Forum Post: Republican "Jobs" Plan
Posted 13 years ago on Nov. 8, 2011, 10:15 p.m. EST by JQcitizen
(125)
from Houghton, MI
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
So, we don't need hundreds of thousands of jobs. We can do without them. What we really need is to roll back Wall Street reforms and
"House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) released the names of 132 economists from universities and think tanks around the nation, including experts from Stanford University's Hoover Institution and the American Enterprise Institute, who said they prefer the Republican agenda to expand private-sector job growth."
"The speaker's office gave no indication on the number of economists, if any, that came out in support of Obama's agenda."
Jeepers! Wonder why that was. You'd think he would have bragged it up if it was in his favor! No "Boo-Yah!" How come? Must be Fox "fair and balanced..." (see link at the bottom. not formatting right)
About the Republican Jobs Bill:
"Since when is a plan that’s heart and soul is tax breaks for the wealthy and corporations, the rollback of essential federal regulations—including Wall Street reform—and the repeal of health care reform a jobs bill? Take a look at some of these comparisons of the American Jobs Act and the Republican jobs bill.
•The American Jobs Act would create 1.9 million jobs, according to Moody’s Analytics. Moody’s says that the Republican jobs plan won’t “address [the cause of the current weakness] in the short term….In fact, they could be harmful in the short term.”
•The American Jobs Act would enable 400,000 teachers, firefighters and first responders to keep or get jobs. The Republican jobs plan allows the widespread layoffs of those workers to continue.
•The American Jobs Act would put hundreds of thousands of construction workers back to work rebuilding the nation’s crumbling roads and bridges and modernizing 35,000 schools. The Republican jobs plan lets the nation’s roads, bridges and schools continue to crumble.
•The American Jobs Act helps the nation’s veterans find work by providing a $5,600 tax credit to employers who hire veterans who have been out of work for at least six months. The Republican jobs plan does nothing to help veterans find jobs.
•The American Jobs Act lowers taxes for almost every worker—some $1,500 a family—by extending payroll tax cut. The Republican jobs plan raises taxes for working families by letting the payroll tax cut expire."
http://blog.aflcio.org/2011/11/02/the-republican-jobs-plan-jobs-what-jobs/
Yeah the GOP, you gotta love their consistency.
Boehner link:
I would be happy to count all of the jobs the GOP has created. I have always enjoyed world travel and I have never been to most of the places where they have created jobs.
I have been in every state in the US, so it would be a waste of my time if I had to go to any of them. But not to worry, they didn't create any in the US. Nor will they.
The problem with the private sector is that they can close the factory here and reopen it around the world in another country, pay those workers 1/4 of American wages and then ship the products back here and charge nearly the same price as before.
Why do Republicans even try?
Have the Republicans ever fixed anything (except elections)? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jocRd-aajW0 [right click]
We had an industrialized economy in the United States until private enterprise outsourced our major manufacturing with the US Chamber of Commerce and Republican Party's blessings.
Mitt Romney on Outsourcing
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gym_4-o60LY [right click]
Republicans and Unemployment
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=idsipmvkLhc [right click]
Rachel Maddow – Republican Party promotes outsourcing jobs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xB0G16VswG8&NR=1&feature=endscreen [right click]
Private Equity Magic
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rodifJlis2c [right click]
The 3 Stooges who broke our economy are proof the Republicans should get out of government and politics.
The Republicans didn’t see a problem with the Gramm Leach Bliley law when it was written. Most Democrats didn’t either. Now Republicans aren’t doing anything to repair the damage and prevent recurrences. Democrats aren’t doing enough.
Byron Dorgan (D) N.D. v Gramm (R) Leach (R) Bliley (R) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OvnO_SH-4WU&list=PL399213F28C3CC71A&feature=plpp_play_all [right click]
The problem with Democrats is that they add to the people for doing NOTHING on social programs and create and defend useless jobs within government. We'll never be better off paying people to do nothing and to accomplish nothing.
Yeah, and when I look for facts, I check Rachel Maddow. LOL.
Was the United States better off under Herbert Hoover or Franklin Roosevelt? Remember FDR was elected President 4 times: 1932, 1936, 1940 and 1944.
Bill Clinton vs Franklin Roosevelt
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jkrVsYsQIcg&list=PLC9D27C32BE298724&feature=plpp_play_all [right click]
And what have banks done for the tax payer during the past 3 years? Take the bailout money to invest in emerging markets in developing countries. From the point of view of American workers the bailoutwas a useless transfer of wealth from Main St to Wall St. No jobs were created here for the millions of Americans out of work. Banks will force the government to bailout the economy.
Robert Scheer vs Larry Summers
http://www.democracynow.org/2010/9/22/could_summers_departure_herald_a_new [right click]
Yea and now Dodd Frank will do the same for insurance companies.
at least Dodd Frank protected us from Corzine (D) at MF Global. And Chase. And Barclay's. Oh, wait....
Yea, well it also includes a non-banking-entity clause to focus on those whose sole product is money - insurance companies.
They took the bailout money to stabilize themselves, and then they paid it back. In many ways, taking the bailout money was a mistake. Like some screwball uncle that lends you money, he now thinks that every dollar you spend for all eternity is his dollar and his business, even after he's been paid back.
The uncle lends the nephew (banks) money (TARP) to pay off gambling debts( bank losses). This deprives the other cousins, nephews and nieces (ordinary citizens) access to the same money and associated economic benefits. The banks made investments in currency speculation and in off-shore emerging markets for highest short-term private profits rather than investing in the shared common good (job creation in the United States). This proves private enterprise is not interested in investing in the shared common. And proves Franklin Roosevelt was right for creating many jobs in the public sector.
The nephew repays the loan, but did not use the economic opportunity to enrich the commons, it was used for private enrichment. The commons are poorer as a result.
Republicans and many Democrats believe that private enterprise is the way to prosperity. This is a myth perpetuated by the post-Civil War pre-industrialized capitalists. In the period between the Civil War and the Great Depression there wasn’t a firm concept of the commons: no national parks, no interstate highway, no electric grid, no internet, no social security, etc. The tragedy of the commons is that individuals seek to maximize their self interests by exploiting the commons which is a limited shared resource.
There is still a battle between privatization and socialization. The Federal Government has abandoned Roosevelt’s democratization policies by decreasing the size of government, cutting jobs in the public sector, and allowing deregulation after years of Republican influence.
Eliot Spitzer on Bernanke and Geitner Complicity in Financial Sector Collapse http://www.democracynow.org/2009/12/4/eliot_spitzer_geithner_bernanke_complicit_in [right click]
Michael Hudson on Currency Wars http://www.democracynow.org/2010/11/5/new_600b_fed_stimulus_fuels_fears [right click]
Every dollar spent or invested for all eternity isn't the government's dollar, especially once it's been paid back.
The size of government has been reduced? Huh? Do you mean in this country? It continues to march larger.
The tragedy of the commons is when liberals think it's free.
Why shouldn’t the commons be free? Today public libraries are free. Public parks are free. Public museums are free. Internet access is free in some places. Public education K-12 is free. In some countries universities are free. The United States is supposed to be a free country. If the United States had enough free universities, a huge chunk of national debt would disappear. Unfortunately, some people want to privatize more of the commons and require high fees for access.
The dollar is legal tender. An individual cannot mint his own coins or print his own bank notes to be used to pay public and private debts. Usually, a government declares its currency (including notes and coins issued by the central bank) to be legal tender, making it unlawful to not accept it as a means of repayment for all debts, public and private.
Fiat money is money that derives its value from government regulation or law: the initial value of fiat money is established by government decree. The term fiat currency is also used when the fiat money is used as the main currency of the country. The term derives from the Latin fiat ("let it be done", "it shall be").
Actually every dollar spent or invested for all eternity is the government's dollar.
Increased population requires increased government. Politicians promising to shrink government when the population is growing are demagogues.
Obama plan to shrink government
http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jan/13/news/la-pn-obama-seeks-power-to-combine-agencies-shrink-government-20120113 [right click]
Why Shrink the Government Ronald Reagan?
http://articles.latimes.com/2008/jul/20/opinion/op-lotke20 [right click]
Some government regulatory agencies that we trust to protect us have shrunk to insignificance or serve private industry rather than consumers.
JFK - " In the long history of the world, only a few generations have been granted the role of defending freedom in its hour of maximum danger. I do not shrink from this responsibility—I welcome it. I do not believe that any of us would exchange places with any other people or any other generation. The energy, the faith, the devotion which we bring to this endeavor will light our country and all who serve it—and the glow from that fire can truly light the world.
And so, my fellow Americans: ask not what your country can do for you—ask what you can do for your country. My fellow citizens of the world: ask not what America will do for you, but what together we can do for the freedom of man. "
John F Kennedy Inaugural Address
http://www.bartleby.com/124/pres56.html [right click]
FDR - "I am certain that my fellow Americans expect that on my induction into the Presidency I will address them with a candor and a decision which the present situation of our Nation impels. This is preeminently the time to speak the truth, the whole truth, frankly and boldly. Nor need we shrink from honestly facing conditions in our country today. This great Nation will endure as it has endured, will revive and will prosper.
So, first of all, let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself—nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance. In every dark hour of our national life a leadership of frankness and vigor has met with that understanding and support of the people themselves which is essential to victory. I am convinced that you will again give that support to leadership in these critical days."
Franklin Roosevelt's First Inaugural Address
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Franklin+D.+Roosevelt%3A+First+Inaugural+Address [right click]
GW Bush at 2000 RNC Convention http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Slmr024JYaA [right click]
Bushisms 211 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AioJbNL1JS8&list=PL2BEC5635A5CAAC8D&feature=plpp_play_all [right click]
Spoken as a true non-taxpayer. None of those things are free. Honest, ask someone that pays taxes. LOL
Captain Jean-Luc Picard : "The economics of the future is somewhat different. You see, money doesn't exist in the 24th century."
Lily Sloane : "No money ? You mean, you don't get paid ?"
Captain Jean-Luc Picard : "We work to better ourselves."
['ST' - 'First Contact' (1996)].
JH's point is fundamental as we live in times of artificial abundance and faux scarcity and we should all reflect on that at least occasionally !
multum in parvo ...
I pay taxes. Taxes should go to support the commons so that admission fees need not be charged to use them.
With a few exceptions all higher education in Sweden is publicly funded with money taken from taxes. Sweden's health care and education system are envied worldwide for their government funding.
Free Universities in Sweden http://www.ehow.com/list_6319486_list-universities-sweden.html [right click]
Consider : Love, Light, Logic & Largesse are lost on those afflicted by 'Randian Psychopathy' !!!
ad iudicium ...
There's no such thing as free. Maybe free to you, but not free in reality.
Students consume resources in their educations. Presumably, there's a benefit to the students in getting an education. Sure, sociology and women's studies, no, but most forms of education, yes. There's no reason students shouldn't be asked to respect the resources they consume. That means paying at least part of the cost themselves. It's also a good lesson so that they don't get the idea that government has the magical power to make things free.
How appalling. The students’ ability to pay for higher education has no connection to the resources consumed in learning. Similarly the cost of an education has no connection to the quality of it. Scarcity of scholarships, grants and funding is a deterrent to higher education. Worrying about money to pay for courses is such a distraction and usually is a detriment when student employment has very little to do with the student’s courses or career goals.
Over the past few decades, higher education has become available around the world to a degree unimaginable to earlier generations. Once the exclusive preserve of elites, the "massification" of higher education has provided opportunities to an ever-widening group of youth across Organisation for Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries. The inaugural edition of the Global Higher Education Rankings (2005) is, indeed, the first systematic and rigorous exploration of the affordability and accessibility of higher education within an international comparative context.
♦Sweden is the "most affordable" country in this study because of its combination of low educational costs, generous grants and high take-up of loans.
♦The Netherlands and Finland also do well because of low to middle educational costs, and generous grants, and reasonable, though limited, loans programs.
OECD Global Higher Education Rankings http://www.educationalpolicy.org/pdf/global2005.pdf [right click]
“U.S. Education Secretary Arne Duncan reacted with consternation to the 2009 results released on Tuesday, Dec. 7, by the Program for International Assessment (PISA) of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development showing that 15-year-old students in the United States are far from leadership in various fields of learning.”
“Being average in reading and science — and below average in math — is not nearly good enough in a knowledge economy where scientific and technological literacy is so central to sustaining innovation and international competitiveness. The results are especially troubling because PISA assesses applied knowledge and the higher-order thinking skills critical to success in the information age.”
USA position in International Highschool Rankings http://gcsummit.com/2010/12/08/international-rankings-of-high-school-learning-shows-u-s-far-from-leader/ [right click]
Chart of International Highschool Assesment http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/54/12/46643496.pdf [right click]
It’s a question of priorities. For profit schools teach differently than non-profit schools. Do you think the faculty teaches their courses depending on whether the students paid or could pay 100% for the course, 75%, 50%, 25% 10% or 0%? I doubt the institution would or should segregate the student body on the basis how much they paid for their courses. On the other hand the students should believe their instructors are prepared with lecture notes, student handouts, can inspire their students, and know the current developments and trends in the subject; that the laboratory equipment is functioning properly; that the courses are relevant; computer systems are operational; course materials are on the shelves at the campus bookstore.
My high school had a working chemical lab with typical laboratory equipment: test tubes, chemicals, Bunsens burners, goggles, scales, and qualified instructors. Students should be able to take that for granted. It appears many people don’t understand that the cost of education includes varying levels of profit depending on the institution. The higher the profit margin for the owners and investors the lower the quality of education for the students for the money spent. Learning in a simulated laboratory is a lot cheaper than actually having a working wet lab with real scientific instruments.
In news this week is the discovery of the Higgs boson. Thousands of physicists from dozens of countries contributed to the discovery of the Higgs boson, but there are three undisputed leaders: Joe Incandela and Fabiola Gianotti, who led the two research teams that made the discovery; and Rolf Heuer, CERN's Director General. Considering that the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) at CERN is on the border between France and Switzerland, how much does the contribution these 3 men made to financing their own education matter?
Read more: http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,2119266,00.html#ixzz20QP66Dcm
The original Large Hadron Collider took 30 years to build at a cost of more than $6.4 billion. By copying the design of the existing machine, it is possible to build your own Large Hadron Collider with minimal cost and far less effort.
The education system in Switzerland is very diverse, because the constitution of Switzerland delegates the authority for the school system mainly to the cantons. The Swiss constitution sets the foundations, namely that primary school is obligatory for every child and is free in public schools and that the confederation can run or support universities. The minimum age for primary school is about six years in all cantons but Obwalden, where it is five years and three months. After primary schools, the pupils split up according their abilities and intentions of career paths. Roughly 20% of all students attend secondary schools leading, normally after 12 school years in total to the federal recognized matura which grants access to all universities.
Education in Switzerland http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_in_Switzerland [right click]
All educational programmes in France are regulated by the Ministry of National Education (officially called Ministère de l'Éducation nationale, de la Jeunesse et de la Vie associative). The head of the ministry is the Minister of National Education, one of the highest-ranking officials in the cabinet. As of September 2009, the Minister is Luc Chatel. The teachers in public primary and secondary schools are all state civil servants, making the ministère the largest employer in the country. Professors and researchers in France's universities are also employed by the state. At the primary and secondary levels, the curriculum is the same for all French students in any given grade, which includes public, semi-public and subsidised institutions. However, there exist specialised sections and a variety of options that students can choose. The reference for all French educators is the Bulletin officiel de l'éducation nationale, de l'enseignement supérieur et de la recherche (B.O.) which lists all current programmes and teaching directives. It is amended many times every year.
Education in France http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_in_France [right click]
France and Switzerland have committed substantial resources to particle physics research for the purpose of understanding nature, not weapons design.
We should, as a Nation, move away from privatization and profiteering, which can only satisfy narrow interests, in favor of a greater, more democratic commons.
college is a banker racket.....plain and simple
More than I believed possible in this country.
Have we or anyone else ever been taught how to run this country? It's hard to deny that banks are running the country now.
http://occupywallst.org/forum/the-nation-has-completed-a-full-circle/
No government has ever EVER made something free. Training the public to use resources as though that isn't true becomes a little less amusing when you're in the paying-class, which obviously you aren't. Maker and takers.
What do you mean by free?
How many times should we pay? Are we being double dipped and gouged, too?We pay taxes. The government takes tax dollars to pay either civil service workers or contractors working for private enterprise. Then we are charged again to use something the taxes already paid for.
Tax payers pay taxes that fund research university grants.The research leads to a discovery of something of value. The discovering team applies for a patent and makes a fortune selling the product back to the tax payer.
Say the original research grant was $300,000. The research team makes $700,000 selling their product in the United States. The public paid $300,000 in the form of a grant. Then has to pay $700,000 to buy the product. Why?
Monetary policy of the Federal Reserve System is based partially on the theory that it is best overall to expand or contract the money supply as economic conditions change. The Federal Reserve has the power to make money out of thin air or vaporize money.
Is it because Americans don't want to pay higher taxes? They are going to pay higher taxes anyway or provide profits to private enterprise. Private enterprise doesn't make something free either. Government could regulate gasoline production so the cost of gasoline is the same year round instead of wildly fluctuating due to refinery scheduling which is market manipilation.
The money saved would be free.
If the public is taxed, the money goes to the commons. If the public pays a profiteer. The money stays out of the commons.
Why Shrink the Government Ronald Reagan? http://articles.latimes.com/2008/jul/20/opinion/op-lotke20 [right click]
In a 2007 interview in USA Today, William Hubbard, a former FDA associate commissioner, admitted that food safety had become a crap shoot: "The FDA has so few resources, all it can do is target high-risk things, give a pass to everything else and hope it is OK.
The agency's decline started when Reagan was president. FDA food inspections plummeted from 29,355 in 1980 to 7,668 in 1989. They stayed flat during Bill Clinton's years in the White House, then jumped past 11,000 after 9/11, amid fears that the nation's food was vulnerable to terrorist attack. Food inspections have now, however, fallen to levels below that number.
The Food and Drug Administration's seeming ineptness in finding the source of a salmonella outbreak, which has poisoned more than 1,200 people in 42 states, is case in point. What's especially troubling is that even before this episode, the Government Accountability Office had officially designated "federal oversight of food safety as a high-risk area."
The FDA first thought that tomatoes -- either grown in Florida or imported from Mexico -- were the culprit. After weeks of trying to trace the source of the salmonella, with domestic farmers bulldozing crops they weren't allowed to sell and taking a $100-million hit, the agency on Thursday ruled out tomatoes. It's now on the trail of jalapeno peppers. What's clear, though, is that imports of agricultural products have increased by 78% since 1973, but inspections of those products have decreased by 78% over the same period, according to the Coalition for a Stronger FDA, whose membership includes former chiefs of the Department of Health and Human Services, of which the FDA is a part. That's a problem because the FDA itself says pesticide violations or infectious disease occur three times more often in imported foods than in domestic foods. In 1991, there were 1.5 inspections for each $1 million worth of imported agriculture commodities; in 2006 there were only 0.4.
public hospitals and care centers please
Things are going full cycle. When I was a kid growing up in the 1960s, the Repubs were always dubbed the "party of the rich", and the Dems were dubbed the "party of the little guy".
Then things started to change as conservatives started to migrate to the R party based on values, not wealth. So you had this strange combination of wealth and "values" (whatever that is).
Now it looks like enough people are getting pissed off and speaking out nationally that the R party is once again being branded as the "party of the rich". The "values" crowd is still there, but hopefully they will begin to realize what the R agenda is really all about and migrate back to the D side where their D vote can make a difference (at least I hope that happens).
they are trying to turn america into a third world country.
And the democrats are trying to....?
Pick one:
a) Pal around with terrorists
b) Kill grandma with a Death Panel
c) Cover up the President's birth place
d) all of the above PLUS turn America into a third world country!
rotflmao.
e) Trying to improve schools so you would know that none of the above is correct.
the Bushes weren't from Texas
republicans are trying to create a generation of poverty so that the next generation considers it a favor to be allowed to survive. democrats are trying to find substitute jobs to maintain the middle class.
Yes! Find jobs...maintain economy...
I'm weak from fending off trolls. Thanks for the help.
If Repubs believe that the poor only vote for Dems for more handouts, then what sense would it make for them to want to make everyone poor? There is no logic to your belief/argument.
no they know that the poor moslty dont vote at all. it increases thier chances of winning
Wow. Do you really believe that? Do you really believe there is a dimes worth of difference between them? Yeah, they talk shit but in the end they are the same. This is why the oligarchy will stay in power. Too many sheep actually believe in what politicians say.
Some truth in that judging by Obama's failure to use his mandate. This is the first time in a lifetime of watching the two parties that the dems were so untrue to their platform. Also first time Koch brothers were bringing it so hard...anad first tiem for citizens united.
This is a new age for American politics and it is a desperate one. If we don't get it right next year, the writing is on the wall.
It remains to be seen what a democratic controlled congress and white house would do.
It would be better to have a third party sweep but I don't see one yet.
The government can only create jobs through stimulus plans, building infrastructure, or creating government jobs like police, fire, mail, schools etc...
This is why everything the mainstream repubs say about job creation is hogwash.
Economic sabotage is their policy to achieve their stated goal, which isn't jobs, it isn't manufacturing output and it isn't economic growth of any part of the business sector except the financial services and energy sectors, it is the defeat of Obama. No matter the damage to the country and to the 99%,.
All political pundits agree the economy alone controls the election. If the economy doesn't improve, Obama loses. Ergo, sabotaging the economy is the only way they can win and they know it. And they are doing everything they can to make sure they win. Every decision is guided by its contribution to the goal. They ignore their own base on issues and act to further sink the economy.
Thank you for your sane comment. The key is that they expect Americans to be so stupid that they can't see the obstruction for what it is. It has worked for them in the past. We really have to make sure that doesn't happen this time. That's why I posted the link to Sherrod Brown's letter to Boehner.
http://www.sherrodbrown.com/petition/w1110jobs/
Job openings rose to 3.4 million in September, continuing upward trend There were 3.4 million job openings on the last business day of September, up from 3.1 million in August. The hires rate (3.2 percent) and the separations rate (3.2 percent) were little changed over the month. HTML | PDF http://www.bls.gov/
3.4 million job openings and an estimated 14 million out of work. As one of the unemployed those are some pretty grim statistics. I wonder what any politician can do to stem this tide, if anything. Bad times indeed.
Politics as usual...
Obama's plans always take care of our unions and government employees, the truly important workers in our society. If we make sure they have plenty of money to spend it will help provide jobs for the rest of us!
Ok, so you put all these people to work with the American Jobs Act. Where does this money come from and what happens when the money runs out -
What you don't understand is that money used by the government is money taken out of the economy, and does nothing but deflate the economy.
What you need to understand is that the private sectors creates economical growth by "generating" new jobs when the demand is there and as a result, the economy grows and the government receives revenues in taxes from that company.
Please explain how the American Jobs Act can do that.
What needs to be done instead of promoting more government spending is get businesses to build here in the United States by making it more appealing for them to do so.
"What you don't understand is that money used by the government is money taken out of the economy, and does nothing but deflate the economy."
But money paid to workers that are put back to work puts money back into the economy. Why did you leave that out?
Money just circulates in the economy. If someone has a job, whether public or private, they are spending money in the economy. If they don't have a job they aren't. Econ 101.
So tell me how that money that once was productive and could increase in value is now take out of that enviornment and given to workers who spend the money but does not "increase the productive value of it".
Give a business man $10,000 and he will make it grow ten fold in one year - give the government $10,000 and it will still be $10,000 in one year from now.
...could increase in value...
That depends on who has the money. A businessman sees money as a means to expand his business, his wallet, his 1% goals, which are first and foremost to make a profit. The businessman does not care about people. They are nothing more than cattle for him, a means to an end, a necessary evil required for him to make his profit.
A worker sees money as a means of survival, his reward for exchanging his labor for it, using it to keep food in his mouth and his kids clothed with a roof over their heads.
Both situations assign "value" to money. The first represents profit. The second represents survival.
So this whole idea of "value" depends on which side of the fence you're on.
You need to change your way of thinking when it comes to businesses - not all people think the way you describe. Notice I said "business man" not corporation.
Also with regard to the working class - they also have the opportunity to start their own business if they so chose to do so.
Lets also not forget that if the "businessman" hires people, his business is expanding and as a result he is improving the economy.
Lets also not forget that if the government takes money away from the "businessman" his resources have been decreased and he has less to use in "improving the economy".
So, tell me does the money that the government takes from the "businessman" in taxes, reinvested that money to make a profit?
If you answer yes to that question then why then does the government need taxes?
"You need to change your way of thinking when it comes to businesses..."
Might I humbly suggest that you need to change your way of thinking when it comes to people.
"...they have the opportunity to start their own business if they so chose to do so."
Do they? Do they really? If this is such a land of opportunity as you espouse, then why do all these people you talk about voluntarily choose poverty? You know as well as I do that 9 out of 10 new small businesses fail, so even if they try there is a 90% failure rate. Any intelligent person who checks these facts before getting involved in starting a business knows the deck is stacked against him/her.
"...if the businessman hires people, his business is expanding and as a result he is improving the economy."
He is hiring people because it is benefiting him first, and employees second. And let's not forget that if he could increase profit by eliminating people, the businessman would do it in a heartbeat. If a machine is cheaper to operate and can get the job done and increase profit, then people are not necessary to make a profit and are laid off. People are NOT the consideration. Profit in a capitalistic system is the SUPREME goal. There is no other goal.
"...if the government takes money away from the businessman his resources have been decreased and he has less to use in improving the economy."
But that money still exists. It didn't evaporate. To the businessman it might seem like it did, but if the government properly used the money (and admitedly ours usually doesn't due to wasteful spending and poor focus on where it should go) then a majority of people could benefit from it. The problem with government is not that it taxes and spends money, but that it taxes and spends money on the wrong things. But this could be corrected if people really wanted to do it.
They don't.
You should be asking where will the money come from, if Americans don't go back to work. If the economy continues to deteriorate, and the few remaining safety-net programs are emasculated.
Businesses stopped manufacturing in the US long ago because labor was much cheaper overseas. The only way to make it appealing for them to return is to drop the cost of American labor to third-world levels which is already a work in progress. The economic theory you summarize and parrot is called supply-side economics, which has repeatedly failed; first before the Great Depression. Will Rogers mocked the theory and gave it a new name, when he said, "The money was all appropriated for the top in the hopes that it would trickle down to the needy. Mr. Hoover didn't know that money trickled up." Apparently neither do you.
Trickle down economics triggered the current economic crisis. All the wealthy elite, the ruling class, the capitalists got the tax breaks, but didn't create jobs in the US. They created them overseas. So, American workers are stuck with the bills but none of the benefits.
I can think of a sure way to create jobs; eliminate the ruling class, redistribute the wealth; use the excess capital for worker-controlled industries.
I agree with everything you say.
Now, how do you propose we get rid of the ruling class?
They are getting rid of themselves apparently, because it is getting "hot in the kitchen".
http://occupywallst.org/forum/what-will-happen-if-andor-when-the-1-leave/
We need a workers' government first then it's a matter of a heavily graduated income-tax, etc.
How are we supposed to get a workers' government when the government and elections are corrupted by the ruling class?
That's a question all of us have to ask. I suppose the best way is to keep pushing non-violently: demonstrations, protests, occupy actions until the movement gathers enough support. Sometimes it takes years. Rosa Parks first refused to give up her seat in 1955. Though much has been accomplished in civil rights, we still see attacks on the poor and minorities; the struggle continues.
I agree with your comments here entirely. This rotten system will not be over-turned in the voting booth any time soon. Being in the streets is the only solution.
So tell me how does "trickle up economics" work? Tell me how an individual can provide a job for himself and others to grow the economy?
You obviously misunderstood Will Rogers and my entire comment. Trickle-up economics is what we have now; the money given to rich was supposed to trickle down, but didn't.
The solution to our unbalanced system, of course, is to rid society of the parasitic state and of the ruling class (since you difficulty with that term), the wealthy elite, the 1%, the capitalists, those who own the means of production, redistribute that wealth, and collectively provide work for all. It's called communism.
So, we rid society of the parasitic state and of the ruling class The wealthy elite The 1% The Capitalists Those who own the means of production
Ok once we get rid of them and redistribute that wealth and collectively provide work for all show me how that "advances society".
Show me one country where that has worked and the people are happy.
Since Shule replied about some countries in which modified communistic systems have worked, I'll stand on his reply, except to add that in Venezuela Hugo Chavez is restructuring the society very methodically. At times he's been a bit authoritarian, but never resorted to totalitarianism, which he easily could have.
Even in the capitalist countries, modified to placate the working class, like the USA, a large amount of unrest and dissatisfaction exists in spite of all the resources and wealth of this nation. The United States is the most agriculturally abundant nation of all times, yet we have about 12% of the population experiencing some type of food deprivation. An even larger percentage have no health insurance or easy access to routine medical care.
Take a look around; look at the homeless people, at the hungry, at the sick and tell me that everything is coming up roses in this country.
Well, lets compare the population of the United States to any other country that you think should be a modle for the US. I will guarentee you that any of these countrys you talk about have a larger population of people who are hungry, sick and homless.
BTW, people who are at the poverty level do get subsistence from the government - and I'll be willing to bet that those who do get subsistence from the government have a much better lifestyle then many folks in any of those countries you mention.
How many of them own their own vehicles, have public transportation, paved roads, electricity, and many more amenities including cell phones, internet service and a host of other things that other countries you want to use as a modle for the United States don't have.
All the Scandanavian countries have equal or better standards of living than we do. Venezuela is a poor country, still battling the remnants of feudalistic society, as Cuba has. Such countries have a long way go.
Most of the homeless people I've seen don't get much or any help from the government; most of the time government thugs, masquerading as servants of the people, go in and break up the shanty towns.
Sweden, Norway, Venezuela, France, Germany, Denmark, Cuba, ......
Alright lets compare the population of those coutries to that of the United States. It's easy to say a population of 5 million people or 35 million people can do certain things with regard to their governemt and what the government supplies.
Our government can't control the economy let alone try to set up a healthcare system. Look at what's going on with Social Security and Medicare.
Most of Europe is "socialized." (actually they're capital countries with social governments.), it is larger than the U.S.A. in population, and although they also have their share of economic problems (much of it fostered by the U.S.A.) they are able to take care of their people.
The problem in our government is not the government per se, but the private enterprise and foreign lobbies corrupting our government.
There is nothing wrong with social security or medicare. Actually there is plenty of money in those funds, only that it is being diverted to other things.
The question we should be asking is not why are we being taxed so much, but rather ask why is our tax money going to the wrong things, like to corrupt banks and corps, and making wars.
The Bush stimulus where he gave everyone a $700 check worked wonders :)
Yah, and Obama gave everyone $35.00 that worked wonders in their payroll deduction.
I believe Pres Obama gave everyone $3k each per year in various tax cuts. More is comin just stay with our great Pres.
Elect more progressives, Vote out conservative plutocrat tools!
Peace
Damn, did you just say he was a great president. Are you from an alternate reality by chance !!!
You're gonna go on another partisan anti Obama tirade now.?
Or your gonna launch a disgusting, offensive, vulgar attack on me personally because you and I disagree.? Which is it.?
Maybe both.
LMFAO
PEACE!!!!
What? I can't do a reality check. C'mon, you can level me with me, in your alternate universe, Obama did not surround himself with Bush cabinet team and cleaned up all the money corrupting politics, right?
The people are not as relevant as the policy
The Pres and the Dems tried to pass strong fin reform and the repubs watered it down. How come you don't complain about that reality? Giving the repubs a pass on that.?
The repubs held up the fin consumer protection agency. No complaints from you on that! Another pass for the repubs?
They have delayed the formation of all regs related to the already weak fin reform, delaying implementation! No complaints! Another repub pass.
You are clearly anti Obama. That much is clear. I don't like the people Obama brought in around him. But He and the Dems attempted to get strong fin reform policy and your repubs watered it down, and have delayed it.
Your lack of acknowledgement of these REALITIES betrays your republican partisanship.
Maybe you are just uninformed about these realities. Who knows. I can't pretend that the problem isn't republicans who proudly trumpet right wing 1% policies that benefit the plutocrats. (as well as always some dems who cave in to vote for those right wing policies)
We need stronger fin reform, (glass steagel) and we will have it with dems before repubs.
So until the anarchists get the whole recreate gov from the bottom up/horizontal/direct dem thing going I will continue to challenge you guys who pretend that repubs aren't at the center of our problems.
Who excuse and cover for repubs by spreading the fallacy that "the parties are the same". Please. we need to be a little more sophisticated than that..
Elect more progressives, Vote out conservative 1% tools.
PEACE!!!
That is a lot of double speak and changing the subject. I want to know why you said...think....Obama is great. The only way I could bestow that honor on him is if he had gotten money out of politics, then I could say he accomplished something of great value to the American people. I want to know how you can say that Obama is great with a straight face :-D
I'm entitled to my opinion even if you don't agree. You ain't so important that you matter.
Pres Obama is great because in the face of obstruction from the right wing plutocrat tools you give a pass to he has moved health care forward, he has moved fin reform forward, he has begun the process of undoing the endless war on terror mentality your repubs created when they exploited the 9/11 attacks.
He has spoken out strongly against your repub citizens united ruling.
He has made progress even though you and your repubs have been up his a#@ relentlessly. Even though your repubs have misused the filibuster in a traitorous effort to prevent and slow our recovery.
He speaks out in favor of OWS and a progressive agenda. He will improve the health care law (adding public option) he will improve the fin reform (adding glass steagle)
if we can get together, recognize the small progress he has made and vote out the obstructionist republicans who proudly trumpet the policies of the 1% plutocrats.
Elect progressives! Vote out spineless dems who vote for right wing policies!
Still giving the repubs a pass? Are you a repub plant?
Peace & love.
I want some of whatever your high on mate. Also, I wish I could see your face right now...is it straight. I bet it wasn't, I bet you were grinning crooked from ear to ear while you typed that Obama is great because...paragraph.
You still give repubs a pass so I guess you are a partisan repub plant?
Yes?
Been a long time sinceI was high. ;)
Elect progressives! --- Agreed?
Vote out conservative plutocrat tools! -- Agreed?
PEACE!!!!
Do you have a lick of logic running through your drug addled brain on top of your neck? At what point have I mentioned repub's? The only official party lover running through these here woods is you.
The only thing I agree to is the fact that your a condescending prick and I'm still waiting for my apology. You can type peace without any sincerity a zillion times or you can actually attempt to make peace, the choice is yours.
We are defined by what we support. I think that is fair enough. However, I'd prefer withholding judgement as long as possible. and just engaging on specific issues of possible.
Agreed Truce
Peace
Agreed. Your picture may turn out to be the right one, and I may one day eat my words. So time will be the proper judge. Peace.
You need to stop with the offensive vulgar insults. Your not gettin an apology.
You don't seriously think I believe you are against repubs do you?. You only criticize Pres Obama. you never criticize repubs.? You didn't comment on the facts I listed about your repubs.
Give it up!
Vote out spineless dems who vote with republican plutocrat tools.!
WAR!
Is that last bit a call to war or against it? Should that not be NO WAR!
You made some slur about my Peace signoff so I put something I thought you'de prefer.
In any event. I am anti war, I am anti the BUSH/Obama drone assassinations with out trial.I am anti NDAA, Patriot act, Warrentless wiretaps.
And I am mostly against the fear mongering, endless "war on terror" atmosphere that the repubs created when they exploited the 9/11 attacks and have allowed for all the above activity.
Peace?
I did not slur, I don't even drink alcohol. Why would I slur?
Are we defined by what we are against or what we support?
Truce.
Google Flash crash and you will find out what happened to financial reform.
He sold out again.
Who he? The President?. Or you talkin about the republicans? Didn't they water it down? Haven't they delayed any new regulations from being set up?
Haven't they delayed the final implementation of the weakened version they created?
Haven't they gone on the record stating they will cut fin reform. And haven't the Dems gone on the record that they will strengthen it is they can get the votes?
Is that the "sell out" your talkin about?
Or is this just another one in a long line of your anti Obama partisan attacks?
I'm jes Aksin'.
Peace,
Seems how you are too dumb to remember from one day to the next, I dont support either of them.
Go google it and you will find out. Open your eyes. This is OWS, not Obama 2012 Forum.
"dumb"? more insults already? Please refrain from this childishness. Why would I want to read yet another one of yourefforts atpartisan attacks against the President.
I already know you don't like him. Didn't we establish you were a republican plant?. I thought you admitted you never attacked repubs and believe all problems begin and end with the dems shows your proclivities to the repubs.?
Didn't you say that.?
Peace
So who do you mean "he sold out again"?
Sorry to disagree with you but President Bush tried several times to regulate Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae but was stopped by the Dems - and primarily by Barney the Clown Frank
http://elenaives.com/attempts-president-bush-reform-fannie-mae-freddie-mac/
http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/franks-stopped-bush-in-03-to-regulate-fannie-mae-17-times/blog-29077/
More repub talkin points. The world economic crash created by Bushs plutocrat friends had nothing to do with the Macs.
The big banks, Financial firms, Hedge fund, vulture caps, ratings guys, mtg corps. were the guys who got away with the loot.
The macs screwed some things up (on the back end) because of the clowns that your boy Bush put in charge of them.
Your a good little right wing parrot but you don't fool anyone.
You Republican partisan you!
Elect progressive, Vote out spineless dems who vote for right wing policies.
Peace!
Oh really - then why does Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae own millions in toxic loans. Those loans were a result of our government "forcing" banks and lending institutions to give loans to people well knowing that they couldn't afford them.
In return they felt the need to guarentee them and buy them back from the banks because they ended up being toxic.
No body made them give subprime loans to borrowers who qualified for better terms! That was rampant. No one forced them to robo sign foreclsures! No body forced to give themselves obscene salaries/and bonuses when their banks were approaching bankruptcy. Nobody forced them to package bad mtgs in misleading fin packages. Nobody forced them (and their ratings agency co conspirators) to give these "shitty" fin vehicles good ratings.
Please, Please, Please. LMAFAO
I will not excuse the criminals who got away with the loot.
Peace
LMFAO. So the poor banks were forced to make bad loans.? LMFAO
Thats rich. The banks got away with the loot. In every con/scam just follow the money. The macs were left with toxic loans, the banks are doin just fine.
You can excuse those criminals but I won't.
You must be joking. What a laugh. That is such total BS. pedal that to someone else.
LMFAO.
As a matter of fact, they were: Read on:
They were required to meet affordable housing goals, set annually by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) in accordance with The Federal Housing Enterprises Financial Safety and Soundness Act of 1992.
The purchase of PLS backed by subprime mortgages counted toward meeting these goals because the underlying mortgages tended to be made to less-than-median-income borrowers or were collateralized by properties in “underserved areas” (HUD, 2010).
What needs to be done instead of promoting more government spending is get businesses to build here in the United States by making it more appealing for them to do so.
absolutely we should drop the minimum wage to $2.75 another job need never go to china again. only problem there is it makes can collecting look good.
Job openings rose to 3.4 million in September, continuing upward trend There were 3.4 million job openings on the last business day of September, up from 3.1 million in August. The hires rate (3.2 percent) and the separations rate (3.2 percent) were little changed over the month. HTML | PDF
http://www.bls.gov/
And the Democrats? How are they different?
Ok, so you put all these people to work with the American Jobs Act. What happens when the money runs out -
What you don't understand is that money used by the government is money taken out of the economy, and does nothing but deflate the economy.
What you need to understand is that the private sectors creates economical growth by "generating" new jobs when the demand is there and as a result, the economy grows and the government receives revenues in taxes from that company.
Please show me how the American Jobs Act can do that.