Users who Dugg This
I am Anomaly
14740 Followers
adam jones
8206 Followers
Pinkpackrat
1247 Followers
MediaSight
13123 Followers
NewsMeBack
6467 Followers
Tim Don Elgnomo
1395 Followers
SpionKopRed
2328 Followers











goatheardJun 6, 2011
Politics: derived from the latin word poly meaning many, and tics meaning blood sucking insects
inajeepJun 5, 2011
I know of people in gov jobs being let go. Contractors. IT folk. I also know that the bloated middle management feds in the same agency were not touched. The net result will be less people to do the work projects get cut, work slows down, s**t doesn't get done. The problem is not being addressed by these cuts.
odkinJun 5, 2011
Of course. Doesn't that PROVE governments disincentive to spend wisely? By make purposeful bad decisions they create exactly the crisis under which whey can demand MORE money from us.
Time to break up the racket and start keep a lot more of our money. The parasite is currently the same size as the host, and is kiling it.
inajeepJun 5, 2011
No that is the way business is run too. The govt is not a parasite nor are the people hosts.
odkinJun 5, 2011
Business are run by forcibly taking your money, with no alternative, and nothing in return? Sure they are. Have you ever run anything in your life?
pinkfish411Jun 6, 2011
Exactly. Plenty of private organizations make the same stupid mistake of bloating management while eliminating the people who do the real work.
minimumeffortJun 6, 2011
Many businesses are run that way. Difference being a business must still produce something worth buying. Government has no such need.
bcarl314Jun 6, 2011
Nor should it. Government's role is not to make money, but to provide public services. Sometimes things must be done at a loss to provide for the better good of society.
This bulls**t that the government needs to make a profit on everything is the fundamental flaw in GOP thinking. Not everything revolves around money.
Governments need to have redundancies, error correcting and extra supply to account for unexpected situations. Example: bird flu. Using a typical "business model" for healthcare, the government would be using a "Just in time" supply chain for the vaccine / medical facilities. However, when that system is overwhelmed with a 500% spike in demand - it fails - everytime. For the betterment of society, the government must keep extra, unused supply, to ensure the masses have access to systems and organizations in a crisis. That will almost never run a profit.
Added bonus - you keep thousands of people employed. People who spend money, don't hoard it in offshore retirement accounts, and people who more directly stimulate the economy.
minimumeffortJun 8, 2011
You misread what I'm saying. "worth buying" does not mean profitable. I'm not even saying they must make a profit. I'm saying they must make something people want. They may not even do that. You have people in government that produce nothing of value. Not even for the good of society. The reason is there's no feedback system to ensure what they work on is worth doing.
To make it worse, arguments for government programs, like your example, start with the presupposition that just because it's a spike in demand, removing profit motive will work better. The profit motive dictates the price might be 10 times normal which people assume to be a market failure but would cause drug companies to fall all over each other to meet the supply. Contrast that to what the governments actuall do. Grant contracts to limited companies causing others to just steer clear of the market altogether. This ends up limiting capacity. The US managed to produce about 2/3 of what they thought they needed. They also prevent profiteering by fixing prices causing companies to focus on reducing costs because there's no need to improve quality...the price is guaranteed. Even if the market was willing to pay a much higher price government would be forced to prevent it.
"Added bonus - you keep thousands of people employed." This is the worst argument you can make because it's completely independent of whether they are productive. They could produce nothing of value and your statement would stand. Labor doesn't have inherent value. Only the product of that labor does. If they produce nothing they cannot add to the economy.
skews13Jun 5, 2011
The GOP has no plan for the job crisis. They never have had a plan for the job crisis. They have a plan to promote an agenda. The same plan they've had for years. You didn't honestly believe for a minute that bad economic conditions, of their creating no less, was anything they ever cared about in the first place did you? Let's make sure the only ones that lose their jobs are Republicans in 2012. For the good of the country.
ganjadude4391Jun 6, 2011
than explain why obama and the dems still have no budget plan and the GOP has 3??
novenatorJun 6, 2011Submitter
care to explain why the Progressive Caucus budget is getting no traction in the "liberal" media, when it ends the deficit quicker and better than any other plan?
Closed AccountJun 6, 2011
I seriously WISH your budget would be brought to light!
THAT would be fantastic. Perhaps even the "liberal" media thinks you are nuts and wants nothing to do with you...
Go shower. And condition that long hair...you have flyaway ends.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
JonathonFishenatorJun 6, 2011
You know they even had that budget by Demos on Fox, right? Stop shoving extremism down your face and watch your own holy network more.
eraptorJun 6, 2011
Quirky,
Like you, I would LOVE to see the progressive budget plan come to light.
In fact, let's take it a step further by pitting the progressive plan against the Ryan plan. Let the American people read them BOTH without PR spin or partisan interference, then vote on which one to pursue. D.C. would be bound to the vote and required to implement it immediately. Of course, this should also include a strict prohibition of voter suppression/political meddling (with violators facing stiff penalties and mandatory sentencing of no less than 10 years) since we know conservatives can't resist fighting dirty prior to most elections.
While you know how much I hate to pop your balloon, Quirky. This vote would REALLY embarrass your political crew.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
eraptorJun 6, 2011
The GOP has 3 budget plans? If so, then the other two must be REALLY bad because the Ryan Plan is as popular as a "turd in the punch bowl".
Personally, I think Congressional Republicans deserve to "twist in the wind" (metaphorically speaking) after the crap they've pulled on the country. They've stonewalled/obstructed every legislative effort to revive the economy, so they don't deserve to be in office.
Speaking of which, where's the Republican jobs plan? I'm not talking about the PR spin they put on tax cuts for the rich, but REAL job creation legislation (THAT WORKS). Hey, John Boehner, the American people want to know, "Why haven't Republicans made a genuine effort to create decent JOBS...IN THE U.S.!!!!"
PR spin won't save your collective hides now that we've seen your TRUE agenda.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
schmuckofniJun 6, 2011
Democrats aren't saints in the least bit considering they had a majoirty in the house and in the senate without passing a decent jobs bill. So both parties are to blame.
eraptorJun 6, 2011
I agree that Democrat's aren't saints, but I don't recall witnessing them stonewall or obstruct the small business lending bill as Republicans did. For the record, this legislative initiative would have led to job creation since small businesses help create MOST of them.
peepnklownJun 6, 2011
WOW, another example of why government cannot solve and should not solve issues like this.
rocannonJun 6, 2011
basic fiscal reality: when you spend more than you take in you get a deficit. At some point you can no longer make the interest payments on the deficit, and what happens next makes the Great Depression look like child's play.
as a nation, we have to curb our appetites and demand less of our government, or be prepared to pay more taxes. AND, start electing representatives who recognize that the US is NOT the world's policeman.
markginzbergJun 5, 2011
I think the Republicans are heartless souls. They don't have compassion for the poor, the elderly, the workers. All they care about is the oil companies, tax to the rich, and big business. They sure do not represent my interests, economic or otherwise.
libliberJun 5, 2011
Do not forget that most call themselves Christians also.
dusanmalJun 5, 2011
Teach man to fish, not steal from fisherman to give as if yours.
kamtsaJun 5, 2011
You hit the nail on the head!
kamtsaJun 6, 2011
And the negative diggs by the professional left prove it.
eraptorJun 5, 2011
That theory only works as long as there are fish to catch.
youareretardedJun 5, 2011
Much easier said than done when the river and lakes are owned by one man and he charges a lot for their access.
ancient53Jun 6, 2011
How correct, the government owns most of the lakes and rivers and charges you to use them.
youareretardedJun 6, 2011
And the government is ran by the rich.
Thanks for playing.
xophermvJun 5, 2011
For once and for all, taxes are not theft!
Closed AccountJun 5, 2011
Some of them are. Property taxes are theft.
mcfriendlyJun 5, 2011
So you don't need roads, fire protection, schools, etc?
xophermvJun 5, 2011
No. Taxes are what we pay to have a government, ANY kind of government. Saying taxes are theft is an argument against any taxes whatsoever and against any government whatsoever. It's an anarchist point of view.
We live in a democratic republic. We can choose to raise taxes if we want. We can choose to tax property or anything else if we want. That's what living in a democracy means.
And that's why I find these anti-tax sentiments as both anarchistic and anti-democratic.
Closed AccountJun 5, 2011
mcfriendly - Find another way to pay for those. They already do.
Once I own my house and my land ... I should OWN it. I can pay for utilities ... but the government should not make me RENT my f**king land.
Do you understand? I BOUGHT IT . I OWN IT.
But no ... the government wants to charge me for it and if I don't "rent" my home/land from them... they can SELL IT TO SOMEONE ELSE.
THIS is a human rights violation and shouldn't happen.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
irishfutbolJun 6, 2011
Would you also be willing to "own" your land without services?
If your house caught fire, would you be ok with the government saying "well, it's your land, deal with it". Same goes for trespassers, buglers, clearing snow, road repair, etc?
Or do you think that the taxes should come from elsewhere, and that the homeowners shouldn't be the ones to pay taxes for services relating to homes?
Closed AccountJun 6, 2011
Irish - what I am saying is, I should not have to "rent" the land I own.
Make me pay for services ...
...but the government should never be able to sell YOUR land to someone else because "property taxes" haven't been paid.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
bcarl314Jun 6, 2011
quirk, the problem is you look at the taxes as if you don't get any benefit from them.
Say you pay $2k / year in property taxes. You get the following benefits from them (Call your city hall or go to a town meeting some time).
1) Educational funding - unless you want a bad education system, and the associated higher crime, which will drive YOUR property value down and result in a REAL LOSS.
2) Firefighters - these people get ALL their funding from property taxes. No property taxes = no firefighters. Hope you have a good supply of water on your property. And I'm not talking about the water that you get from the city. Because I'm sure you view that water bill as a "tax" anyway. I'm talking about a real stream, or brook flowing through your property. And I hope you have high pressure pumps to get the water on your house too. Oh, and I'm sure you have training on how to put out a fire? You know, training that you didn't get from the city, because without those property taxes, the city won't be training you.
3) Police - again, hope you're not robbed because w/out property taxes, there's no one coming to help. Hope you don't get in an accident driving to work because the ambulance won't be coming. And those crime rates will go through the roof, dropping your house value even more.
4) Road maintenance. Unless you've got a horse and buggy and can fix a thrown axle, you'll be wanting someone to maintain those roads you use to go to the grocery store, and to deliver products you buy online.
5) Hope you don't like enjoying public parks either. Without property taxes, those will be gone too.
I could go on and on about why you need to pay "rent", but I'm sure you're not going to understand.
I, for one, would hate to live in the baron wasteland from hell that would be every city in the nation, if we didn't have property taxes.
ashleyashy2013Jun 5, 2011
if the fisherman has enough fish for his family and everyone around him, why doesn't he give some of the fish to those that weren't lucky enough to get a fishing rod and some bait
ganjadude4391Jun 6, 2011
he can and morally he shoiuld, but the government shouldnt come in and say "well i think you have enough so im going to take 1/2 of your fish and give it to this other guy, who spent the summer on the porth smoking blunts all day..he needs it"
ashleyashy2013Jun 6, 2011
Well if he does have enough than someone who doesn't have as much does deserve it. You can't take the lazy people and use them as an excuse to ignore the middle class, ESPECIALLY the working middle class
ganjadude4391Jun 7, 2011
he didnt earn it, therefore he doesnt DESERVE it. That is the problem with america these days, everyone believes they are entitled to things they didnt earn just because someone else has them. Im sorry but thats just not how the world works
kasha34Jun 8, 2011
That's been tried, over and over for thousands of years. What happens is, everyone else just stops working. And the "lucky" fisherman gets wore out. And decides he doesn't need to work so damn hard just to support everyone else.
For example, the Plymouth Colony almost died out in 1621 because they'd put in place a system like you describe.
http://mises.org/daily/336
ashleyashy2013Jun 8, 2011
well its not like anyones hiring anyway, so might as well raise taxes so the government can keep programs like food stamps to help those who can't find jobs, and also to keep programs for those who do like collective bargaining and social security, both of which republicans threatened to take away
Despite everything I've said, I don't think taxes should just be raised on the rich, I think taxes should be raised on things like alcohol, cigarettes and stuff bought online.
JonathonFishenatorJun 6, 2011
Sounds good and all, but how is he supposed to learn to fish when someone else owns all the equipment, and another already owns all the shores?
kasha34Jun 8, 2011
You know what they say in Russia...
crosstime_saloonJun 6, 2011
Awfully hard to fish in oil drenched or some other corporate-dumped, toxic contaminated waters. Beautiful neon orange streams in WV from strip mining. Drink that!
dusanmalJun 5, 2011
"They don't have compassion for the poor, the elderly, the workers." - Republican view is that Government workers are unproductive burden on productive part of society. Poor workers don't don' have good paying jobs because Government bureaucrats suck income from productive businesses who could use part of it to increase salaries. Unemployed might have jobs if Government didn't steal too much from business in taxes and regulations. Elderly could have saved more if those same Government bureaucrats didn't make them pay SS taxes, just to raid funds to support more bureaucrats.
Compassion seen like this is letting people to their own and stay out of their pockets, not robbing one to give to another (as what to rob soon runs out).Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
youareretardedJun 5, 2011
"Republican view is that Government workers are unproductive burden on productive part of society."
Are these the same republicans that are working for said government?
"Poor workers don't don' have good paying jobs because Government bureaucrats suck income from productive businesses who could use part of it to increase salaries"
You mean like increasing the salaries of CEO's? (which has been on the rise for decades and at a much higher pace than those in which they employ).
"Unemployed might have jobs if Government didn't steal too much from business in taxes and regulations."
So things like asbestos, lead poisoning, salmonella, and high energy costs (see enron) wouldn't exist if government would just stay the f out?
"Elderly could have saved more if those same Government bureaucrats didn't make them pay SS taxes, just to raid funds to support more bureaucrats."
And what would have happened to their money had it not been government backed in cases like market panics or when the dow takes a huge dive? Would their savings overcome the exponential rise in health care costs?
"Compassion seen like this is letting people to their own and stay out of their pockets, not robbing one to give to another (as what to rob soon runs out)."
So corporations are the only ones that have the right to steel from other peoples pockets? Have you read about American history? Specifically during the industrial revolution and early 1900's with regards to monopolies?
ashleyashy2013Jun 5, 2011
its those taxes that help give the working class their voice. Something the republicans don't give a living s**t about.
A song quote comes to mind: "Welcome home, while away, they have tampered with your locks, and your things they rearranged 'we propose a better way' was the note they left behind"
the republicans want to hurt the working class and take away their vital rights so they Rich can have their precious extra money
kamtsaJun 5, 2011
>> They don't have compassion for the poor, the elderly, the workers
Compassion is useless when the country goes bankrupt and you don't have money to pay for all those nice things.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
JonathonFishenatorJun 5, 2011
Where is the Bush acceptance that deficits dont matter?BTW dont be so dramatic it'd take a decade or more of piss poor policies to get us in a hole that is similar to Greece.
friday1970Jun 5, 2011
Jesus Christ, man! Bush has been out of office for more than 2 years. Get over it. Your man is in the office now. Why can't you accept it?
If your only answer to Obama's failures is "Bush", you've got serious issues.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
JonathonFishenatorJun 5, 2011
You got some serious reading to in this thread if you are simplistic enough to think Im not critical of both sides. The point was that raising the debt wasnt an issue for the most part for years, and now its the end of the road to consider it? Bulls**t. BTW recovering from Bush could take us a decade, that man is responsible for the majority of our issues.
Closed AccountJun 5, 2011
Jonathon - you really AREN'T critical of both sides.
JonathonFishenatorJun 5, 2011
No, I am, it's just the GOP is a f**king circus of retards so they get more coverage. You're just in denial that someone can be critical of people like you and not support the dems. I'm an independant, not a dem, not a republican, and Im precisely the type of American people like you have awoken with your ignorant extremism. There is an awaking happening, and thats the rejection of ignorance.
Closed AccountJun 5, 2011
I rest my case.
JonathonFishenatorJun 5, 2011
Quirk, you never had a case to start with. You fail to understand people like you are awakening more and more people to get into politics, and were not on your side of delusion.
Closed AccountJun 5, 2011
Ooooh ... so scary!
JonathonFishenatorJun 5, 2011
It's not meant to be, you don't seem to understand, you will in 2012.
friday1970Jun 6, 2011
Bush's deficits were horrible. But, he didn't want to be the party of no and signed on to...NANCY PELOSI's budget bills.
Remember, all budget bills originate in the House. In that case it was run by Democrats from 2006 on.
That doesn't excuse the smaller deficits he ran from 2001-2006.
I didn't like them then, I don't like them now.
BUT...
They were far smaller than Obama's spending habits (with no budget passed). In not wanting any blame, the House did not pass budgets in 2009 and 2010 (if my memory serves me right). Therefore, deficit spending was/is out of control.
In Bush's last signed budget, the forecasted deficit was 400billion. With Obama's plan, he wanted 1.6 trillion, 4 F'n times Bush's amount. What in the heck has government done to warrant 4 times the spending?
Ever ask yourself this question?
In conclusion, both presidents signed/authorized horrible budgets. But, if you're counting numbers, you should already know Obama's is simply disgusting.
Why you support him and want him to win in 2012, despite calling yourself an "independent", I'll never know. I don' think I want to either.
ganjadude4391Jun 6, 2011
right, when bush wanted to raise the celing it was "irresponsible and a sign that we cant keep our bills straight" who said that?? oh yeah obama..but when hes the one in charge its never too much to spendComment is buried, click here to see the rest.
novenatorJun 5, 2011Submitter
Where are the jobs you promised Speaker Bohner?
crosstime_saloonJun 5, 2011
I see that holding the Speaker accountable for promises he made got you buried. harumph!
partrowJun 5, 2011
No, it looks like novenator is asking where the jobs are that someone promised to Boehner.
I didn't know why anyone promised him jobs - he already has one.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
JonathonFishenatorJun 5, 2011
He probably wont be so lucky in thd coming elections :)
jguthrie88Jun 5, 2011
Looks like hes got +12 diggs at the time I wrote this.
But yeah guys, leave Boner out of this.
ashleyashy2013Jun 5, 2011
Why should we leave him out of this?
We vote in a Republican-run government, jobs crash and unemployment goes up.
kasha34Jun 7, 2011
"a Republican-run government"? Where's that?
ashleyashy2013Jun 7, 2011
the fact that the Republicans now have majority in the Senate since the November elections.
jguthrie88Jun 8, 2011
lol, really? Nobody picked up on my deliberate misspelling/sarcasm?
bossm4nJun 5, 2011
Where are the jobs promised to be created by the Obama $787 Billion ARRA stimulus? Each job saved or created by that disaster cost taxpayers approximately $230,000. But of course you expect even more money to be thrown at the problem as usual. Just keep raising the debt limit. And yes, I already know your proposed solution to cutting government spending and it starts with the DoD. Tell that to your guy in the White House.
The Republicans and a handful of potentially responsible Democrats want substantial cuts before agreeing to another increase to the debt limit, but of course progressives want to spin that into, OH NOEZ, DA MEAN OL GOPz WANTS TO TAKE AWAY UR GOVERNMENT JOBZ.
http://topics.nytimes.com/topics/reference/timestopics/subjects/n/national_debt_us/index.html
An additional $6+ Trillion increase to the national debt under Obama in only 2 1/2 years, with no end in site. Every few month, Geithner goes to Congress with his hand out for another increase in the debt limit. The latest which was thankfully voted down would have made the new limit $16.7 Trillion. Which essentially means Obama and the Democrats would have doubled the national debt in less than three years.
http://www.mygovcost.org/2011/06/04/house-rejects-raising-national-debt-ceiling-from-14-3-to-16-7-trillion/Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
JonathonFishenatorJun 5, 2011
Cuts are long term, cutting too much too fast is just as harmful as raising taxes too quickly, if we dont reraise it there will be s**tstorm of financial downgrading on every interest Americans deal with. Keep in mind it was raised 5x under Bush, and were going to have to plunge a little deeper to get the tools we need to dig ourselves out.
bossm4nJun 5, 2011
I don't disagree with that, but Congress is still headed in the wrong direction. Compromise is proving to be nearly impossible, but something needs to happen soon. If the US credit rating is downgraded and China continues to move money out of US investment like they demonstrated this week, we're looking at a situation like Greece times 1000.
JonathonFishenatorJun 5, 2011
Theyre prepping for 2012 and dont seem to care. Both sides are doing jack s**t.
CrashingDownJun 5, 2011
agreed.
bossm4nJun 5, 2011
Sad but true.
youareretardedJun 5, 2011
Do you know why our credit rating would be downgraded? Because the republicans are refusing to raise the debt ceiling which in turn means the US is refusing to pay it's bills. Do you know what happens when you refuse to pay your bills?
This whole debt ceiling and debt issue is a distraction and is being used by the republican party as a whole to slow down the economy to give them a better chance in 2012.
kasha34Jun 7, 2011
Yes, let's borrow even MORE money and waste it. Let's pass a law and make minimum wage $75/hr. Then, let's hire EVERYONE who's unemployed to dig holes and fill them up.
And we'll just borrow another trillion every year! What could go wrong? Yeah, it's just a distraction. Those darn clever Republicans are tricking Mr Obama into it.
youareretardedJun 7, 2011
Yes let's do that, let me call the person that proposed that so we can get the process started... Oh wait no one proposed that!
Thanks for your ever so insightful comments!
novenatorJun 5, 2011Submitter
The ARRA saved or created 3million jobs as of summer 2010 http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2013683,00.html
Further, over 1/3rd of the Stimulus package was tax cuts, something you claim to worship.
bossm4nJun 5, 2011
First off, not only is that story outdated, the one line you cherrypicked is nothing more than a piece of propaganda from the White House. Shortly after they made that misstatement, they chose to correct their methodology of counting jobs.
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2010/01/farewell-saved-or-created-obama-administration-changes-the-counting-of-stimulus-jobs.html
Now for some numbers a bit more up to date and slightly less biased. Two professors of economics published a paper a few weeks ago showing the net result of the Obama stimulus plan was a LOSS of approximately 600,000 jobs, at a cost of $1 Trillion.
http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2011/05/evaluating-arra.html
The actual paper is a PDF that is not online right now, but you can find plenty of snippets.
Here's the summation in a nutshell,
Economists Timothy Conley and Bill Dupor have studied the effects of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (the purported stimulus bill) with great rigor. Earlier this week, they reported their findings in a paper titled “The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act: Public Sector Jobs Saved, Private Sector Jobs Forestalled.” The study concludes,
Our benchmark results suggest that the ARRA created/saved approximately 450 thousand state and local government jobs and destroyed/forestalled roughly one million private sector jobs.
Here's the actual link to the PDF if it starts working again. http://web.econ.ohio-state.edu/dupor/arra10_may11.pdf
And finally, I don't worship tax cuts per se, but I abhor the tax increases you long for.
Stop being such a cheerleader for this horrific failed policy. All you have to do is look at the current understated unemployment numbers to know that ARRA was a disaster. And just so there is no misunderstanding, I have said over and over and over here, TARP was also a terrible idea. I was vehemently opposed to both plans and let all of my representatives know how I felt. The real crime is how most politicians voted down party lines for both plans.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Closed AccountJun 5, 2011
Oh, snap.
JonathonFishenatorJun 5, 2011
Blogs aren't sources when it comes to economics...
bossm4nJun 5, 2011
Don't discount the info because of where it's hosted. As best as I can tell, the professors who wrote that paper are non-partisan.
youareretardedJun 5, 2011
I see your paper and raise you mine:
http://www.frbsf.org/publications/economics/papers/2010/wp10-17bk.pdf
bossm4nJun 5, 2011
LMAO, seriously, a paper written by a stiff from the Federal Reserve? Might has well have been written by Timothy Geithner. What's the current unemployment rate? Granted, ARRA might have prevented unemployment from reaching 11%, but it also didn't keep it under 8% which is what the plan promised by Obama's advisers who authored it.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
eraptorJun 6, 2011
For what it's worth, my opposition to both the Obama stimulus plan AND Republican-championed tax cuts is that NEITHER effort succeeded in reviving the U.S. economy for the simple reason that they were BOTH poorly targeted and designed.
As a result of virulent Republican opposition, Obama's stimulus effort was too small, included tax breaks (without any evidence they would lead to jobs/economic recovery). While point out that it shouldn't have been attempted, no one should forget that robust stimulus efforts aimed at the automotive and banking industries revived BOTH of them. So, there's no reason to believe that a similarly robust effort aimed at job creation couldn't be equally as successful. Having said that, we would have to plug the economic holes blown in our economic hull by free trade prior to making the effort. Otherwise, the resources will simply flow to U.S. trading partners instead of reviving the U.S. economy/middle class.
With regard to the Bush tax cuts and those that preceded them, they were based upon the premise of job creation. Since that has proven to be an economic myth, it's time to abandon them and if that results in higher taxes for the top 2-5%, so be it. They've ridden the U.S. gravy train at the country's collective expense for too long. If they threaten to leave, show them the door and lock it behind them. The country doesn't need social parasites.
novenatorJun 6, 2011Submitter
Outdated? I clearly stated by the summer of 2010. The number by now is FAR higher than that, no matter how you try to twist it.
I'm not even going to waste my time responding to the rest of your slander, drivel, and nonsense. Get back to work lazy boss.
bossm4nJun 6, 2011
You obviously didn't read a single thing I wrote. How typical of you to just take Obama at his word that everything he's doing is working perfectly. You keep saying you're opposed to what Obama has done yet you fall all over yourself to spin every report in his favor regardless of the truth. Well honesty, I couldn't care less if you read it or not, just as long as other people have the opportunity. Someone has to debunk your propaganda.
Slander and drivel? Why didn't you go all the way and accuse me of racism as well? That's the progressive way isn't it.
And I'm now lazy? Nope, not me. I don't draw a government check, how about you? It's no wonder you fight with all your energy to make sure the government keeps raping taxpayers.
You'd be comical if your attempts to misinform people weren't so serious and numerous, but then that's how the Democrats keep minorities and the poor enslaved, right?
ganjadude4391Jun 6, 2011
800 BILLION dollars to save 3 million jobs is 266 thousand dollars per job.... now if that doesnt scream government waste than i dont know what is, thats like 6 years of work for meComment is buried, click here to see the rest.
minimumeffortJun 6, 2011
You forgot the liberals multiplier of around 3 dollars. So it was actually around $800k per job. Those are some hard working employees.
biotchJun 5, 2011
Well,
The $230,000 figure doesnt take out the tax cuts from the stimulus cost which accounted for a third of it.
biotchJun 5, 2011
I forgot to mention... neither does it account for the money that hasn't been spent yet.
eraptorJun 5, 2011
While Obama's stimulus effort failed to produce significant jobs, no one should be surprised by its failure. After all, that was what Republicans intended when they gutted the effort with tax cuts and its size. Every economist who studied it admitted that it was far too small to make a dent on Main Street. If you think thye Republican obstruction was lost on us, it wasn't. Republicans/Conservatives have NO credible ideas for solving our economic crisis and their recent Congressional legislative efforts in the House PROVE it. To quote House Speaker, John Boehner, "The American people want to know where the jobs are?" Adding to that, we want to know why Republicans keep stonewalling/obstructing every effort to revive our economy? If tax cuts were the solution, Dubya would have had one of the greatest private sector employment records in modern history, NOT the WORST.
Spending cuts will NOT revive the U.S. economy. If that strategy had any chance of working, it would have worked for the Hoover Administration. Of course, those of us who studied the Great Depression know that it led to the Great Depression. When will conservatives learn from their mistakes, after revolution sweeps the U.S. due to their ineptitude and corruption?
bossm4nJun 5, 2011
Continuing to go back and blame Bush still isn't going to solve anything. I've stated many times that Bush made a series of mistakes by attempting to delay the recession with his series of move, primarily TARP.
And if by obstructionism you mean attempting to prevent even more out of control spending by the Democrats in control of Congress from 2006-2010, then I'm all for it. What specifically to you believe the GOP blocked that would have helped the economy?
Don't get me wrong, I don't believe spending cuts are the single, simple solution to reviving our economy, I'm simply stating unequivocally that we cannot spend our way out of the problem either, which is something most progressives seem to favor.
You state conservatives to be inept and corrupt. I beg to differ. Conservatives are not what brought us to the current tipping point. Conservatives have not been in control the last 10+ years. The GOP was run by anything but conservatives, and half of that time control was squarely in the hands of liberals. I would hope you would agree with me though, that the real root of the problem are the lobbyists who are still pulling the purse strings for the majority in Congress in both parties.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Closed AccountJun 5, 2011
I think there were a bunch of us dissatisfied with Bush that when TARP was proposed and happened, we just facepalmed.
eraptorJun 5, 2011
Republicans/Conservatives don't get it. So I'll try to expound on the issue from a politically independent perspective. The issue we have with conservatives isn't BUSH (even though we LOATHE his negligence, corruption and incompetence), it's with public policies and legislative initiatives championed by Republicans championed in the past/present. After all, our current economic malaise points directly to virtually ALL of them. We ONLY point to Bush because he and his administration led the effort for the preceding 8 years. Trust me, the 1994 Republican Revolution laid most of the groundwork for our current economic circumstances, NOT government spending (your favorite distraction). I don't believe blaming Bush will solve our problems, but I DO believe that the solution to our problems is found in abandoning the public policies which have failed the country. They just happen to be Republican-championed policies that Wall Street is desperate to keep.
Do you have any idea what brought the U.S. out of the last Depression Republicans created? It was FDR, his policies/economic reform and WWII (aka SPENDING). That's right, SPENDING. Imagine how much better the U.S. would be if we expended a similar effort towards REBUILDING the country's infrastructure instead of a gargantuan war effort. Of course, this would NOT be a successful endeavor unless we radically reformed our trade policies simultaneously (which would bleed off most of the economic benefits). Free trade is a sham that's building China at our collective expense and the economic figures bear this out.
While I support efficient spending by our government, that's NOT what Republicans are aiming to accomplish and we both know that. That's why I oppose their current efforts. By the way, the only difference between Conservative perceptions of investing and spending is their point of origination (private vs public sector). This double standard is deeply misguided as the public sector has a long track record of fostering innovation and economic growth in our economy. No one should forget that, especially Republicans, since some appear to be exercising selective memory these days on the issue.
Democrat's in control over the past 10 years? Hardly. At best, I'd give them one year (the year before Scott Brown was elected). If you disagree, then post legislative initiatives championed by Democrat's as proof (particularly measures which became law). Remember, the Bush tax cuts did not enjoy bipartisan support and Republicans used the reconciliation process to get them approved. Of course, they roundly criticized similar Democratic efforts with healthcare reform.
I only consider conservatives as inept and corrupt because of their track record in office and persistence in championing economic/fiscalpolicies that DON'T work. Does this mean ALL conservatives suffer from these character flaws? NO, but those in possession of intelligence, competence and integrity are routinely culled from the party's ranks. Sadly, this has become a political party/movement where the inmates are running the asylum.
One of the things we definitely agree on is the corrupting effect of lobbyists and their employers, special interest groups and foreign interests. It's a political cancer that's most responsible for our government's dysfunction. The same goes for the government's revolving door employment practices which undermine government independence and objectivity.
bossm4nJun 5, 2011
Shortcomings of FDR policies aside, I think it's silly and somewhat insulting to attempt to compare that investment in US infrastructure with what has taken place over the last few years. I appreciate the thoughtful debate.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
YachtRokrJun 6, 2011
I'd have to give this one to eraptor. There's something structurally wrong in the U.S. and the similarities between our current economic situation and events preceding the Great Depression are startling.
There are some who believe an economic calamity of that magnitude couldn't happen again, but they're wrong. The economic safeguards that once protected the U.S. economy have been dismantled and eliminated by Conservatives in recent history (past 20-30 years) so they no longer protect the U.S. economy from a recurrence.
ronaldm131Jun 6, 2011
Actually FDR's policies extended the Great Depression.
http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/FDR-s-Policies-Prolonged-Depression-5409.aspx
ganjadude4391Jun 6, 2011
some would argue his policies made the depression last longer than needed, and look at what some of his policies are doing to us now (I love FDR BTW)
JonathonFishenatorJun 6, 2011
Wrong, he managed to drop 12% unemployment in less than a decade.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Deal#Depression_statistics
eraptorJun 6, 2011
Ron,
I took a look at your citation. Did you?
Did you happen to notice the period of time studied by these "economists"? I did. It completely ignored the private sector's failure to self-correct after the economy collapsed (a MAJOR omission with significant relevance) and prior to FDR's election. For the record, FDR's New Deal was designed to correct Hoover's mistakes and the preceding economic damage he left behind was so extensive that draconian measures (such as anti-competitive measures and labor movement empowerment) were needed to reverse them. To suggest that the economy would have recovered more quickly in the absence of the New Deal is a wild guess based upon the economic factors they're relying upon. Why? Because the Great Depression began BEFORE FDR was elected/New Deal implemented and the free market had ample time to "self-correct, but didn't. Here's the smell test...if their theory was correct, the economy would have begun healing itself BEFORE FDR was elected.
In the end, the study's authors didn't prove their case as it's based on a LOT of assumptions/WAG's. Did you happen to read the key comment supporting their conclusion? Check this out:
"Recovery came only after the Department of Justice dramatically stepped enforcement of antitrust cases nearly four-fold and organized labor suffered a string of setbacks, the economists found."
I would be MORE than happy to see a similar Justice Department action today. While private sector unions are virtually nonexistent these days, we have a significant number of trusts (i.e., "too-big-to-fail" banks, hedge funds, anti-competitive conglomerates, health insurance companies, etc.) that are begging for significant antitrust action since they've undermined most economic opportunities in the U.S. Care to guess who's driving commodity prices to unaffordable levels. Here's a clue...it ain't unions.
What's most fascinating about that time is that the economic circumstances/consequences are almost identical to what we're witnessing today with the usual culprits involved (Conservatives and Wall Street bankers).
Thanks for the citation. It was an interesting (although unreliable) read.
greatwhitmonkeyJun 5, 2011
To be fair he said "Where are the jobs", he is just trying to find them first before eliminating them.
ryanwbJun 5, 2011
What exactly has the tax breaks gained the country that we're giving to the rich and nearly all Fortune 100 companies? They aren't hiring, they are simply retaining that money - which is why there is such an exponential disparity between the wealthy and the middle class
glassagateJun 6, 2011
So, they fire federal employees, and then gripe about rising
unemployment? That's really f**ked up.
ericdanoJun 5, 2011
Both parties have no clue on how to fix the jobs problem.
Me? I think we ought to slash business taxes for 3 years and provide low cost government loans for businesses. The problem I think with Obama's approach is that he thinks that the banking industry is actually doing the right thing when they are back to their old practices after they got bailed out.
And if any industry needs to be taxed more, it is the banking industry. It is absolutely disgusting they are giving themselves these huge bonuses in an economic decline.
youareretardedJun 5, 2011
I agree with everything except, "slash business taxes for 3 years". Taxes on small businesses should be cut (until the economy recovers) but taxes on large businesses should be raised or at the very least all loopholes and tax subsidies should be closed (hell do that and lower their taxes). Large companies (like banks as you pointed out) are sitting on a ton of cash and not spending it, how do you make companies spend money? Tell them you are going to be taking it away (through taxes).
irishfutbolJun 6, 2011
Taxing will make them hold onto cash, not the opposite. The cash they have won't get retroactively taxed, and a higher tax rate means a less willingness to take on new projects.
And as for the banks, their increase in cash is the result of their huge screwup / the government telling them they need to hold more cash to cover their assets.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
youareretardedJun 6, 2011
I'm not worried about what they already have saved I'm more concerned with them saving more from their current profits. And they will spend more (invest is probably a better word) if they are taxed more because taxes are based on revenue - expenses. Increase your expenses and you get taxed less.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
ashleyashy2013Jun 8, 2011
I agree with you, but raising taxes is not going to make businesses want to spend money. The only thing that will make businesses want to spend money is to get their confidence back up. Lack of confidence is causing the businesses to sit on all this money. But taxes should be raised anyway to help the government. Won't raise the businesses confidence, but then again neither will a government in debt
jmunjrJun 5, 2011
Wow, a lot of you people just don't get it... There isn't so much a job crisis as an economic crisis. The ECONOMY should be creating the jobs, not government, and the government is keeping the economy from correcting itself. Until this happens jobs will not be created. While I do not think the GOP or anyone else for that matter is doing enough to fix the economy by slashing spending, spending cut efforts by the GOP will ultimately result in government employees being let go. This HAS to happen to make spending cuts. This sucks for those affected in the short term but will help the country(if there is enough of it) in the long term only there just needs to be a lot more of it.
I am sorry that most of you cannot accept some hardship in exchange for long term benefit, but it is the only solution to our economic troubles. Sorry, there is no magic pill to solve the deficit, debt and job issues. Any possible solution means some of us will take some nasty hits.. It just isn't possible otherwise, and if you refuse to accept serious cutbacks in government spending as a solution then things will just get worse...much worse. That's the way it is. Deal with it.
vitriolandangstJun 5, 2011
How long are we going to PRETEND that the GOP wants to "solve" the job crisis at all? It is very apparent, their goal is to make things worse -- and the Media's goal is to pretend that they are anything but a gang of crooks that help their holding companies.
zippy757Jun 5, 2011
My plan: (1) Sort out high value governmental workers, give them raises on par with private (2) Terminate, over next 5 years, about 33% of the lower governmental employees, including military. (3) Provide tax incentives to private industry to hire former government workers (4) Lower the tax rate on medium and small businesses (5) Allow corporations to move their money, without tax penalty back to the US (6) Educate every citizen on the budget by not withdrawing taxes weekly from paycheck, but rather as a bill, which must be paid quarterly, in which the top 10 budgets are reflected, and let every American see how they are directly funding which programs. This will lead to a very interesting next election.
Closed AccountJun 5, 2011
I kind of like this. It's out of the box.
crosstime_saloonJun 5, 2011
They promised us a plan and now they deliver. The Republicans: Less is More Job Plan. With it you get less jobs, more unemployment.
norman619Jun 5, 2011
When will people like you learn that government does not create jobs. All it can do is try and create the environment which encourages companies to hire.
ronaldm131Jun 5, 2011
Another thing they can't comprehend is that government is in the business of spending money. Businesses make money and create jobs. Downsize government, less taxes = robust economy, job growth.
youareretardedJun 5, 2011
Except when job availability is at an all time low, adding more people to the unemployment line by laying off government workers doesn't all of the sudden create a wave of people with money to spend.
The government does in fact create jobs and is one of the largest employers in the world. Is government too big and employing too many people? Yes. But you don't layoff people in a recession and expect that to help improve things, that's just ridiculousness!
When the economy picks up then we should be looking at shrinking government and reducing programs, doing it during a down economy makes absolutely no sense.
When you live in a house with roommates because you can't afford the rent all by yourself and times are tough for you. If all of your roommates are perfect (they are clean, quiet, responsible, etc) except for one you currently can't pay his full share of rent because his hours have been cut, you don't kick him out and take a bigger hit because now you have to pay more for rent. Especially if you have been looking for a replacement roommate but haven't found any.
Probably a dumb analogy but hey...
ronaldm131Jun 5, 2011
I'm going to bust you're analogy clear out of the water. First, keep this in the back of your head. Government is only in the business of spending money. Period. It does not manufacture a product to be sold in the market for a profit. When the government wants to create jobs, it first must have money to spend unlike a business that invests money in manufacturing or service and sells the product or service for a profit. Businesses take that profit and expand their business to create more jobs. Now! The government's only source of income is from taxes and fees. So in order to create just one job, it must extract money from the taxpayer. This money extracted from the taxpayer is to pay for the salary of the worker. So now let me downsize the numbers for you to simplify explanation. Let's just say the population of America is 1,000 citizens with about halve of the population being taxpayers due to children not in the workforce. So we have 500 workers who are taxpayers in America. So lets say of those 500 workers, 100 of them are already government workers. That leaves 400 workers in the private sector who are paying the salary of the 100 government workers. Of those 400 workers, 100 workers lose their job. That leaves only 300 taxpayers paying the salary of those 100 government workers. So government has this plan to create 100 jobs for those unemployed workers. In order to pay their salary, the government must raise money. The only way to raise additional money is to extract more taxes from the remaining 300 private sector workers. So the government raises the taxes. Of the 300 private sector workers, 10 of them are the business owners. Due to the increase in taxes, the citizens have less money to spend on goods and services. This has put a strain on the 10 business owners who must now lay off workers to stay in business. So now those 10 business owners each lay off 10 employees each which totals 100 employees layed off. So now those 100 former taxpayers are unemployed, which leaves only 200 private sector workers. So the government figures will just create another 100 jobs for those workers. DO YOU SEE WHERE THIS IS HEADING?
dmm219Jun 5, 2011
Nice try. But entirely wrong. Yes, the gov must tax to create jobs, but saying goverment does not create or manufacture anything is 100% wrong and has proven to be so many many times. What government can do is take risk on projects that private companies cannot, therefore CREATING ENTIRE INDUSTRIES that would have never been created otherwise...which would mean jobs and companies that would have never been created otherwise. Examples:
1. Automotive industry. No company, not Ford, not GM at the time had anywhere NEAR the funds to build a entire network of interstates across the entire country. The Feds did. The entire auto industry, gasoline industry (good or bad), trucking industry and incalculable amount of interstate commerce was created by the GOVERNMENT. NO PRIVATE COMPANY could have created this...yet, private companies eventually profitted from it.
2. The internet. Created and expanded by DARPA and the defense industry. No tech company around today created in the past 20 years would exist without the Government CREATING the internet (and no, not Al Gore).
3. The telecom industry...no ATT, no verizon, no Tmobil....(you CAN certainly argue that this industry is f-up do to more recent gov action however.
The government is INEFFICIENT to its core. That is CONGRESSES fault as they intentional insist that gov agencies spend as much money every year (both parties).
But to say Government cannot create jobs or has never been responsible for any growth is not only 100% wrong..but very lacking in critical though on your part.
ronaldm131Jun 5, 2011
DM219. Name me one, just one product or service the government has manufactured or created without ANY amount of taxpayer's money and sold for a profit.
youareretardedJun 5, 2011
@ronaldm131
I actually agree with you as a whole (the disagreement lies in what dmm219 said).
However that's not the point, you and the republicans missed the point entirely.
So I'll use your analogy (different #'s same concept).
Lets say the US has a population of 100 people capable of working.
Lets say we have an unemployment rate of 5%, that leaves 95 people with jobs (lets also assume everyone is working full time and has one job).
Lets say of those 95 workers 40 of them work for the government.
Now lets implement what the republicans want to do which is to layoff government employees. Lets now lets layoff 10 of the government workers.
That leaves, 55 private sector workers
30 government workers
15 unemployed workers
How did that help grow the economy? How did it lower the unemployment rate?
Ok you can lower taxes but you also just put more people out of work who no longer have the same purchasing power they once did, so the money businesses saved in taxes aren't made up in increased revenue.
So how did that grow the economy? How did that create more jobs? All you did was increase businesses profit margin, not the demand for their products and services, in fact you could argue that you actually lowered the demand for their goods. Companies typically don't grow if demand remains the same. They could be more innovative and create new jobs from those innovations but that's not what's happening in the real world, even though profits are up for large companies as are CEO salaries.
So again, where are the new jobs?
So what's the answer? As dmm219 alluded to, governments can create or incentivise whole industries which then in turn creates new jobs. Where could we use that the most right now? Green jobs, alternative fuel tech and infrastructure for that tech. Whose opposing that right now? The republicans.
ronaldm131Jun 5, 2011
Reply to youareretarded: You are absolutely right about business sitting on money. There is a explanation for that, that you may not want to hear. But as a self employed businessman I can tell you why. Business owners plan and grow their businesses around forecasts. In these forecasts are a number of factors that are compiled to set forth future business plans. These forecasts may depend on material costs, labor costs, utility costs, product demand, etc, etc, The list can go on. Right now there is too much uncertainity in the business world and businesses are afraid to take risks. The current administration has imposed policies and has policies in the agenda that are causing businesses to take a wait and see approach. This administration has caused a unfriendly business environment that is not designed for growth. I can't sugar coat it any better.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
youareretardedJun 5, 2011
And what would some of those unfriendly business policies be?
ronaldm131Jun 5, 2011
reply to youareretarded: Obamacare: The penalties that will be imposed on small businesses. Cap and Trade: Skyrocketing utilities and increasing costs of materials. Moratorium on the oil drilling industry which has made us more dependent on foreign oil and has caused energy prices to increase. These are just a few.
youareretardedJun 5, 2011
"Obamacare:The penalties that will be imposed on small businesses."
So you have more than 50 full time employees?
"Cap and Trade: Skyrocketing utilities and increasing costs of materials."
I'll give you this one but If the requirements have been raised for how green a business needs to be you have to admit that it does create jobs and increases innovation in order for such requirements to be met. It does this at a cost to existing businesses of course. How else would you propose we get America green and off of foreign energy? I look at it as a temporary necessity until America is on board and moving towards a real domestic energy solution.
"Moratorium on the oil drilling industry which has made us more dependent on foreign oil and has caused energy prices to increase."
BS The moratorium was temporary. If you haven't noticed you will see that gas has been rising every summer (since the last couple of years of Bush's term) and when summer end the prices only fall by an unequal amount and when anything that can be said to affect oil prices happen, prices rise and again only fall back down by a lesser amount.
The oil companies see the writing on the wall and have been slowly preparing Americans for higher gas prices.
With regards to oil prices, blame that on speculation which I can almost guarantee you are against any sort of regulations put on speculation.
spatula7Jun 6, 2011
%#$! are you stupid. Did you ever stop and consider how many businesses compete for government contracts? Thousands upon thousands. The government is the nucleus of the US economy. Millions of people in both the private sector and government depend upon government spending. It subsidizes our entire economy and without it our economy would completely collapse. Government spending creates a highly competitive and successful market that in turn creates highly competitive products and services that are consumed by commercial entities as well. Government research has spawned thousands of new ideas and companies. Millions of private sector contractors compete for jobs once owned by government employees. Without the government stepping in to bail out AIG the entire US economy would have collapsed (Yay, private sector). Are you still in high school? Have you ever started a company and competed in the real world? Do you have any clue where you live and how the world around you works? Doesn't sound like it.
novenatorJun 5, 2011Submitter
The government can create jobs and it does. I saw a bunch of people constructing roads just today. Do you think private corporations would create roads for us to use unless they can rake in a health profit from it?
norman619Jun 5, 2011
no matter how many times you say that it will not suddenly become true.
ronaldm131Jun 5, 2011
novenator: You just do NOT get it. Where did the money come from to pay that contractor? That's right...TAXPAYERS. When the contractor submitted his bid, did he include in the bid to make a profit? You're DAMN right he did. So basically all the government did was artificially create jobs to build a road with taxpayers money. This is SIMPLY called. REDISTRIBUTION of wealth. Period! The government can create these artificial jobs all day long on the backs of taxpayers until the well runs dry. Then what?
Margaret Thatcher said it best. Socialism only works until you run out of others people's money. This is not ROCKET SCIENCE. Why is this so hard to comprehend?
norman619Jun 5, 2011
They don't get basic business and economics.
youareretardedJun 5, 2011
So the people that the construction company employ because it won a bid for a job the government needed wont be spending their money with other businesses? And because of the increase in demand for goods those companies wont be hiring more people who will then be spending their money on more goods from other companies?
So where does it end? It never ends, the government will always need the private sector do work for it. The real question is when does government increase their demand for such services/goods? Does it make sense for the government to be stimulating the economy during boom times? I would say no. Does it make sense to be stimulating the economy during a recession? I'd say yes.
You want certainty in the market? Then you want the government stimulating it to bring back that certainty. Do you know why it has to be the government that does this?
BECAUSE YOU JUST SAID;
"Business owners plan and grow their businesses around forecasts. In these forecasts are a number of factors that are compiled to set forth future business plans. These forecasts may depend on material costs, labor costs, utility costs, product demand, etc, etc, The list can go on. Right now there is too much uncertainity in the business world and businesses are afraid to take risks."
THAT'S f**kING WHY!
eraptorJun 5, 2011
Ron,
That's an interesting analogy. However, as with many conservative economic theories, it's half-baked and incomplete.
Since you glossed over it, I'll fill in the rest. How does that contractor use the money the government pays him? He SPENDS it hiring workers (which generates jobs, economic activity/demand and tax revenue), investing in new equipment (generating economic activity), personal wealth and, last but not least, taxable income/government revenue. The money doesn't disappear into a socialist black hole. Instead, it is cycled through the economy. Don't forget, that infrastructure cost is really an investment since it helps maintain/foster the economic activity YOU assume exists/thrives in a vacuum. Here's a clue...it doesn't.
Take your buddy, Norm, to a decent economics class because your knowledge on the subject is sorely lacking.
bossm4nJun 5, 2011
Most likely, that was a private contractor/corporation who either won a contract based on a low bid, because they had an under the table deal with local politician(s) or because of affirmative actions, or a combination of all of the above. Regardless, they were still paid for with tax dollars, which I'm fine with, as long as they are being spent efficiently.
crosstime_saloonJun 5, 2011
My son works as a government contractor. The job his company bids on is in fact created by our government. So when will YOU PEOPLE learn and stop supporting GOP plans that worsen our economy!
Closed AccountJun 6, 2011
So, your son is a leech? Your son's company can't get jobs that the taxpayers don't pay for?
JonathonFishenatorJun 6, 2011
So you're a tool? You can't come up with a single comment other than ad homemin?
odkinJun 7, 2011
No, the Government merely identifies the NEED for temporary work to be done that fullfills the responsibilty we the people have assigned to them to build roads, etc. The government is nothing but our recruiter. The MONEY to do that work comes from citizens who actually PAY taxes, not take them.
BY the way, the more of our money the government tries to take, the less they usually end up getting. That's because high taxes suppress the economy and result in LESS income.
Also, tell your son "You're welcome", as I'm certain he is grateful for all us taxpayers, and not just for the corrupt incompetents who tend to award the government contracts.
spatula7Jun 6, 2011
The US government is the nucleus of the global economy. The US GDP is twice that of the next two biggest, China and Japan, who depend upon the US economy that in turn depends upon the US government. We do not have a spending problem, we have a productivity and government revenue generation problem. You have been lied to your whole life by Republicans and you'll likely never understand why. Let's go over the basics - how does an economy work? People spend money as a means of trade for goods and services. Whenever anyone spends money, government or non-government the economy works, people have jobs and they get paid and they consume goods and services. If the biggest player in the world (the US government) slows down its spending and consumption of goods and services what will happen?
A: The economy will expand
B: The economy will shrink
If you chose A you have to believe that an Alien race has come from outers space to trade with earth, because all that government spending in your lifetime cannot be replaced by the privates sector that suddenly has lost consumers and businesses that are connected at the hip to government spending. It is mathematically impossible for the answer to be A. So unless you are a multi-millionaire/billionaire that is so well entrenched in a niche market like say, hmmmmm, an OIL company, you're screwed if the US government isn't spending money. But if you are entrenched in say, the Oil busieness, then yes, if the US government is reduced to let's say a supportive military, you are King of the World and I apologize for wasting your time....conquer away.
Unregistered_CowardJun 5, 2011
As opposed to the Obama plan, which seem to be throw money around, hope something happens, blame everybody else when it doesn't.
Than again, the Democrats did ensure a large bloc of union auto worker votes in the next presidential election cycle.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Closed AccountJun 5, 2011
Don't forget the "point fingers at Republicans and call them meanies who want to eat babies and freeze grandma" part of the plan!
youareretardedJun 5, 2011
You mean the plan that stopped us from losing 750K jobs a month and has now been creating jobs? That plan?
Yeah I'd say that is better then no plan at all.
"Don't forget the "point fingers at Republicans and call them meanies who want to eat babies and freeze grandma" part of the plan!"
Why don't you just stop replying with nonsense and just say this instead:
quirk--
I'm a hypocrite. <insert hypocritical comment here>
I know you are good at copying and pasting so this would be easier for you and it would save you time and allow you to spam more articles.
Closed AccountJun 5, 2011
Some of us are trying to have a discussion.
youareretardedJun 5, 2011
Discussion? No I think you mean a huddle.
ronaldm131Jun 5, 2011
Yeah, like last month job creation, half of those jobs were from McDonalds. That will help the American dream.
http://digg.com/story/r/thanks_ronald_mcdonald_fast_food_chain_saved_economy_from_negative_job_rate
ganjadude4391Jun 6, 2011
every employee of the government is payed through taxation, because the government does not create anything of value, as far as I am concerned the less federal employees, the less each individual has to pay in taxes, the better for the economy. If they are good employees, they will find jobs in the private sector
aserer511Jun 5, 2011
um YES. this slims down the fat gubment spending and allows those individuals to reassimilate to the private workforce
JonathonFishenatorJun 5, 2011
Citation of this working? No explanation, just post a link.
agmlauncherJun 5, 2011
Well how about we just look at the opposite end of this spectrum: Soviet Russia where everyone worked for the government.
Government has gotten too big and employs too many people. Between federal, state, and local governments, the vast majority of people work in the government sector instead of the private sector.
That's not healthy for growth, innovation, or exports.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
JonathonFishenatorJun 5, 2011
Uh, not explain, proof. Im asking for an example of this working, not an anology.
JonathonFishenatorJun 5, 2011
Im assuming its never been shown to work because people would rather downvote than provide a simple link showing creditbility of their choices.
eraptorJun 5, 2011
Who's proposing this option?
With the exception of conservative "straw man" assumptions, like this one, I haven't heard a single liberal/progressive recommending it.
We've decimated the federal government's fiscal health and capabilities at conservative insistence/"leadership". What has it brought the country? An economic collapse, a gargantuan national deficit, the ongoing loss of economic opportunities/growth/strength. So why in the hell would we listen to ANY conservative/Republican/Teabagger. It's not as though ANY of your ideas have any shred of credibility left in them.
As for exporting our way out of this mess, keep dreaming. The Chinese have succeeded in gutting the majority of our manufacturing capabilities (also thanks to conservative-championed trade policies). Don't believe it? Try finding a "made in the USA" label these days. The ONLY public policy capable of reviving the U.S. economy is trade reform. Tax cuts, spending cuts, destruction of Medicare and every other conservative "idea" will fail for the simple reason that they aren't the CAUSE of our economic decline OR inability to recover. The U.S. is in desperate need to rebuild itself and the ONLY thing standing in its way are CONSERVATIVES and their political supporters.
JonathonFishenatorJun 5, 2011
f**king truth. People like them are the reason I probably wont be in the US in a decades time.
Closed AccountJun 5, 2011
That's reassuring.
JonathonFishenatorJun 5, 2011
Considering I'm going to leave with my Ph.d in neuroscience to do research for other countries and I'm a former US army vet, I'd say so. Enjoy your tax dollars paying for my education so I can take my skills elsewhere, primarly becuase of people like you destroying our country!
Closed AccountJun 6, 2011
RAWR! You're a doctor? Really?
JonathonFishenatorJun 6, 2011
Got another 4 years or so, but, ya, I will be. A doctor leaving the US for "socialist" Europe, wonder why that is? Must be the lack of rich tax breaks, right? lol
novenatorJun 6, 2011Submitter
Even the "Made In The USA" labels are made in China these days.
ronaldm131Jun 5, 2011
And hopefully become "productive" citizens.
kamtsaJun 5, 2011
You can drop the quotes.
kamtsaJun 5, 2011
We need less tax paid parasitic jobs and more private market productive jobs. The more money the government sucks, the less is left to the private sector. As a community organizer, Obama's MO is to suck as much as possible other people money and keep people dependent on the government forever.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
youareretardedJun 5, 2011
"We need less tax paid parasitic jobs and more private market productive jobs."
Agreed, so how does cutting government employees create those productive jobs?
Is it magic?
We would all love to go from A to C, from government jobs to private sector jobs but not A SINGLE ONE of you know what step B is and that's where you fail.
kamtsaJun 6, 2011
Cutting government employees -> reduced government spending -> less taxes -> more money investment in the private sector -> more productive jobs. QED.
It's pretty simple and proven.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
youareretardedJun 6, 2011
So when Bush cut taxes during his presidency we should have seen a boom in job creation right?
Well we didn't so your theory is flawed.
novenatorJun 5, 2011Submitter
You're talking about departments that do a lot of people a lot of good though, like teachers, firemen, safety inspectors, etc. Private industry cannot be trusted to police itself as well, we need governmental agencies to ensure compliance with certain regulatory standards.
kamtsaJun 6, 2011
Policemen, firefighters and over paid and are over protected by the unions. That's why there is so much demand for government jobs at the expense of tax payers.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
eraptorJun 5, 2011
Are you talking about the same U.S. private workforce that was decimated by decades of conservative (i.e., Republican) economic/fiscal policies.
We've been there, done that. It's time to pursue public policies which WORK for the country.
kamtsaJun 6, 2011
All we need is to take the government off our backs. This is freedom.
eraptorJun 6, 2011
Your mistaking the weight of the government for the predatory and abusive private sector. Most Americans are burdened by excessive costs created by the private, NOT public, sector.
youareretardedJun 5, 2011
"um YES. this slims down the fat gubment spending and allows those individuals to reassimilate to the private workforce"
Yeah into the private workforce!! They are hiring right now right? No? Well at least they can get unemployment with the rest of the MILLIONS OF PEOPLE ALREADY LOOKING FOR JOBS IN THE PRIVATE SECTOR.
rblancarteJun 5, 2011
GOP - "TALK" job creation
"DO" job destruction
JonathonFishenatorJun 5, 2011
More proof they should refrain from politics until they are serious. Lets give them that chance in 2012
ren1999Jun 6, 2011
The article says that;
The Bush Tax Breaks for those making over 200 thousand a year will increase our debt. If we're not going to tax enough, then we're going to have to print money with no real value. That's something Republican Diggers always complain about.
Solution: End the Bush Tax Breaks.
The Republicans want to cut government spending and government jobs to deal with the debt. More people are then out of work and don't pay payroll tax and sales tax which increases our debt even more than paying their salaries.
Solution: Create more government jobs even if the salary comes from printing money with no value -- even of that person does a poor job. This will boost worker/consumer power.
restilJun 6, 2011
Well, in theory, this would work. Government is notoriously inefficient compared to private industry, so the money is better spent there. Also, having more employees in the public workforce means more revenue for the government, thereby causing a revenue boost at the same time there's a spending cut.
The problem is, it takes time to create a private sector job to absorb the government employee that was let go, even though it WILL happen. It just won't happen quite as quickly as we'd like. It's also difficult to try it when the unemployment rate is so high. Ideally this should be done whenever the economy is strong and desperately trying to fill jobs. It's just sad that we had to wait until now to consider it.
An alternative would be for the government to just implement a permanent hiring freeze. It can move people around between departments if necessary, but it can't hire anyone else for period of say.. 5 years. And when people leave, they don't get replaced. That would achieve the same goal without dumping a bunch of extra people in the unemployment lines. The government could certainly handle this, it would just have to become more efficient. The problem with this idea is that it's very slow to take the desired effect.
youareretardedJun 7, 2011
Finally some reasoning.
drich255Jun 5, 2011
A terrible title. Labeling the plan as "stupid" automatically tells us what conclusion they want us to draw. It would be more powerful to leave off the "stupid", report the facts, and let the reader draw their own conclusion.
bdbrJun 5, 2011
Our current situation is proving both parties right, to the detriment of all. Lower taxes on the rich *have* driven job growth - 729,000 were created by American multinationals alone...in other countries. Stimulus *has* driven demand -GDP is back to pre-crisis levels...with 20 million fewer American workers.
gregadorJun 5, 2011
Perhaps we could lay off only Republicans...would that help shed some light on their lunacy?
ancient53Jun 5, 2011
Because we are running a deficit and because government workers don't add any money to the treasury it's only common sense to get rid of those who suck money out of the treasury without adding anything to it.
If you pay taxes from a non government job you are going to be paying for all the government programs including the massive interest that is accumulating.
Government workers don't pay taxes they simply have lower incomes from your tax dollars. They are called taxes but the reality is you can't pay taxes with tax dollars anymore than you can stand in a bucket and lift yourself.
Closed AccountJun 5, 2011
"They are called taxes but the reality is you can't pay taxes with tax dollars anymore than you can stand in a bucket and lift yourself."
Brilliant.
kamtsaJun 6, 2011
You hit the nail on the head! Same as giving less to the poor is not the same as taking from the poor.
gregadorJun 5, 2011
Perhaps we could lay off only Republicans...would that help shed some light on their lunacy?
youareretardedJun 5, 2011
To use a much copy & pasted letter from the right, I feel this is fitting:
"Dear Employees:
As the head of this government office, I have resigned myself to the fact that the republicans are in control of the house and will continue to use the filibuster to get what they want or to bring things to a stand still in the senate. They have decided to not focus on creating jobs but rather stopping abortions and focus on the debt, despite 30+ years of them growing that debt with no qualms about it. They have instead used this time to vilify government employees and government sponsored programs and are determined on cutting costs in these areas. So we will have to layoff about 60 employees to meet their wishes. I wasn't quite sure who to let go and thought long and hard about this decision.
So, this is what I did. I walked through our parking lots and found sixty republican, Rush Limbaugh, and tea party bumper stickers on our employees' cars and have decided these folks will be the ones to let go. I can't think of a more fair way to approach this problem. They voted for reducing the deficit and cutting government waste and I gave it to them.
I will see the rest of you at tomorrow.
THE BOSS"
ganjadude4391Jun 6, 2011
something tells me you would be in a lot of trouble for discrimination
UncleRuckuJun 5, 2011
I don't give a rats @ss for the voters! All I care about is the power and the power that'll give me the money. That's why I'm a success and you're not! America for the Americans. You believe that nonsense? You're stupider than I thought! I'd sell my soul to the Japanese if they made me an offer. And as for you, don't come suckering around me if you want something! The only thing you'll get from me is this! the gop/teapart
woodsjransomJun 5, 2011
/s
laurahoustonJun 5, 2011
would help to stop building roads and infastructure with federal funds for all the corporations oil and gold mining on public lands.
And raise the lease prices higher than the 1930s rate.
stop letting the beef industry graze almost FREE- grind the public lands to weeds and dust...and use federal funds to repair the damage and replant grass so they can trample it to crap next year..free.
and make those 700? new mines that opened next to the grand canyon (using a 1840 law) pay something. they got the mines FREE using a loophole.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
odkinJun 5, 2011
So mine and grazing licence fees - that's your solution to hundreds of billions of dollars in deficit?
And those mining companies - you DO realize that they are literally the ONLY private sector industry whose employment is currently above pre-recession levels? http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2011/06/029168.php
How many jobs should they cut to come up with your license fees?