop a couple of bombs here and there.

     basically, if we take anti at his word, bush was merely a terrible accountant. he simply forgot that, if you wanna spend money on something.....anything....you gotta be able to pay for it. he just forgot that little part.

     and that's only something liberals think about. you know, like how to.....pay for something.....that costs............2 TRILLION DOLLARS. and that's not to mention the.....human lives aspect of it. that you can't really put a price on. and it's not like bush had to think about.....little things.....like human lives.

     Posted by darladoon at 11/17/2009 @ 2:34pm

144. --irresponsible spending, the very thing larry decried in an earlier post on this thread--is what Bush engaged in. Larry keeps his criticism to Bush to a minimum though. Posted by urmygyro at 11/17/2009 @ 2:25pm

     total BS. what irresponsible spending did bush sign off on in 2001? Posted by antisocialist at 11/17/2009 @ 2:31pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     "total bs"--por favor.

     bush deficit spent his entire time in office. he passed the tab to the next guy. that is exactly the type of irresponsible spending you decried in an earlier post. you lay no blame on bush. you're a partisan hack.

     Posted by urmygyro at 11/17/2009 @ 2:34pm

145. basically, if we take anti at his word, bush was merely a terrible accountant. he simply forgot that, if you wanna spend money on something.....anything....you gotta be able to pay for it. he just forgot that little part.

     Posted by darladoon at 11/17/2009 @ 2:34pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     --you mean purposely omitting the cost of war from the budget he submitted to congress and firing his treasury secretary who said tax cuts were a bad idea and firing the guy who's estimate of the cost of the war in iraq he found to be too high (which was still far lower than the actual cost) isn't responsible?

     larry's a hypocrite b/c he claims to be for responsible spending but will not criticize bush for spending money we didn't have...and then cutting taxes on top of that. passing the buck to future generations is ok if you're bush.

     Posted by urmygyro at 11/17/2009 @ 2:39pm

146. however way you look at it, bush left us with a catastrophe. and in a catastrophe, it is the government's responsibility to address it.

     obama had to spend money. a lot of it.....

     there are millions of americans out of work. many of them are out of food. and many of them have no place to live. no place to go.

     if obama spends no money, the problem will deepen. so if he spends money, then it should be on something worthwhile, like unemployment insurance. like infrastructure. right?

     Posted by darladoon at 11/17/2009 @ 2:40pm

147. Obama/Biden's www.recovery.gov site is reporting a 20% inflated number, at least, in "jobs created + jobs saved". Included, for example, are numbers from Arizona's 15th Congressional District. Last we knew Arizona had 8, not 15, Districts and the "15th Congressional District" was invented with a lie to boost the numbers. The "main stream media" finally is catching on as local news organizations check out further ficticious numbers.

     "Trust me, I'm from the government".

     ACORN likely will demand additional tax monies (out of your pocket) to do "Community Organizing" in the dozens of so far uncovered non-existant "Districts"

     This morning's Las Vegas Review-Journal Editorial included this from SNL's parody:(Jon Lovitz portraying a typical D.C. Congressman) "Uh, it will create or save 3 million to 4 million jobs. Er, 1 million jobs. I mean, it will create or save 650,000 jobs. Yeah, that's the ticket!"

     Investigations of stimulus contracts show wild exaggerations of the legislation's effect. Beyond guaranteeing the full salaries and benefits of tens of thousands of state government workers, the stimulus spree has done next to nothing to jump-start the economy. Which is why the president now plans to hold an "unemployment summit" that, thankfully, won't require the spending of billions more dollars.

     And we're supposed to believe health care "reform" will be different.

     Yeah, that's the ticket!

     Posted by tucanofulano at 11/17/2009 @ 2:40pm

148. And we're supposed to believe health care "reform" will be different. Yeah, that's the ticket! Posted by tucanofulano at 11/17/2009 @ 2:40pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     --I don't suppose you had any problem with the nation building and all the money lost in the middle east?

     Posted by urmygyro at 11/17/2009 @ 2:41pm

149. Thats bull Anti, bush did not inherit a recession, but boy did he cause one.

     Posted by Denise29 at 11/17/2009 @ 2:46pm

150. How are states going to be able to afford this? We have a couple handfuls of states, some the most populous in the country, that this year are facing still massive budget deficits & it does not look like it'll improve in time for the next year to be much rosier.

     There may be some sectors where the pay is so good & they've got good deals on benefits so the private sector in some cases could make this work - but not likely is not the majority.

     This is more voodoo economics for the 21st century.

     Posted by songsinger at 11/17/2009 @ 2:50pm

151. Same Principle.

     Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 11/17/2009 @ 09:35am

     Your ignorance regarding Europe is astounding.

     Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 11/17/2009 @ 2:50pm

152. Posted by tucanofulano at 11/17/2009 @ 2:40pm

     If you think there will ever be a place where money can be found without corruption then you are delusional.

     Posted by !immutable at 11/17/2009 @ 2:53pm

153. depends...if govt hires the people and uses the taxes collected from the people to pay for it(say a bridge), then it is not job creation but redistribution...the short term gain for the infrastrucutre project is out weighed by the long term effect of those jobs ending when , say, the bridge project is finished...if the same construction worker was working for a private company who built offices or houses in an expanding economy then the result of his labor is increasing the wealth..and his job has been created as a result of expanding welath, which in turn, keeps his jobs moving as the new projects start in an expanding economy..

     Posted by YourJomamma at 11/17/2009 @ 1:37pm

     So, in your view, the economy is "ever-expanding" and all good things come to those who wait.

     What if the economy stops expanding? What if a President continually cuts taxes during a time where our nation is fighting not one, but two trillion dollar wars and doesn't have the money to pay for it? He even manages to keep it off the books until his successor walks in and (doing the right thing) puts the wars back into the budget, thus ballooning the budget immediately because the Previous guy kept it off the books.

     So, your plan to keep the economy ever-growing, was actually destroyed by the right wing of this country because the only solution you guys have to ANYTHING economically troubling is to "cut taxes." You have NO new ideas and you take NO responsibility for destroying the economy through your own short-sightedness. That's not the behavior of a political party; that's the behavior of a child having a temper tantrum when it doesn't get its way.

     So answer the question: what would you do, RIGHT NOW, to grow jobs in this country? And how quickly do you expect results of your policies?

     Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 11/17/2009 @ 3:02pm

154. If you think there will ever be a place where money can be found without corruption then you are delusional.

     Posted by !immutable at 11/17/2009 @ 2:53pm

     Well Said!

     Posted by freiheit1 at 11/17/2009 @ 3:03pm

155. So answer the question: what would you do, RIGHT NOW, to grow jobs in this country? And how quickly do you expect results of your policies? Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 11/17/2009 @ 3:02pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     --their only answer is "cut taxes" ... of course, bush did that a couple times and he left with a recession, a massive deficit, and high (and growing) unemployment...

     but cut the taxes for the wealthy--we'll be trickled on and be happy!

     Posted by urmygyro at 11/17/2009 @ 3:04pm

156. BTW Darla, the Bin Laden determined to strike in US was a repeat of an intel report from December 1998. It was not new intelligence.

     Posted by antisocialist at 11/17/2009 @ 2:16pm

     Darla, furthermore, Bin Laden declared war against the United States, in writing, in 1996. (Friday, 9/4/1417 A.H (23/8/1996 CE)

     ================================================

     conservatives NEVER spend money. unless it's on two trillion dollar permanent wars in dangerous, unstable foreign countries.

     Posted by darladoon at 11/17/2009 @ 2:20pm

     How's that hegelian dilectic working our for you Darla? You still want to argue right vs left, don't you?

     I'll repeat, McCain and Obama join hands to sign $trillion over to Wall Street (TARP) just WEEKS before the most contentious presidential election in recent memory... And yet you can't stop seeing the world through your contrived right vs left prism.

     And you appear to think that expanding the power of politicians is equal to fairness, equality and freedom.

     What politicians want is you and I divided. As divided as possible.

     Posted by freiheit1 at 11/17/2009 @ 3:06pm

157. Posted by antisocialist at 11/17/2009 @ 2:26pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     --your retort to darla is another non-response. bush had spending priorities--he was willing to deficit spend and pass the tab onto the next guy. "lib speak"--weak.

     Posted by urmygyro at 11/17/2009 @ 2:32pm

     I see you want to stick to your BS. The first Bush budget was passed after we entered into a deficit.

     The first taxcuts were passed before we ever had 9/11 or Afghanistan.

     They were passed to deal with the recession that began under Clinton.

     The left is so filled with hate for Bush that they are compelled to lie and ignore history

     Posted by antisocialist at 11/17/2009 @ 3:07pm

158. The first Bush budget was passed after we entered into a deficit.

     --you're stuck on the first. move past it. he had 7 other years in office.

     The first taxcuts were passed before we ever had 9/11 or Afghanistan.

     --"first" is the key word. he cut taxes more than once. he deficit spent. big time.

     They were passed to deal with the recession that began under Clinton.

     --I see you're sticking to your same BS. they were cut to mollify his political supporters.

     The left is so filled with hate for Bush that they are compelled to lie and ignore history

     --I do hate Bush. His pretext for wars were immoral (never mind illegal). He deficit spent (massively) and when he left office unemployment was surging and a bad recession was well under way. You don't assign any blame to bush. you're a bush apologist who pretends to be independent. you're not even close. you're a hack.

     Posted by antisocialist at 11/17/2009 @ 3:07pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     Posted by urmygyro at 11/17/2009 @ 3:11pm

159. What if the economy stops expanding? What if a President continually cuts taxes during a time where our nation is fighting not one, but two trillion dollar wars and doesn't have the money to pay for it? He even manages to keep it off the books until his successor walks in and (doing the right thing) puts the wars back into the budget, thus ballooning the budget immediately because the Previous guy kept it off the books.

     Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 11/17/2009 @ 3:02pm

     Have you leftists all gone beserk?

     We haven't had a president fighting two trillion dollar wars.

     Bush never kept the supplementals "off the books".

     According to the former Comptroller General and he is quite right, the wars are only about 2% of the US budget

     Posted by antisocialist at 11/17/2009 @ 3:12pm

160. Have you leftists all gone beserk?

     --you have!

     We haven't had a president fighting two trillion dollar wars.

     --right...he was nation building.

     Bush never kept the supplementals "off the books".

     --por favor. he most certainly sent budgets to the hill that kept the cost of the wars off.

     According to the former Comptroller General and he is quite right, the wars are only about 2% of the US budget

     -if he is "quite right" then how can we resist...you're so lame

     Posted by antisocialist at 11/17/2009 @ 3:12pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     Posted by urmygyro at 11/17/2009 @ 3:16pm

161. --I see you're sticking to your same BS. they were cut to mollify his political supporters.

     The left is so filled with hate for Bush that they are compelled to lie and ignore history

     --I do hate Bush. His pretext for wars were immoral (never mind illegal). He deficit spent (massively) and when he left office unemployment was surging and a bad recession was well under way. You don't assign any blame to bush. you're a bush apologist who pretends to be independent. you're not even close. you're a hack.

     Posted by antisocialist at 11/17/2009 @ 3:07pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     Posted by urmygyro at 11/17/2009 @ 3:11pm

     Your are so full of nonsense and lies.

     I've criticized Bush for plenty of things, but not for the things he did right like the wars in Iraq and Afghanist and certainly not for the tax cuts.

     It is hard to debate with people who won't even acknowledge the facts as you and others on the left enare prone to do.

     Posted by antisocialist at 11/17/2009 @ 3:17pm

162. Both new health plans require employers to pay for insurance of new entrants to the health program.

     This is exactly the wrong way to sell work-sharing.

     Single-payer would have avoided this trap.

     Posted by johnalene at 11/17/2009 @ 3:20pm

163. tucanofulano, don't know where you get your info, but your a liar.

     Posted by Denise29 at 11/17/2009 @ 3:22pm

164. Not just the left Anti.

     Heritage Foundation by Alison Acosta Fraser "Spending has increased twice as fast under President Bush as it did under President Clinton. From 2001 to 2003 total spending grew by 16 percent. Certainly the terror attacks of 9/11 placed additional demands on spending for homeland security, a strong defense, and rebuilding New York. However, this accounts for less than half of the new spending that has occurred since 9/11. What was so sorely lacking during this time was self-discipline required to balance fiscal priorities."

     Cato Institute by Veronique de Rugy "Although defense spending has increased in response to the war on terrorism, President Bush has made little attempt to restrain nondefense spending to offset the higher Pentagon budget. Nondefense discretionary outlays will increase about 36 percent during President Bush's first term in office."

     Posted by !immutable at 11/17/2009 @ 3:22pm

165. The left is so filled with hate for Bush that they are compelled to lie and ignore history

     --I'm not "the left." I'm Russ. I'm not lying or changing history. By the way, I know a lot of people who voted for Bush (some twice) who think he was a terrible president. You claim to be an independent but you refuse to criticize Bush. To you he did no wrong.

     Your are so full of nonsense and lies.

     --another gold nugget! excellent argument larry!

     I've criticized Bush for plenty of things, but not for the things he did right like the wars in Iraq and Afghanist and certainly not for the tax cuts.

     --what about the deficit spending? if you are to be believed, that the wars were only 2% of the budget--then what was Ws excuse to leave with a massive budget deficit? you don't have one (but you'll surely excuse him for "extenuating circumstances")

     It is hard to debate with people who won't even acknowledge the facts as you and others on the left enare prone to do.

     --haha! larry, I'd have to have 10,000 hands and 10,000 toes to begin counting the amount of times you ignore facts that fly in the face of what you think is your own valid argument. but keep calling people liars if it warms your little heart!

     Posted by antisocialist at 11/17/2009 @ 3:17pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     Posted by urmygyro at 11/17/2009 @ 3:22pm

166. Arizona has 8 congressional districts and 30 count em 30 legistlative districts! A@#hole

     Posted by Denise29 at 11/17/2009 @ 3:25pm

167. Last message was to tucanofulano, who ever the heck that is.

     Posted by Denise29 at 11/17/2009 @ 3:27pm

168. pay as you go expired when W. was in office. pay as you go required a new program to take money from an existing program in order that it's paid for rather than funded by deficit spending.

     seems a conservative like W. would have been all for it!

     nope--DEFICIT SPEND BABY--it'll be someone else's fault!

     and larry pretends W. was responsible. whatajoke.

     Posted by urmygyro at 11/17/2009 @ 3:28pm

169. Larry Summer sees this as either/or.

     This is as lame-brained as most of his policies.

     Posted by johnalene at 11/17/2009 @ 3:31pm

170. and rebuilding New York.

     which has yet to happen. a national disgrace, and a disgrace for Bloomberg. this clown will never be pres.

     Posted by emile duBois at 11/17/2009 @ 3:31pm

171. ANTI! For shame, you are lieing, AND your a preacher!

     Posted by Denise29 at 11/17/2009 @ 3:32pm

172. "And for the umpteenth time, TAX CUTS DO NOT CAUSE DEFICITS.

     Excess spending causes deficits."---Posted by antisocialist at 11/17/2009 @ 1:59pm

     See...it's just an INCREDIBLE COINCIDENCE that every time we've had a major skewed-to-the-top tax cut, we've had deficits...from Reagan to Dubya.

     But hey, the NEXT time? when Repubs control it all and cut taxes?....it'll be totally different.

     They promise.

     Posted by Mask at 11/17/2009 @ 3:39pm

173. See...it's just an INCREDIBLE COINCIDENCE that every time we've had a major skewed-to-the-top tax cut, we've had deficits...from Reagan to Dubya. But hey, the NEXT time? when Repubs control it all and cut taxes?....it'll be totally different. They promise. Posted by Mask at 11/17/2009 @ 3:39pm | ignore this person |

     --Reagan increased taxes after realizing his tax cuts would massively increase the deficit. and George H.W. Bush increased taxes after promising not to...in order to not let the deficit get too high.

     then we get W....who stubbornly refused to deal with the deficit (i.e., he didn't reduce spending or raise taxes).

     but to larry--W. did NO WRONG!

     larry you're a joke.

     Posted by urmygyro at 11/17/2009 @ 3:56pm

174. self described preacher.

     everything that creep posts is a lie, including the the and the and.

     Posted by emile duBois at 11/17/2009 @ 4:03pm

175. "Congress Can Move Now to Prevent Layoffs, Plant Closings" is the title to this thread of opinions.

     But no one has asked the question if Congress has the ability to prevent layoffs and plant closings, why do we have layoffs and plant closings?! What? Is it because evil, greedy corporations like that kinda stuff?

     I mean, gosh, even the Post Office - which has its finances actually overseen directly by Congress, laid off 40,000 and posted a $3.9B loss in the 2009 fiscal year. Oh, wait, sorry, that's clearly Bush's fault, my bad.

     But, John Nichols announces now that Congress Can Move Now to Prevent Layoffs, Plant Closings?

     Really? Wow, magic is cool!

     Posted by freiheit1 at 11/17/2009 @ 4:40pm

176. Posted by emile duBois at 11/17/2009 @ 4:03pm

     I don't know, he has you pretty well pegged.

     Posted by freiheit1 at 11/17/2009 @ 4:43pm

177. Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 11/17/2009 @ 3:02pm

     I'll try.

     First of all you're right about the "cut taxes" mantra. It's not a panacea. Reps need to return to TRUE free markets, stop the bailouts, stop corporate welfare, and a little old time Progressive monopoly busting, then maybe they could cut taxes, but not during wartime.

     As for job creation, I'd cut all the earmarks, fund strictly necessary infrastructure: roads, bridges, NOT butterfly museums. Then R&D, R&D, R&D. Energy, Health. Dorks tend to be that exception that can do great work for the Man.

     We need engines. And we'll never be the leader in the new energy tech if our consumers aren't hip, so we have to start marketing this stuff as patriotic, because "green" is perceived as a bourgeois lifestyle choice among the proletariat.

     Posted by gangpapist at 11/17/2009 @ 5:38pm

178. Sounds like a good plan gangpapist, when are you going to run for office? Just joking, but it is a good plan.

     Posted by Denise29 at 11/17/2009 @ 5:49pm

179. Congress' power lies in their ability to manipulate allocations, provide corp welfare, purchase votes through subsidies and, of course, pork.

     Do you really think they're going to give that systemic corruption up without a struggle? Do you think the true owners of Congress are going to allow that?

     I believe we underestimate the illusion we face about our "representative" government. I am saddened to see that our representation, with very rare exception, is as fiat as our currency.

     The whole right/left thing is designed to distract us from that.

     Posted by freiheit1 at 11/17/2009 @ 6:08pm

180. "And for the umpteenth time, TAX CUTS DO NOT CAUSE DEFICITS. Excess spending causes deficits"

     Larry, for the sake of argument, I will agree with the above statement for now. (Although I will not obviously mention that even tax cuts have to be paid for...ask any economist.)

     A question: when W was handing out all of his tax cuts in America after 9/11, did he do ANYTHING to eliminate his own excess spending, or did he get us into two wars (one of which was justified, one of which he lied about), and continue on his own spending spree, which included building the largest Federal bureaucracy ever seen in our history (The Dept. of Homeland Defense - yes, it's even bigger than the IRS.)?

     Did Bush ask Americans to cut back? Sacrifice? No. There was no "shared sacrifice" of our people (which should make the soldier in you shudder in horror), because W thought he could win a war without sacrificing anything.

     What successful leader in the history of the world has ever gone to war and not asked for society to share in sacrifice of some sort? None.

     Our greatest generation gave up rubber, tin and nylon (and much more) and bought war bonds. We won that war.

     We sacrificed nothing for Vietnam, a war we should have won, but our leaders mistakenly thought Americans cared about Southeast Asia or the "domino theory." We lost that war, and nothing was sacrificed by our society, except the lives of the soldiers killed and the walking wounded we still have on our streets.

     We sacrificed nothing for Gulf War I, but we won that war...or did we just take a break and we're still in it? After all, if we defeated Saddam in GWI, why did we need to go back in, unless it was at the whim of a self-styled "War President" boy?

     (to be continued)

     Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 11/17/2009 @ 6:13pm

181. (continued)

     We have sacrificed our liberty (domestic spying), our national pride (torture), our standing in the world (respect of other nations) and much more for these latest wars, and what have we to show for it? A wrecked world economy, division in our own house, animosity from our allies and derision from our enemies (or recent enemies).

     America was not made to fight two wars while simultaneously cutting taxes. No President, until W, was even dumb enough to believe it could be possible. W's problem was that he actually believed that if Americans "just went shopping" while those two wars were going on, the economy would be fine. Under Alan "The Bubble Man" Greenspan, enough bubbles were found to literally float the economy while W was President. Why do you think the economy collapsed right before he left office? You don't think he would have put that off another couple of months so he could blame ALL of it on whoever was after him? Why do you think Greenspan quit right BEFORE it all came tumbling down? Even the people who build a house of cards know it will eventually fall.

     I doubt even YOU are that naive.

     ALL of this, I lay at W's feet. The Boy King.

     Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 11/17/2009 @ 6:15pm

182. According to the former Comptroller General and he is quite right, the wars are only about 2% of the US budget

     Posted by antisocialist at 11/17/2009 @ 3:12pm

     Of course, he is not factoring in the immense future care a lot of these servicepeople are going to need. And the opportunity costs incurred, in terms of medical care which could be going towards finding cures, etc. rather than long-term treatment of those injured.

     Accountants and economists have entirely different approaches to "cost".

     I can't think of a better example.

     Posted by schnellerheinz at 11/17/2009 @ 6:16pm

183. So answer the question: what would you do, RIGHT NOW, to grow jobs in this country? And how quickly do you expect results of your policies?

     Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 11/17/2009 @ 3:02pm

     Cut taxes across the board. Remove the toxic assets from the banks books, and start drilling for oil, build nuke plants and clean coal...also change market to market rules..I would sell GM to the highest bidder. I would get the gov out of the banking and auto business completely.

     I would reward an electric car company with no taxes for 20 years for the first one to build a viable sellable electric car.....

     I would put ALGORE on trial for fraud.

     I would SLASH govt spending across the board and fire every 10th person that works for the government every year for 10 years...except the military.

     I would balance the budget and and if we ever went in to a war it would have to be paid for by a war tax on everybody including welfare moms and drug dealers.

     I would eliminate income tax and install a consumption tax and put the IRS agents where they belong...

     on the borders,

     and the borders , which I would regulate like a liberal in charge of everyones elses free money.

     And watch out..in less than 9 months the world would pour their wealth back into the US and our economy would burst with vibrant growth.

     Posted by YourJomamma at 11/17/2009 @ 6:29pm

184. Posted by gangpapist at 11/17/2009 @ 5:38pm

     not much here for me to object to. well done; my steak, I mean. ;)

     A further question, though....what's to stop the politicians from actually implementing any of this?

     An answer (not THE answer, just an answer): The Corporations.

     and in my post above, I called it the Dept. of Homeland Defense...when of course, I meant to call it the Dept. of Homeland Security.

     aka the Dept. of Homeless Stupids: aka neo-cons.

     Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 11/17/2009 @ 6:31pm

185. Steve, if I didn't know better, I'd think you are naive enough to think that Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan were and are being fought with victory in mind.

     Victory is not the purpose of war today. War is a tool for controlling populations and giving government legitimacy through fear. Bush didn't lie us into war. He didn't have to. Congress and the media green lighted it gladly. And do you really believe that it is "legitimate" we are in our 9th year of dying in Afghanistan? Nine years... Is anything fishy to you?

     Oh, and don't tell me you think Obama is going to give up his military leverage over us either. He will escalate in Afghanistan because he must. He knows why we're really there. He's a Fabian at heart.

     Posted by freiheit1 at 11/17/2009 @ 6:44pm

186. He's a Fabian at heart.

     Just like the neocons.

     Posted by freiheit1 at 11/17/2009 @ 6:45pm

187. Cut taxes across the board. Remove the toxic assets from the banks books, and start drilling for oil, build nuke plants and clean coal...also change market to market rules..I would sell GM to the highest bidder. I would get the gov out of the banking and auto business completely.

     ++ you know nothing about economics, YJ. When you said simply "remove the toxic assets" you showed your ignorance. What would you DO with those toxic assets my friend? make 'em disappear? Poof!

     With what money are you going to build all those nukular and clean coal plants?

     and "change the market to market rules" means what, precisely?

     So, you would have let the banks collapse and done nothing? You would have let GM collapse and done nothing?

     "I would reward an electric car company with no taxes for 20 years for the first one to build a viable sellable electric car....."

     ++The electric car has been around for a while now. Some might call your plan a waste of taxpayer money.

     "I would put ALGORE on trial for fraud."

     ++For what and how would it help the economy?

     "I would SLASH govt spending across the board and fire every 10th person that works for the government every year for 10 years...except the military."

     ++"except the military," indeed. So, no education programs, no welfare or health care, no Medicare, no federal programs for the poor, indigent, homeless, veterans? And maybe you can't do math, but if you fire every tenth person every year for ten years, you'd fire everyone, except the military. So, who would be there to SUPPORT the military, eh?

     "I would balance the budget and and if we ever went in to a war it would have to be paid for by a war tax on everybody including welfare moms and drug dealers."

     ++and how would you collect those taxes with no IRS?

     (more)

     Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 11/17/2009 @ 6:51pm

188. "I would eliminate income tax and install a consumption tax and put the IRS agents where they belong...

     on the borders,"

     ++I don't know many accountants who would appreciate that, considering that accountants are not usually given hand held weapons. Not to mention, even the INS (that's the Immigration and Naturalization Service) would be eliminated after ten years of your "government reduction program."

     "and the borders , which I would regulate like a liberal in charge of everyones elses free money."

     ++I do not understand this statement, regardless of it's subliminal racism, as I assume you're only speaking of our Southern Border, or will you start to treat Canadians like Mexicans?

     "And watch out..in less than 9 months the world would pour their wealth back into the US and our economy would burst with vibrant growth."

     Ah, the young, innocent and naive. I would say "stupid" instead of naive, but I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt.

     Posted by YourJomamma at 11/17/2009 @ 6:29pm

     Such a simple minded soul.

     Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 11/17/2009 @ 6:58pm

189. Posted by freiheit1 at 11/17/2009 @ 6:44pm

     Nope, not that naive, which is why I want our troops out now.

     Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 11/17/2009 @ 7:00pm

190. My workshare bagan before 2001 eventually becoming part time and part pay and no eligibility for unemployment so.... lots of people have been negotitated down and part timed while CEO's and big corporations have been raking in the dough and wallowing like Scrooge McDuck... and the companies I have seen replace with lesser qualified and minimal training and surprise!... productivity is great. The entire system is rotten and greedy,getting rich off of the suffering of others. The systems are run by people who don't even know how they work anymore and because of the way they are treated couldn't care less just keeping it going with duct tape.

     We are still in a fantasyland and things could seriously crash. We must learn how to live within the means of our planet without the rape and pillage of the global village. It is going to be a no growth economic world with no population ponzi scheme soon and we'd better forget our worthless wars and come back down to earth, there are so some eco-economic stresses ahead and population growth is a national security issue not trying to stop birth control and abortion. And hardened infratructure to stand up to even our current hurricanes and storms and relief supplies and a ready and rested National Guard available!!

     Posted by wildthing at 11/17/2009 @ 7:10pm

191. Such a simple minded soul.

     Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 11/17/2009 @ 6:58pm

     I arrived at that conclusion regarding you months ago..and take your posts with a smile and move on without reading much of them any more...

     It seems you missed the entire point of my "plan"....

     get the govt and hacks like you out of the way and let those who make and produce things do it with out all your types of "improvements"....

     The entire point is there is too much govt and taxes on every level....

     Hows the economy going to react when the Bush tax cuts expire and those who still have a job have to fork over more money to government, and have less for their family to spend on their own needs?

     think the economy will grow? And if so why not tax all peoples money away...oh...nevermind...that is the plan right?

     'Cause tax cuts kill the economy and tax increases spur economic development?

     Can you name any country who taxed itself into prosperity?

     I can name one which is spending it self into irrelevency...

     Posted by YourJomamma at 11/17/2009 @ 7:51pm

192. Germany has used this policy to keep its unemployment rate at 7.6 percent, about the same as it was before the recession. Posted by antisocialist at 11/17/2009 @ 09:36am

     Germany and other EU members. These policies have lessened the effects of recession on the workers and the population in general and paved the way for a more rapid recovery.

     Civilised societies and good government provide a number of safety nets to protect their citizens during economic downturns. These are governments that actually serve the people they represent.

     Posted by chaoszen at 11/17/2009 @ 8:35pm

193. The EU as an an economy is ranked 1st in the world. They must be doing something right. Ya think?

     Posted by chaoszen at 11/17/2009 @ 8:40pm

194. 'Cause tax cuts kill the economy and tax increases spur economic development?

     --what about deficit spending? you know, like W. engaged in massively.

     Can you name any country who taxed itself into prosperity?

     --I can name one president who cut taxes during 2 different wars and massively deficit spent.

     I can name one which is spending it self into irrelevency...

     --bush is blame free in your world, right?

     Posted by YourJomamma at 11/17/2009 @ 7:51pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     Posted by urmygyro at 11/17/2009 @ 9:05pm

195. Yo, urmy.....just for you, as a breath of fresh air, I am whining tonight, not bragging! Gold did NOT set a new high today!

     In keeping with the thread, I can chime in that at a lunch w/friend, I learned a mutual contact at another company, along with others, have been given notice.....last day is 12/31. Looks like Congress won't move fast enough to save them.....sniff!

     Posted by Happy at 11/17/2009 @ 10:10pm

196. maasch actually said, "Clean Coal," and the media is left wing??!!

     Posted by darladoon at 11/17/2009 @ 10:34pm

197. "As Margaret Thatcher once remarked, "The problem with socialism is eventually you run out of other people's money!""

     But... She never ran out of poor, starving, jobless people.

     Also, there is something fundamentally wrong with the arguement that the people of Germany, Britain or Canada et al...hate socialized medicine or other social welfare programs and that flaw is the presupposition that the people couldn't vote against the programs and change them.

     Politicians are at the root of our problem.

     Posted by freiheit1

     The govt. is always the problem and useless... unless, of course, it is stopping poor people from tarring and feathering the rich.

     Posted by koroviev at 11/18/2009 @ 02:04am

198. "We entered a recession in March of 2000, 10 months before Bush took office. "

     Simply incorrect. The National Bureau of Economic Research dates the recession as running from March-November of 2001 and the most recent one has having commenced in December 2007. Thus, Bush didn't inherit a recession but Obama did. http://www.nber.org/

     "watch the unemployment numbers after January"

     Except that unemployment is a lagging indicator. The recession that began in December 2007 has likely ended. Further, the argument about the temporary nature of government infrastructure jobs misses the point that the purpose of such government spending is to be a counter-cyclical against recession and works better under those circumstances.

     Posted by brunowe at 11/18/2009 @ 04:24am

199. Posted by YourJomamma at 11/17/2009 @ 7:51pm |

     Quit wielding tax cuts/increases as a monolithic 2x4.

     You have to define on WHOM taxes will be increased or reduced...targetting them properly can result in reduced impact on the economy while supporting a social safety net that gets people (back) to work.

     Right now the financial sector is booming while teens and unskilled workers are shuffling around looking at lint in their pockets despite the desire to work.

     Think of it as a layaway plan for the domestic counter-insurgency efforts of the next administration, if that helps.

     Posted by snowball777 at 11/18/2009 @ 06:10am

200. Posted by gangpapist at 11/17/2009 @ 5:38pm |

     Thanks for reminding me that sane conservatives still exist.

     Posted by snowball777 at 11/18/2009 @ 06:15am

201. Yo, urmyyyy........Update on the HAPPY whine/brag meter for today......LOL!

     Gold hits record near $1,150/oz as dollar slips

     On 5:13 am EST, Wednesday November 18, 2009

     By Jan Harvey

     LONDON (Reuters) - Gold hit a fresh record high near $1,150 an ounce on Wednesday, boosting precious metals across the board, as a dip in the dollar index added to momentum buying as prices broke through key technical resistance levels....

     Posted by Happy at 11/18/2009 @ 08:52am

202. PS: On gold, take profit somewhere in the $1,200~$1,300 range depending on how Pork II shapes up! IF Pork II is large in $ amount, hang tight and aim higher, $1,500/oz?

     Posted by Happy at 11/18/2009 @ 08:56am

203. Can you name any country who taxed itself into prosperity? Posted by YourJomamma at 11/17/2009 @ 7:51pm

     Yeah, I can. One that comes to mind is the United States.

     Read this if you want some brain food.

     http://www.challengemagazine.com/

     Challenge%20interview%20pdfs/Slemrod.pdf

     Posted by chaoszen at 11/18/2009 @ 09:04am

204. High effective top marginal tax rates is in part what created the middle class in this country. When I say "effective", I mean if the top marginal tax rate is lets say 73%, the actual top marginal tax rate after "adjustments" might be closer to 33%. The sweet spot, so to speak.

     And by the "top marginal tax rate" I mean the taxes that are paid by the wealthiest Americans. After all they are the "margin".

     Posted by chaoszen at 11/18/2009 @ 09:16am

205. BTW, the newfound "fiscal conservatism" of the Republican Party (and right-wing bloggers) will evaporate...like a fart in the wind (to quote Warden Norton from "Shawshank").

     Soon as the 2010 Congressional midterms are over...and the 2012 GOP Primary race gins up, look for all talk of "massive deficits" and "crippling debt" to be "downplayed" on the AM radio band, Fox News, etc.

     Suddenly "miraculously", we'll need Maasch's "across-the-board tax cuts" to "get the economy going even better"....and Mitt Romney, Tim Pawlenty, Jim DeMint, etc. will be telling us that we can "save hundreds of billions in waste, fraud, and abuse" (not a specific number to be found of course) and that we'll "grow our way out of any remaining deficits...just like we did under the Gingrich Congress."

     Concern for the deficit and debt will be "old news".

     How do I know this? Simple...on economic policy, the GOP has one and only one "plan"...cut taxes. They can offer nothing else...at all.

     And it gets a LITTLE embarassing to be complaining about deficits for 4 years leading upto 2012...and then say you're going to cut $400-500 Billion in revenues.

     Posted by Mask at 11/18/2009 @ 09:33am

206. Posted by YourJomamma at 11/17/2009 @ 7:51pm

     John,

     Obama and the Dems have a real surprise in store for Americans come January 1, 2011. The radical leftists always refer to the Bush taxcuts as taxcuts for the rich, but here is what will really happen and it's not a pretty picture given the deficit hole that they have put the US into.

     Specifically, the expiration of Bush's tax cuts would do the following:

     -Tax rates will rise substantially in each tax bracket; 5% minimum in each tax bracket

     -The 10% tax bracket will disappear for low-income taxpayers, who will then have to pay taxes at the 15% rate;

     -The marriage penalty will return for married couples;

     -Taxpayers with children will lose HALF of their child tax credits;

     -Taxes on dividends will increase from 15% back to 49.5% maximum

     -Taxes on capital gains will increase from 15% to 20%-meaning fewer people will cash in stocks

     -The death tax will return in 2011-the death tax will be increased from 44% to 55%

     Posted by antisocialist at 11/18/2009 @ 09:34am

207. Posted by Happy at 11/18/2009 @ 08:56am

     Wild and Crazy Silver will most likely reap the highest return on investment. Silver has set it's sights on $23.00 to $33.00. I have sold much of my Gold to buy Silver. But I am a small investor willing to gamble. Silver is always a gamble.

     And why in the Hell I am telling you this.. I really don't know. If Silver hits the high water mark, I'm Costa Rica bound much better off than I would have been.

     I'm just trying to find a way out of this mess of a country..

     Posted by chaoszen at 11/18/2009 @ 09:35am

208. first anti says this:

     "The radical leftists always refer to the Bush taxcuts as taxcuts for the rich"

     and then prints this:

     "The death tax will return in 2011-the death tax will be increased from 44% to 55%"

     and this:

     "Taxes on capital gains will increase from 15% to 20%-meaning fewer people will cash in stocks"

     personally, i don't know any working people who have capital gains OR million dollar estates to inherit.

     so, i'm not sure "radical leftists" are the only ones concerned about the repeal of bush's tax cuts, which are widely considered to be one of the primary reasons our economy is in the shitter.

     "oh, but it's the SPENDING, not the tax cuts"

     stfu

     bush got us into TWO TRILLION DOLLAR WARS on top of the tax cuts.

     oh, right, he was simple a lousy accountant.

     Posted by darladoon at 11/18/2009 @ 09:42am

209. if you're gonna SPEND so much fucking money, then how on earth can you make egregious tax cuts, without going into debt?

     let's see antisocialist weasel his way out of that one.

     Posted by darladoon at 11/18/2009 @ 09:45am

210. Specifically, the expiration of Bush's tax cuts would do the following: Posted by antisocialist at 11/18/2009 @ 09:34am

     The Bush Tax Cuts? Hell, we should roll back the Reagan Tax Cuts!

     The death tax will return in 2011-the death tax will be increased from 44% to 55%

     Posted by antisocialist at 11/18/2009 @ 09:34am

     Anti.. The Estate Tax only affects less than one percent of Americans. You know like the Walton's, the ones that have been pushing the elimination of it, calling it the "Death Tax" and pretending it will affect everyone.

     Are you in that 1%? If not you must be fuckin' stupid.

     Posted by chaoszen at 11/18/2009 @ 09:46am

211. Concern for the deficit and debt will be "old news".

     How do I know this? Simple...

     Posted by Mask at 11/18/2009 @ 09:33am

     You, like most of Magic's inner circle, don't get it at all! This is "Simple" to see, for more and more Americans, now, more than 50%!

     Running some deficits w/JOBS is far, far better than what your Messiah is doing.......which is:

     Running HUMONGOUS deficits w/continued JOB LOSS!

     Posted by Happy at 11/18/2009 @ 09:53am

212. The Estate Tax was mean't to put a crimp in the pants of Dynastic Generational Wealth and a Ruling Elite Class.

     We don't need any succession of Kings, Oligarchs and Rulers in this country. We have enough problems already.

     EAT THE RICH!

     Posted by chaoszen at 11/18/2009 @ 09:58am

213. Posted by darladoon at 11/18/2009 @ 09:45am

     Darla, are you really FOR taxes, or just FOR the punitive redistribution of income based on your contempt and jealousy?

     Haha, rhetorical question. The answer is obvious.

     I think it is funny how you apparently see taxation as a driver for fairness and equality. You know, like your own little weapon against the rich. When in truth you are tightly in the pocket of the plutocracy. And like their true little brownshirt you keep parroting Bush Bush Bush. You ever going to admit that regarding what you call Bush's $trillion wars remain pretty much unchanged under Obama? Or because the war news is no longer above the fold with Obama in office, do you think it's all just gone away?

     But you actually believe there is a difference between Bush and Obama.

     Yet by harping about Bush's spending too you just prove there really isn't. Ever think about that?

     Posted by freiheit1 at 11/18/2009 @ 10:14am

214. EAT THE RICH!

     Posted by chaoszen at 11/18/2009 @ 09:58am

     Yes! Start with Congress!

     Posted by freiheit1 at 11/18/2009 @ 10:23am

215. "Darla, are you really FOR taxes, or just FOR the punitive redistribution of income based on your contempt and jealousy?"

     i'm for a progressive system of taxation not unlike canada's.

     "And like their true little brownshirt you keep parroting Bush Bush Bush"

     do you even know what a brownshirt is you little twit?? i'm f*cking jewish you asshole!

     "You ever going to admit that regarding what you call Bush's $trillion wars remain pretty much unchanged under Obama"

     i've admitted this. but obama didn't start them, that's the FUNDAMENTAL point.

     "But you actually believe there is a difference between Bush and Obama"

     there is a difference.

     freiheit, you want to have a metahistorical conversation? you wanna change the entire financial system? you wanna talk about being in the pockets of the "plutocracy"? you wanna talk about the federal reserve?

     well, please, go to one of your crackpot conspiracy websites and say all you want. but here, we're talking more immediate, specific problems. not the bigger picture.

     if you wanna talk about the bigger picture, you're talking to the wrong woman.

     i'm a gardener, herbalist, solar-panel-using, rain-water harvesting, yoga-practicing hippie. i grasped the big picture back in the late 60s, on LSD. i don't need your f*cking pathetic little mind giving me intellectual assistance w/ the big picture.

     Posted by darladoon at 11/18/2009 @ 10:24am

216. Posted by darladoon at 11/18/2009 @ 09:42am

     Darla, I thought you lived in SF, not a cave?

     Most middle class Americans have stock holdings today. My brother is a high school teacher in Washington State. When Starbucks went public, he invested a good bit of his savings into their stock. A wise move on his part. But he is most assuredly middle class and a typical example.

     What does real estate go for in the Bay area? It's one of the most expensive areas of the US. A lot of middle class citizens.

     Revenues were up since the Bush taxcuts, not down. Just like they went up under the JFK taxcuts and the Reagan taxcuts.

     We have never had two trillion dollar wars so that is just another leftist myth.

     Posted by antisocialist at 11/18/2009 @ 10:30am

217. Posted by darladoon at 11/18/2009 @ 10:24am

     Haha, no Darla, you have no true understanding of reality anyway.

     By your very support of Obama you prove you have no concept of the ruling elite, or the big picture.

     But that's no surprise coming from someone who claims LSD allowed them to grasp the big picture. Haha, you are a f**king liberal TEMPLATE.

     That's why the truth makes you obviously uncomfortable.

     Posted by freiheit1 at 11/18/2009 @ 10:32am

218. nichols:

     As has been demonstrated a number of times, reality is a social and cultural construct. Do you believe that Gravity is distributed fairly, or do we need new law or a governmentt program to re-distribute it, as it may impact some people more than others due only to factors not in their control?

     Posted by sntauri at 11/18/2009 @ 10:34am

219. "By your very support of Obama you prove you have no concept of the ruling elite, or the big picture"

     so by "support" you mean "i voted for him"?

     yeah, i "support" him. whatever!

     i'm a f*cking socialist, frei! i want our government to (quite literally) imitate the canadian government.

     national healthcare. smaller defense. higher taxes. national education. nationalization of resources (water, electricity, etc).

     do you really want to talk about the "ruling elite", frei? are you serious?

     the rules say, "stay on topic," so no thank you. besides, i'm an intellectual, not a conspiracy theorist.

     "But that's no surprise coming from someone who claims LSD allowed them to grasp the big picture. "

     have you ever tried LSD, frei? if not, give it a go, then get back to me.

     "We have never had two trillion dollar wars so that is just another leftist myth."

     (quote of the year)

     http://costofwar.com/

     Posted by darladoon at 11/18/2009 @ 10:39am

220. antisocialist,

     the most conservative estimate of innocent iraqi lives lost in the war is around 150,000. the highest estimate is around 1 million.

     so, what are those lives worth, in your mind?

     if you had to put a price on their head, how much would guess?

     and then what about the 7,000 american troops who have died?

     and the injured and their life-long healthcare?

     these are the hidden costs that nobody in the "liberal" media wants to talk about.

     Posted by darladoon at 11/18/2009 @ 10:44am

221. "Do you believe that Gravity is distributed fairly, or do we need new law or a governmentt program to re-distribute it"

     sntauri, you do realize (do you not?) that all forms of taxation are "redistribution" of wealth, right?

     do you not want the government to collect taxes at all?

     who do you want to maintain the interstate highway system?

     who do you want to put out fires?

     who do you want teaching your kids?

     who do you want checking out books at the library? sending your mail?

     just curious.

     suddenly, under obama, we have this crazy socialist phenomenon called......taxation, which NO REPUBLICAN ever, ever embraced.

     in fact, before obama, there were no taxes, at all. no wealth was redistributed. ever.

     Posted by darladoon at 11/18/2009 @ 10:49am

222. before a progressive system of taxation, in fact, all the wealth was in the hands of the feudalists. what a great idea! let's go back to the days of feudalism, and lack of representation, and........oy!

     Posted by darladoon at 11/18/2009 @ 10:50am

223. if you're gonna SPEND so much fucking money, then how on earth can you make egregious tax cuts, without going into debt?

     let's see antisocialist weasel his way out of that one.

     Posted by darladoon at 11/18/2009 @ 09:45am

     I've proposed budget cuts of several hundred billion per year.

     Fed aid to education-60 billion per year

     Cut 80% from the Housing and Urban Development-that saves about 33 Billion per year

     Cut 80% from Dept of Agriculture-savings of about 19 billion per year

     Cut 80% from Dept of Labor- savings of about 10 billion per year

     Eliminate EPA-savings of over 10 billion per year

     Eliminate the new "climate policy" agency-savings of 15 billion per year

     Eliminate the Health Care Reform and the Medicare Part D-annual savings approx 175 billion

     Defense-increase base closures by 20% from 2011 committments. annual savings about 7 billion dollars.

     Conduct revamped readiness review of military including effectiveness of current armament to the readiness plan. Potential savings of 10-20 billion per year.

     Interest on the debt is projected to be in excess of 10% of the budget beginning in FY2011. by reducing the budget at least 10-15% we could also see a significant reduction in interest payments on the debt.

     Raising taxes will not reduce the debt given a Democratic Congress and a Democratic president. They do not have a record of ever reducing any programs except defense and intelligence.

     Posted by antisocialist at 11/18/2009 @ 10:59am

224. "They do not have a record of ever reducing any programs except defense and intelligence"

     name one democratic president who reduced defense and/or intelligence.

     and please, a reduction of the annual increase in defense spending does NOT constitute a "reduction."

     "I've proposed budget cuts of several hundred billion per year"

     (yawn)

     Posted by darladoon at 11/18/2009 @ 11:05am

225. before a progressive system of taxation, in fact, all the wealth was in the hands of the feudalists. what a great idea! let's go back to the days of feudalism, and lack of representation, and........oy!

     Posted by darladoon at 11/18/2009 @ 10:50am

     So, the US was a feudalist nation before the 20th century? that is laughable.

     Posted by antisocialist at 11/18/2009 @ 11:08am

226. Leftists would be outraged at the income tax when it was implemented in 1913 and even up until WWII.

     In 1913, the top tax rate was 7% on incomes above $500,000 ($10,918,030 in 2009 dollars).

     the bottom rate of 1% applied to the first 20,000 of taxable income. this equates to $436,721 in 2009 dollars.

     In 1940, it was high at the top rate at 81.1% which applied to incomes over 5 million ($77,206,071 in 2009 dollars)

     the bottom rate was 4.4% on income up to $4000 ($61,764 in 2009 dollars)

     http://www.ntu.org/main/page.php?PageID=19

     Posted by antisocialist at 11/18/2009 @ 11:27am

227. antisocialist-Yahoo released a study today that showed that there is a direct connection between the numbers of doctors in a state and how healthy the people in that state are.More doctors equals healthier people.It's conservative Christian states where people have the most health problems because they are less likely to go to a doctor so there are fewer doctors.

     Posted by i'm nobody at 11/18/2009 @ 11:31am

228. "So, the US was a feudalist nation before the 20th century? that is laughable"

     i'm only using the term loosely, antisocialist. perhaps in the same way you use the term "marxism". to make a point, albeit using the completely incorrect terminology.

     but you know what i mean.

     Posted by darladoon at 11/18/2009 @ 11:34am

229. Posted by darladoon at 11/18/2009 @ 11:05am

     "and please, a reduction of the annual increase in defense spending does NOT constitute a 'reduction.'"

     Okay, so long as you agree that a reduction in the rate of increase for social security benefits did not constitute a "cut", as liberals famously did back in the 1990s.

     "name one democratic president who reduced defense and/or intelligence."

     Clinton may not have cut the defense budget, but he did reduce the military in numbers. And the things he did to the intelligence community on his watch cannot be called beneficial to our national security.

     Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 11/18/2009 @ 11:38am

230. Posted by darladoon at 11/18/2009 @ 11:05am

     "and please, a reduction of the annual increase in defense spending does NOT constitute a 'reduction.'"

     Okay, so long as you agree that a reduction in the rate of increase for social security benefits did not constitute a "cut", as liberals famously did back in the 1990s.

     "name one democratic president who reduced defense and/or intelligence."

     Clinton may not have cut the defense budget, but he did reduce the military in numbers. And the things he did to the intelligence community on his watch cannot be called beneficial to our national security.

     Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 11/18/2009 @ 11:38am

231. get the govt and hacks like you out of the way and let those who make and produce things do it with out all your types of "improvements"....

     ++I'm not a hack and you have no idea what I produce. So until you have some facts and not Republican talking points at your side, your plan is nothing more than your personal wet dream.

     The entire point is there is too much govt and taxes on every level....

     ++Regardless of what you may believe, I am not a fan of big government, but I also don't despise the gov't. There are some things, like Medicare and the VA, that gov't does a hell of a lot better than private industry.

     Hows the economy going to react when the Bush tax cuts expire and those who still have a job have to fork over more money to government, and have less for their family to spend on their own needs?

     ++The Bush tax cuts were for the wealthiest Americans who should probably pay more of their way anyway. Evidently, you don't give a crap about the people who can't pay their bills RIGHT NOW, but you're worried about the wealthy in the future.

     think the economy will grow? And if so why not tax all peoples money away...oh...nevermind...that is the plan right?

     ++ I am not for taxing all the people's money. However, proportionate taxing is what holds our society together. Anything less would enable anarchy, which is what you're evidently advocating.

     'Cause tax cuts kill the economy and tax increases spur economic development?

     Can you name any country who taxed itself into prosperity?

     ++It's not a matter of taxing "into prosperity," right now; it's about getting out of recession (almost Depression) which Republican policies got us into for the second time in a century.

     Posted by YourJomamma at 11/17/2009 @ 7:51pm

     Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 11/18/2009 @ 11:52am

232. "And the things he did to the intelligence community on his watch cannot be called beneficial to our national security"

     he obviously did a better job than bush, and with less money. and less damage to our reputation abroad. and without torturing or wiretapping or secret prisons.

     but bush was sooooo beneficial, right?

     Posted by darladoon at 11/18/2009 @ 12:01pm

233. Posted by Happy at 11/18/2009 @ 09:53am

     More sure of YOU in that prediction than anybody, Happ.

     On cue (soon as Rush changes his tune in 2011) you'll suddenly revert to your Pre-2008 position on deficits, to allow for the 2012 GOP nominee to run on new tax cuts...i.e.--

     "I used to get concerned when deficits were running in the tens of billions....I was young.....didn't realize how confidence in America was so powerful in the world and we can export US dollars that cost next-to-nothing and roll them over and over and over....

     IF the US ever decides to be unethical, it can wipe away all foreign-held debt....that's a nuclear option surely tucked deep inside some `Emergency Plan' somewhere!"-----Posted by HAPPY 09/11/2007 @ 10:22pm

     Posted by Mask at 11/18/2009 @ 12:05pm

234. Posted by antisocialist at 11/18/2009 @ 09:34am

     Larry,

     You think Obama and his political team don't already know this? You don't think they're already strategizing how to keep some of those cuts in place (Obama's Tax Cuts it will probably be called) during an election year (2010)?

     Ahh...love the fact that Republicans are still playing checkers while Obama plays chess.

     Then again, with Sarah as your Party's standard bearer, I'm thinking you Republicans would rather play "Barbie" instead of checkers.

     Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 11/18/2009 @ 12:07pm

235. Posted by Mask at 11/18/2009 @ 12:05pm

     And everyone knows you keep these. Definitely makes you wonder if it is ongoing brainwashing or doublethink.

     Posted by !immutable at 11/18/2009 @ 12:27pm

236. To all the people saying tax cuts are the way out of this recession...I understand how in theory it would stimulate the economy, but what if that money is instead invested in countries like China?

     In the 1980's massive tax cuts appeared to have helped our economy but taxes were much higher than they are now. The Bush tax cuts seemed to have temporarily kept the economy from collapsing in the early 2000's but after the housing bubble burst, we went right back into a recession. On the subject, the collapse of the dot.com bubble is what caused the previous recession and was the reason we got out of the early 90's recession.

     Is it just me or isn't it a little strange that over the past two decades, our economy has been based around these temporary investment bubbles? I'm all for letting people decide on their own what to do with their money, but what good is that going to be for our country in the long-term if their isn't anything in America worth investing in anymore?

     As the people on the Left and Right are distracted demonizing each other, everyone seems to be ignoring that our economic policies (supported by both Democrats and Republicans) have made a Communist country, with no respect for any of the freedoms we hold to be important, the most powerful country in the world.

     Posted by metinker at 11/18/2009 @ 12:38pm

237. Those of you who haven't read the story on this site titled "Will the Real Obama Please Stand Up?" should do so.

     Dodd's Fed shakeup would be pretty weak and ineffective in reality. As if an "independent agency" would be impervious to the advances of la cosa blankfein. But Bam doesn't want Moneybags to catch feelings. As long as they stay out of his way and let him and Pelosi build their statist banana republic and figure out how we'll pay for it later on. Moneybags knows Bam might eventually ask him to pay or it, but he knows he ain't gonna pay for shit. Until you invent a tax code that is literally an organism.

     Which means it all falls on the middleclass. Will there be a middleclass? It's the worst of all worlds. JP Morgan and Stalin's ghost fucked and their baby runs our country now. Bam is just window dressing.

     The Reps will waltz into POTUS in 12 with the stupidest candidate they can come up with.

     Posted by gangpapist at 11/18/2009 @ 12:45pm

238. Posted by darladoon at 11/18/2009 @ 09:42am

     Darla, I thought you lived in SF, not a cave?

     Most middle class Americans have stock holdings today. My brother is a high school teacher in Washington State. When Starbucks went public, he invested a good bit of his savings into their stock. A wise move on his part. But he is most assuredly middle class and a typical example.

     What does real estate go for in the Bay area? It's one of the most expensive areas of the US. A lot of middle class citizens.

     Revenues were up since the Bush taxcuts, not down. Just like they went up under the JFK taxcuts and the Reagan taxcuts.

     We have never had two trillion dollar wars so that is just another leftist myth.

     Posted by antisocialist at 11/18/2009 @ 6:48pm

239. "I used to get concerned when deficits were running in the tens of billions....I was young.....didn't realize how confidence in America was so powerful in the world and we can export US dollars that cost next-to-nothing and roll them over and over and over....

     IF the US ever decides to be unethical, it can wipe away all foreign-held debt....that's a nuclear option surely tucked deep inside some `Emergency Plan' somewhere!"-----Posted by HAPPY 09/11/2007 @ 10:22pm

     Posted by Mask at 11/18/2009 @ 12:05pm

     Thank you MASK, for giving me yet another opportunity, to edumycate some newer Lib readers on good `deficits' and bad `deficits'. As you have read my lectures over and over, you can just skim the following.

     Borrowing money, ie running deficits on cash flow, for wise investing is good. Most responsible folks do exactly this when we buy our first home, and likely all following bigger, nicer homes. Some do it for college or post-graduate studies. I do it buying rental/investment properties.

     Does anyone have any doubt that IBM today, has more debts than its first few years as a company? How about Caterpillar, Boeing, Johnson & Johnson?

     Does anyone doubt that today, I owe ten times what I owed when I was in 20s' or 30s'? Don't YOU owe more today than when you left your mama's house for good?

     So, what's the key? The ability to generate a return in excess of the cost of debt! It's called Leverage 101.

     Employed prudently, NOT subprimely, this process of using debt increases NETWORTH.

     Under Bush 43, the nation's net wealth increased to an all-time high in excess of $60 Trillion, which led to record high Fed revenues and also made debt service less and less a % national wealth.

     Oh, yea, Magic is "Change" alright! Running huge deficits to drive wealth down!

     Posted by Happy at 11/18/2009 @ 9:51pm

240. Posted by Happy at 11/18/2009 @ 9:51pm |

     "...the nation's net wealth increased to an all-time high in excess of $60 Trillion,"

     Of which $12T went 'poof', recently.

     Owner's equity in homes...lowest since 1952...you were saying something about 1st homes?

     http://tinyurl.com/dnz88c

     < Mortgages and credit-card debt alone totaled $13 trillion, or 123% of after-tax income.>

     Apparently they didn't get your memo about 'good deficits'.

     Posted by snowball777 at 11/18/2009 @ 11:13pm

241. Apparently they didn't get your memo about 'good deficits'.

     Posted by snowball777 at 11/18/2009 @ 11:13pm

     Go nail Barney Frank & Chris dodd to the cross. They insisted that the party continue even as wiser heads, sounded the alarm years ago!

     In another couple of years, YOU and the other Kool-aid drinkers, will swear that conservatives like me, didn't warn of the dangerous build up of nat'l debt and of course, like Libs all the time, you'll be wrong!

     Warnings are always there, those who take the time to think (NOT something Gubbers want the voters to do) of their own rational self-interests, wins....even if just means losing less!

     Posted by Happy at 11/19/2009 @ 12:48pm