Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: The Obama Jobs Bill

Posted 7 years ago on Oct. 29, 2011, 12:35 a.m. EST by greenearthan (0)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Would you guys PLEASE put up a list of the names of all the Republican Senators that voted against the recently proposed jobs bill and millionaire tax? I want to know the specific NAMES of the people screwing us the most in Congress and I'm having so much trouble finding this information. I think if there was more accountability here , ie.. if the American public had easier access to exactly what the names of these people are it would help the cause a great deal and at least people would know which Congressmen to write letters to.

176 Comments

176 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 2 points by dv8 (25) 7 years ago

Why don't you ask why the Democrats rejected the Republicans' request for an open "up/down" vote that would have clearly identified which Senators were for or against the bill?

[-] 2 points by DisillusionedToHope (1) from Philadelphia, PA 7 years ago

If you watch the Ed Show on MSNBC at 8pm weekdays the names of the senators who voted against adding jobs in the jobs bill at the bottom of the screen. I think his web site will have that too. Essentially the republicans filibustered the bill so it was not even brought up for discussion. It requires 60 votes to over ride the filibuster and there were less than 60 democrats in the senate.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by bootsy3000 (180) 7 years ago

Actually, no, the "American Jobs Act" includes $253 billion in tax cuts and $194 billion in spending. The tax cuts include $175 billion for an extension of last year’s reduction in the employee payroll tax; $65 billion to cut employer payroll taxes in half and $5 billion for a bonus payroll tax cut for new hires. Under his proposal, taxes would be halved on the first $5 million in wages, which the White House said would benefit 98 percent of all businesses. Perhaps you, our resident troll, haven't noticed that it was MOSTLY tax cuts and we desperately NEED government spending to get some jobs going because no on else is hiring, and oh yeah, our infrastructure is crumbling and our schools suck.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by bootsy3000 (180) 7 years ago

Really, MikeyD, that's the best you got? You sound tired. Must've been a long day for you.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by bootsy3000 (180) 7 years ago

You're confusing sarcasm with rhetoric.

[-] 0 points by gawdoftruth (3698) from Santa Barbara, CA 7 years ago

boo yow! u handled that right sweetly!

[-] 1 points by chuck1al (1074) from Flomaton, AL 7 years ago

All Senators who are Republican voted against it....It will be easy to get even...just never vote for a Republican.

[-] 1 points by cmt (1195) from Tolland, CT 7 years ago

This site has a list of the Grover Norquist pledge signers, all of whom have signed a pledge with this lobbyist never to increase taxes....on the rich.

http://www.atr.org/taxpayer-protection-pledge

It's a list you should have, and it is bi-partisan.

[-] 1 points by bootsy3000 (180) 7 years ago

EVERY Republican voted against it, i shit you not. Two dems, Ben Nelson of Nebraska and Jon Tester of Montana, also voted against it (they are in heavily Republican districts and I think up for re-election.)

[-] 1 points by socal63 (124) 7 years ago

I love the fact that it's called a "jobs bill". We should propose a "make everything go away and people will all be happy bill". Who wouldn't vote for that?.

[-] 1 points by sudoname (1001) from Berkeley, CA 7 years ago

According to this site, 1549 hasn't been voted on yet:

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s112-1549

See (some) voting records: http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/112/house/1/key-votes/

I couldn't find the jobs bill on there.

BTW, if someone has a better resource for this lemme know. Also this is a GREAT place for OWS to step up and organize/technologify things.

[-] 1 points by Beca (69) 7 years ago

www.sunlightfoundation.com You can find anything you want about the workings and underworkings of our government, elected representatives, and all the money that runs around there. It's a fantastic resource!

[-] 1 points by ilove99ofowstac (7) 7 years ago

take the red pill

[-] 1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 7 years ago

We are DEAD broke. The jobs bill would be funded by Goldman Sachs. We need tax reform, banking reform and trade reform. This bill is nothing more than spending financed by the banks.

[-] 1 points by Beca (69) 7 years ago

You are correct, but the worse part of this jobs bill is the deceptive "middle class tax cuts" the president slipped in there and it touting as a "tax cut". This does not cut your federal taxes, it cuts your FICA (Social Security) and Medicare taxes---the only revenue the Social Security and Medicare funds have are our payroll taxes. Cutting these taxes at a point when there is already less revenue going in because of the unemployment epidemic is one of the most damaging things anybody could do to these funds.

But like most of the horrific things this president has done, he's managed to keep people totally deceived. He forgets to tell you that my letting you have a few more dollars now, you will be eating the left over cat food, and won't even be able to afford a veterinarian for your healthcare when you are too old to be able to work!

[-] 1 points by zoom6000 (430) from St Petersburg, FL 7 years ago

All the Republican .,but you should ask who the 2 democrate voted againsted

[-] 1 points by onepeople (49) 7 years ago

its good to know that there are still smart ones out there

[-] 1 points by bootsy3000 (180) 7 years ago

no, a smart person would've posted their names. Yes, two Dems voted against it. THat's not why it didn't pass, though. It was the fifty or so republicans who voted against it, is why didn't pass. ALL of them voted against it. Don't you think that is the bigger, more telling, more systematic problem?!

[-] 1 points by humanity (0) 7 years ago

Time for an American version of the October Revolution??

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 7 years ago

what are the projects to be achieved by the newly employed workers

[-] 1 points by ctls (4) 7 years ago

Hi To get this county going strong again we need to cerate jobs. I have a plan if you would hear me out. Like the tariffs we could use the IRS to charge more taxes to companies that are American companies but build over seas. Example Company A does everything here they pay 15% (let use fake number for easy of explain) Company B has it factory over seas and it customer service there as well let charged them 45% and, Company C just has it factory over seas lets charge them 30%. this way we encourage company to stay here and even bring back there factories , but most important new companies to form here. Think of it this way, wash machine company make a good wash machine for $700 here and another company make a let quality machine in China for $450. but the one in Chine now cost $650. I would buy the better one make here because it is a better deal. This encourages customer to buy American and not just shop by price. Plus this the Government get to taxes from all the worker in the American factories and the Factories overseas no taxes from workers the Government can make up the taxes from the companies. I would like someone to get back with me and let me know if interested in hear more details. This could help make America strong for years to come but is probably political death. Kevin

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 7 years ago

use double line breaks for line breaks

[-] 1 points by ctls (4) 7 years ago

Hi To get this county going strong again we need to cerate jobs. I have a plan if you would hear me out. Like the tariffs we could use the IRS to charge more taxes to companies that are American companies but build over seas. Example Company A does everything here they pay 15% (let use fake number for easy of explain) Company B has it factory over seas and it customer service there as well let charged them 45% and, Company C just has it factory over seas lets charge them 30%. this way we encourage company to stay here and even bring back there factories , but most important new companies to form here. Think of it this way, wash machine company make a good wash machine for $700 here and another company make a let quality machine in China for $450. but the one in Chine now cost $650. I would buy the better one make here because it is a better deal. This encourages customer to buy American and not just shop by price. Plus this the Government get to taxes from all the worker in the American factories and the Factories overseas no taxes from workers the Government can make up the taxes from the companies. I would like someone to get back with me and let me know if interested in hear more details. This could help make America strong for years to come but is probably political death. Kevin

[-] 1 points by thoreau42 (595) 7 years ago

Please explain to me how government creates jobs. LOL.

[-] 2 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 7 years ago

by hiring and employing people for service and labor

[-] 1 points by sfsteve (151) 7 years ago

Lets get this one thing straight. The question, "Where will the money come from?", contains a clever lie within its very premise. The question implies the government's money actually does comes from somewhere, which is not true.

The government creates money out of thin air. The government does not need to tax people to get money or to cut spending to get money. It can simply sell treasuries to the fed and get as much money they want whenever they want. They could build a nationwide high speed rail system, they could put solar panels on each and every home. Hell, if they so chose, they can write checks for $20,000 and send one to each and every American in the country.

The only risk to doing this is inflation. If a large amount of inflation occurs, it would mostly hurt those who currently hold large amounts of treasuries or cash. This explains pretty much why they don't do it.

But if they did flood the country with government spending there is a good chance that the increase in commerce would keep inflation in check. If it did not, then by either raising interest rates or taxes, the inflation could be eliminated.

Big spending now does not lead to higher taxes tomorrow. Rather, big spending now leads to immediate economic growth today. Only if the spending outpaces the growth, are taxes required to stabilize inflation, and even in that case there are other options.

[-] 1 points by Beca (69) 7 years ago

sfsteve, you seem to forget one key thing--the T-bills are backed by our tax dollars, so if there is no tax money going into the government to back up the T-bills, then the T-bills are worth as much as nothing. I agree that there is a huge problem with the Fed, that does print more money than we actually 'have' to cover all their bad bets, like our wars.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 7 years ago

how would raising interest rates lower inflation?

[-] 1 points by sfsteve (151) 7 years ago

Interest rates remove money from circulation like taxes do. When there is less money around prices drop.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 7 years ago

ah,,

[-] 1 points by thoreau42 (595) 7 years ago

Where does it get the money to hire people?

It takes from private enterprise. Money that would have been hiring and employing people privately. At best, government jobs are a zero sum game. And, if the inefficiency of government, historically, is any indication, not even close to that.

[-] 2 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 7 years ago

private groups aren't hiring

[-] 1 points by thoreau42 (595) 7 years ago

Sure they are, just not like they used to.

You bring up a good point, which leads to a long explanation as to why we're in this mess in the first place. But how is "building infrastructure" actually doing anything for the economy? You have to understand economics in a basic sense to talk about this stuff...Economic growth occurs with the production of value. Value is taking something not useful, and making it useful (or improving its usefulness). That's an increase in resources, an increase in the economy, and an increase in the standard of living.

So what does ripping up a road that you already have, or ripping up a school, do to increase the economy? It's no better than just taking cash from productive people and giving it to people who aren't working. I mean, you get a newer road, but you already had a road to begin with. It's like trading in your year-old car, buying a brand new car, and then saying you made a great financial decision. The reality is that it's a horrible financial decision.

[-] 2 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 7 years ago

solar plants would help

I It is a high-end apartment project jointly developed by China and Sweden. The project will be built into Swedish “B001 project” in China. The project will feature “4 savings and 1 environmental protection”, i.e. energy saving - relies 100% on renewable energies such as wind power, solar power, biomass, geothermal power and achieves autarky; water saving - with rooftop virescence and filtering treatment; land saving - adopts low-density, compact, secret and highly-efficient land utilization principle; material saving - uses advanced apartment construction technology and renewable material; environmental protection: bio-diversity protection, vegetation roof, wastes disposal and power, thermal generation through waste disposal.The planned land occupation is 531 mu. Information technology is fully utilized in the overall planning of the community; the automatic process management and control will be realized, accordingly forging the world-class sustainable development concept and technology and truly accomplishing the objective of “zero consumption and zero emission”.The investment for the project is estimated to be 2 billion Yuan.

http://en.tangshan.gov.cn/news.asp?id=1670

we invented that first

[-] 1 points by Beca (69) 7 years ago

It's a fantastic project that will never see the light of day in the U.S. Corporate greed will make sure of that! There is "no profit" in the sun or air, like there is in dirty oil and dangerous nuclear--why do you think this country hasn't embraced the cleanest, cheapest forms of energy by now? GREED

[-] 2 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 7 years ago

automobiles

[-] 0 points by thoreau42 (595) 7 years ago

Right, if the government stepped out of the energy arena, and let businesses develop and compete, you'd see a ton of alternative energy being driven. Such as sugarcane ethanol, which is not being driven because the government is intervening on behalf of corn.

If there is money to be made, private actors would be there making it! The government, by default, almost always engages in money losing ventures.

[-] 3 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 7 years ago

private business develops for money not the future

[-] 0 points by thoreau42 (595) 7 years ago

Oh, right, government has your best interest in mind. I forgot.

[-] 3 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 7 years ago

if the government is controlled by the people

[-] 1 points by thoreau42 (595) 7 years ago

If we can agree that power corrupts, then why couldn't we agree that we should decentralize power?

It's not perfect, but the more we spread it out, the better chance we all have.

[-] 0 points by thoreau42 (595) 7 years ago

lol, which it never has been and never will be.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 7 years ago

doom

[-] 1 points by Beca (69) 7 years ago

In case you haven't noticed, modern day corporations do not want to have to compete with anybody--they want to have it all for themselves! Their way of "competing" is to swallow up everything around them to leave the field clear for them to run to straight to the coal mine. That to me is cheating, the same way banks cheated and we ended up paying for their bad gambling decisions. Corporations are monsters, and with all the corporate deregulation that has happened over the past 30 years, they are out of control monsters that are swallowing up everything in its path, and if we don't stop them now there will be no tomorrow for this country!

[-] 1 points by Beca (69) 7 years ago

thoreau, you are living in some dream land!! The government is what has pushed for innovation. The private sector is ONLY interested in innovation that will produce more profit for them--they have no interest in what would be better for the people, the environment or more efficient. If they can find a way to suck out your last penny, they will. If whatever new source of energy doesn't get them more profit--they will fight tooth and nail to keep it from materializing. Hence, why wind and solar energy have been such flops in this country. WAKE UP!

[-] 1 points by thoreau42 (595) 7 years ago

Let me make sure I follow your logic. The corporations are only interested in profits, so they do nothing good with other peoples interest in mind. The government is NOT interested in profits, this is why they allow themselves to be bought by corporations and influenced by money. All because they're looking out for you, average joemama.

Please explain to me how the government protecting corn ethanol, when sugarcane is much more effective, is in your best interest? How is that good for the environment, or even good for agriculture? How is that good for alternative energy? You can't explain it, you know why? Because government is protecting an alternative energy cartel! LOL.

Nevermind, I guess I should go wake up.

[-] 1 points by Beca (69) 7 years ago

I did not say our existing government is protecting the people, from the ruthless greed of the corporate cartel. I did say that is why governments are SUPPOSED to exist--to serve and protect the people. Out of control greed is the main problem, the corporate monsters began to dangle the shinny green object in front of the eyes of our politicians, and began to create a commercial political campaign system that made it impossible for any candidate to run without millions of dollars--political advertising costs have become obscene, intentionally, to force the politicians to be bought by the corporate monsters.
Our government is broken right now because it is now owned by the corporations---this is the basis of this movement--we want our government back from the greedy claws of the corporations! You want to kill the government because it's not working right now--and then what? Leave the Corporations to rule us directly? Is that what you are proposing here? Don't worry, we are getting there--it's called Fascism, and we are a hair away from that now!

[-] 1 points by thoreau42 (595) 7 years ago

A good blueprint of decentralization is the original Constitution. Originally, States were competing powers, and more powerful than the federal government.

[-] 1 points by Beca (69) 7 years ago

Heck, why don't we just break the country into 50 different countries? then we can solve that problem! Oh but wait, each country will then have their own government! What would be different in your idea thoreau--if you give the states more power, won't they just do the same shit our "large" gov. is doing? get bought by the corporations, create legislation that benefits the corporations, and destroy us--so what would be different?

[-] 1 points by thoreau42 (595) 7 years ago

My official political stance is decentralization. I believe that power corrupts and therefore, it should never be consolidated. It's clever for you to put words into my mouth.

As for your argument about government, AGAIN, I get that you have this utopia view about a benevolent overlord who watches out for your every need, but history is littered with examples of governments who butchered their own people... and those were just the extreme ones you hear about. What about all the others? Nice guys?

[-] 1 points by Beca (69) 7 years ago

Well, then how might your idea of "decentralization" actually work? Please explain. Who has the final decision in policy? Who runs things? or is it all to each it's own and whoever makes it good and whoever doesn't tough shit?

[-] 1 points by Beca (69) 7 years ago

economic growth does not happen if there is nobody who can pay for the products available. When a country has a nearly 20% unemployment rate (the true estimate), there are way less people who can purchase the products sold, and the other 80% of employed people are scared shittless they may be less, so they are going to slow down their purchases too--hence, the economy can't grow unless first the unemployment rate drastically improves.
Bailing out the banks (which both GW Bush and Obama did) does nothing to improve the real economy--it only improves the ponze scheme of wall street. The real economy, the one where we live in wasn't helped one bit, in fact, it was hurt more. If that bailout would have gone directly to the people (it's our money anyway) then people would have had money to buy the products that have been sitting on the shelves, and that would have boosted the economy! Tinkle Down Economics is a farce!

[-] 1 points by thoreau42 (595) 7 years ago

And how does the unemployment rate improve? By freeing people to create goods and services. Unemployment doesn't improve when we "put people to work" "building infrastructure".

Please explain to me the economic benefit of ripping up a road we already have and building a new one? Or knocking down a perfectly good school for a newer one? There is none! You might as well just give people the cash! Unless the jobs you want aren't actual jobs, you know, where people produce things to sell and do service related things. If the jobs you want to create are ditch digging, asphault laying, jackhammering jobs, that's fine. Just don't expect a lot of upward economic mobility. These things have a finite value.

Real growth happens when people produce, create, and provide necessary services. Infrastructure isn't holding us back. Spending isn't holding us back. CREATING (manufacturing, producing), the lack of it, is holding us back.

[-] 1 points by Beca (69) 7 years ago

"by freeing people to create goods and services" Hmmm, and who exactly is holding these "people" hostage thoreau? Might it be the big monster corporations who own the monopoly on everything, including all the patents under the sun, whereby preventing anybody from being able to create anything unless the big corporate monsters first get a huge cut out of it? You are blaming the "gubmint" for this too? seriously? THE GOVERNMENT IS OWNED AND OPERATED BY THE CORPORATE CARTEL. We can keep "changing" the players in the government--but it won't matter because the government is owned and operated by the corporate cartel. So either we defeat the corporate monster or we keep getting flushed down the toilet as we cast our pretend votes for our pretend corporate politicians, and we pretend we still have "our" government. There was a government coup by the Corporate monsters and nobody noticed!

[-] 1 points by thoreau42 (595) 7 years ago

I don't disagree that corporate entities have extended thier bounds. I see the solution there as a pretty simple one. Don't give them any money. I agree with your sentiment. We are on the same page in theory, though not in practice.

The difference between us is that I am willing to hold all parties responsible for their share. Everything that corporations have done, THE GOVERNMENT HAS LET THEM, AND DONE MORE BESIDES! I'm not sure what part of this doesn't register. It's not JUST corporations. Or you still believe in the myth of the benevolent overlord?

[-] 1 points by Beca (69) 7 years ago

Not sure I understand your last sentence there. You want to kill the government and you believe that will solve the problem. I am saying it won't because whatever "new" government is formed it will be quickly infected by the corporate monsters UNLESS we change the power structure here!! We, the People SHOULD have the power, NOT the Corporate Cartel! Look up the history of corporations in this country--at first the corporate law was very strict--corporations only existed at the will of the people, and therefore, they existed to serve the needs of the people by providing needed goods and services, in exchange of providing jobs. That structure changed--slowly, and so nobody paid much attention. We are at at point that we have to push them back in their place, BEFORE we can create a new government that serves the people first and foremost.
Yes, the cause of all this mess IS uncontrolled Corporate Greed. That is the cancer that is killing this country!!

[-] 1 points by thoreau42 (595) 7 years ago

The only real hope you have for that is to go back toward the Constitution. Which, in practice, is extremely unpopular.

No, I am not saying "kill the government". I thought I already explained that my official political stance is decentralization.

"That government is best which governs least"; and I should like to see it acted up to more rapidly and systematically. Carried out, it finally amounts to this, which also I believe, — "That government is best which governs not at all"; and when men are prepared for it, that will be the kind of government which they will have." http://thoreau.eserver.org/civil1.html

And I would like to add that "that government which governs less today than it did yesterday is a BETTER government". That's what I want, a better government. Which can only be attained by lessening.

The bigger, more centralized, the gubmint becomes, the less "you the people" will be able to control it.

[-] 1 points by Beca (69) 7 years ago

How exactly do you define "which governs" what are you refering to?

[-] 1 points by Beca (69) 7 years ago

I also agree with you that our lack of manufacturing and producing is a main problem in our economy!! But guess what! The corporate monsters aren't interested in manufacturing or producing here--we cost too much! And since they've bought our Congress and Presidency--they've managed to make sure they don't get punished (and in fact get rewarded) for taking their manufacturing plants to third world countries where they can exploit people who are hungrier than we are, and pay them less than peanuts. The president just signed three more NAFTA like free trade agreements with S, Korea, Colombia and Brazil--that means that the little manufacturing that is still done here will for sure be gone soon.
I get that--but again, you want to kill the government and let the out of control greed machines full reign---I guarantee you, that will not bring our jobs back, and it will not improve Main Street's economy! We MUST get corporate money and influence OUT of our politics, OUT of our government--seriously---and until we don't do that, we are going to be screwed.

[-] 1 points by thoreau42 (595) 7 years ago

I love how you can take something, like Obama signing bogus trade agreements, and just rationalize it away, then get absolutely pissed (rightfully so) at corporations.

"our government" is an illusion, and it has been for at least a hundred years or more. There will be no "taking it back". Everyone is already screwed because few are willing to address the real issue.

[-] 1 points by Beca (69) 7 years ago

I'm not rationalizing it away thoreau! I am totally pissed that he did that, not surprised because I know he, like G W Bush before him, is fully owned and operated by the Corporate Cartel! Yes, right now "our government" is an illusion--that is what we have to change, but we it's complicated because of the strangle hold the corporate monster has on it. Yes, right now, it is the government of the corporations--we, the people have no government that represents us.

[-] 1 points by thoreau42 (595) 7 years ago

haha, that's true. I didn't get my free English lesson with the cheesesteak. They owe me, ha!

[-] 1 points by thoreau42 (595) 7 years ago

Oh, you're from Philly. I had two Pat's cheesesteaks once upon a time. They were good. Though the guy in the window was rude. I figured it's an east coast thing :P

[-] 1 points by Beca (69) 7 years ago

I hate Pat's cheesteaks, they are a bunch of racists! Besides, I don't eat dead animals! :-) Well, I live in Philly, but I am not "from " Philly! Yes, people here can be pretty rude--but there are plenty of very nice and cool people too! :-)

[-] 1 points by Beca (69) 7 years ago

When did I suggest what you are saying? However, much of our infrastructure is broken and outdated, and horribly ineffective. Why do other counties have much better roads, WAY more sophisticated and WAY less expensive rail systems that take people everywhere they need to go? Why are our bridges falling apart? Because we've done nothing to maintain them or update them in 30 years. Everything needs maintaining--do you own your home? I do, it's a pain--everything needs to be maintained or it begins to show its wear and fall apart--everything, even your driveway! Patching roads with bubble gum was tried for years, doesn't work. Since the roads were not maintained properly, they are in such disrepair, that many need to be ripped apart and rebuilt. I know it's a pain--I hate to be stuck in traffic all the time because of some damn road repair crew! I KNOW. But I also know that this is a result of us ignoring our infrastructure for way too long.
I agree--give people the cash!! I argued about that when the first bailout under Bush came out--why not just give the people the money so we could buy shit, help the companies make profit and then they can hire more people! Obviously that was way too logical for our corporate owned government to do.
The solution here is not to kill the government, it is to kill the monster that is strangling our government and our Main Street economy!

[-] 1 points by thoreau42 (595) 7 years ago

What other countries? Are you talking about Europe? Which is on the brink of total financial collapse? You wanna be like them? Or maybe you meant china? Russia? Certainly not Central America, South America, or Africa?

So you're telling me that people want to get off of unemployment so they can make slightly more money paving roads all day? i literally loled.

Why should the government take money, only to give it back to people, when they could just let people keep their money, and free things up to let everyone get into their own business and spend as they see fit in the first place?

[-] 1 points by Beca (69) 7 years ago

Other countries were progressing just fine until we (our corporate monsters pushing capitalism on steroids) began infecting the entire world-then things everywhere began to get off balance--people mattered less, profits mattered more.
I never suggested that I supported anything that only involved infrastructure! I just said that our infrastructure does suck and it's crumbling! I never said all the unemployed people need to work on the roads--where did you get that? guess what, you might not know, but the money they earn building and repairing roads is good money! Hard as shit work, but good money. OK, your idea of utopia is so unrealistic and clearly lacks a basic understanding on human nature!
OK, so no government--who builds the roads, picks up the trash, and takes care of all the public services we enjoy and take for granted if we didn't have government? You suggest we privatize everything and we all pay a-la-carte for all the public services we now receive? Are you serious? You think we pay much in taxes now, a la carte public services would cost us our entire paychecks!! And what do you do with the people who can't afford weekly trash pickups, and they happen to live next door to you--no government, so they are on their own, and you get to live with the smell of rotting shit! Cool!

[-] 1 points by thoreau42 (595) 7 years ago

These same people, the human beast, you want lording over you with absolute power. I agree with you. Which is why I don't want to give anyone any more power than is absolutely necessary.... which is a lot LESS than they have now.

You realize you're arguing that people need to be controlled because they're corrupt and evil, and you even agree that politicians of all people are more likely to be corrupt and evil, and then you argue that they should have EVEN MORE control??? huhhhhhhh?!

[-] 1 points by Beca (69) 7 years ago

Show me where I ever argued that they should have "even more" control? I am arguing that they need to work for us and not for the corporate powers. I am arguing that we need to change the power structure back to us, from the corporate powers--and only then will we be able to better define a government that will work FOR us. I've never implied that I want it to have more control of us--I want it to do its job! I want it to control the corporate monsters from destroying all of us! They can stop controlling us and start controlling the corporate cartel--how about that for better balance!

[-] 1 points by thoreau42 (595) 7 years ago

The same people who are taking care of it now. Us.

[-] 1 points by Beca (69) 7 years ago

Not sure if this website will accept an image, but I'll try https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/s320x320/314345_1879066515740_1813592554_1237918_714089913_n.jpg See if you can read it.

[-] 1 points by Beca (69) 7 years ago

You really don't understand the nature of the American human beast do you? We have been trained and brainwashed to be selfish pigs--we will only take care of what benefits us personally, and may the rest go to hell.
Sorry, but your idea is based on intact humans, we are not--our souls have been corrupted, we no longer function like normal human beings.

[-] 1 points by thoreau42 (595) 7 years ago

This is junior high logic. If your neighbor couldn't afford something, and they're not babysat by the federal government, they'd just sit there and let the trash rot!

Try to imagine this.....WHAT IF.....the community and neighbors and family and friends came together to help them out?! Mind boggling, I know.

[-] 1 points by thoreau42 (595) 7 years ago

How does that make any sense? A la carte public services would cost more? How is that even possible? We'd be eliminating the middle man, and everyone would keep ALL of their money? I mean, I'm not advocating that, but it would absolutely be cheaper.

[-] 1 points by Beca (69) 7 years ago

Have you seen estimates of that scenario? I have, and literally we'd end up like India--trash everywhere, because private trash haulers charge an arm and a leg for individual trash pick up. When it's done by towns and cities--there are contracts made that restrict price gouging, and reduce the overall cost. The estimates I've seen of this scenario by economists show that it would absolutely be WAY more expensive per person--and way more unaffordable for poor people.
Well if you want the government eliminated, or as you say "decentralized" and doing less and less, then who would take care of all our public services?

[-] 1 points by Beca (69) 7 years ago

thoreau, there is a small flaw in your argument there. THE PRIVATE COMPANIES ARE NOT HIRING ON THEIR OWN DESPITE SEEING RECORD HIGH PROFITS!! And they never will unless they are forced to do so. You see, the intent of a corporation, legally, is to make profits for their shareholders--at whatever cost. THAT'S IT. The "at whatever cost" is key here, because that actually makes them monsters.
So, unless we force our government to change th corporate law that forces the corporations to have a solid sense of social responsibility towards the communities in which they do business, or we are going to continue to get screwed.
Right now the companies that laid off millions of workers three years ago have discovered that they can push their scared employees to do double the amount of work for less pay--and the workers are too scared to balk, so they do it. So now, the companies are producing more than before with less staff, and are earning record profits--why in the hell would they ever willingly hire another worker? THEY ARE NOT HUMAN, THEY DON'T GIVE A RATS ASS ABOUT HUMANS--PROFITS ARE THEIR DRUG OF CHOICE. So you see thoreau, your little theory there is broken because you are assuming private companies are good, have a soul and give a shit about people--all wrong assumptions. It's like waiting for your chair to sit you! Hence, the need for government--to make sure the corporations don't destroy everything around them. Unfortunately, our government has been fully bought for and paid for by the Corporate cartel--so now they work for the corporate monsters, and we are out of luck. Hence, whey we are Occupying!

[-] 1 points by thoreau42 (595) 7 years ago

Since you've worked so extensively with the poor, why are they poor? Is it because they don't have money? No. It's because they don't have upward economic mobility. They don't have the skills to create sustainable value for themselves. Please explain to me how a check, in the form of welfare, unemployment, etc, FIXES this. It only prolongs the eventual decline back to unsustainability.

"Education"? Education is such a joke it's not even worth talking about. You wonder where people get brainwashed?

[-] 1 points by thoreau42 (595) 7 years ago

I cannot reply in the above post.

You'll be the judge of what I understand? The proof is in the pudding.

If the government cuts spending, people are taxed less, and then have more money. Private charities and non profits would get more donations because people have more money (more disposable income, more to donate with), not because they need more write offs.

Obomba was supposed to stop the wars. What happened?

You know what's the other 47% of the budget? Social Security, Medicare and Medicaide are about 1.5T alone. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:U.S._Federal_Spending_-_FY_2007.png You're right, though, the compassion that we have for one another is absolutely sickening. You know what doesn't help that? Government social programs. The argument that, by not having these programs, everyone would just be bleeding in the street is intellectually naive. I agree with you, let's stop the wars. Let's also stop a lot of the social programs. They're two arms of the same monster.

Further to the point, you know who enables all this crazy spending? The Federal Reserve. Any change in anything, without either a severe overhaul, or elimination, of the federal reserve, will accomplish next to nothing in any sort of substantial long term result.

[-] 1 points by Beca (69) 7 years ago

No, that is not how human nature works! Look at our history of donations!! People in this country only donate when they know they get a reward. I worked in fundraising, I know that field well. Unless you offer people something in exchange for their donation, they don't give--especially the people with more money! The people who give more, believe it or not, without expecting a prize, are the people who have LESS money! Because they know what it's like to struggle, so they give what they can. The people who are better off no longer give a shit for struggling people or communities--their attitude is "I got mine, tough shit for you!" When you offer them something in exchange for their donation, like a stupid pen or some other token--plus the promise of their donation being tax deductible--the people who are well off will always take the stupid pen, the people who are not rarely do.
No it's not intellectually naive, look at our history--without social programs to help people at need, most people would allow them to bleed in the street---unless of course there is a reward for them helping--like some good publicity--then you get tons of normally selfish people jump up and help that family--but without that tangible reward--people have been conditioned to disassociate themselves from people who are worse off then them, and spit in their faces--I've seen it all my life.
Why do you think many cities and towns now have laws and ordinances that make it illegal for poor people to sleep on the sidewalks, parks, benches, bus stations, etc. or make it illegal for poor people to ask for help! Because people are uncomfortable by them! They don't want to see them, they don't want to face them, they don't want to deal with them! they want them to go away--it reminds them how vulnerable we all are, and they don't want to think about it!

[-] 1 points by thoreau42 (595) 7 years ago

To answer your question, 50 countries would be marvelous. Could the country of Pennsylvania invade Iraq? And if the country of Pennsylvania went bankrupt, the other 49 countries wouldn't suffer nearly so much. A lot of the same evils MAY happen, but on a smaller scale, and that's at least a small victory for good.

Donations: Again, this is a problem with our people. Also, a failing of the church and christians.

My point is that the cancer is people. If we had good people, and a bad system; they'd fix it. If we had bad people, with a good system, they'd destroy it. We are the cancer.

"which governs", click the link and you will see the context.

[-] 1 points by Beca (69) 7 years ago

We are only the cancer because we have been conditioned to be! As I said, I lived in another country for a while, a much less wealthy country than this one--and way less capitalist--and the people were way more generous and kind hearted than I've ever seen here. Here people are trained not to feel, they are trained to think like selfish pigs "what's in it for me"--that is the capitalist on steroids meme. Perhaps I can see it more clearly because I spent my formative years elsewhere--and I was not infected with that poison, so I see it more clearly, and it bothers me to no end. I still cannot understand the mentality of blaming the poor and disenfranchised for their own ill fate--it is beyond my comprehension. Humans are inherently social beings, but in this country, people are trained to be the opposite! That is why there are so many totally miserable people in this "great" country! We are trained and forced to go against our human nature--to be selfish pigs rather than social beings!

[-] 1 points by thoreau42 (595) 7 years ago

I find your faith in the system disturbing.

[-] 1 points by Beca (69) 7 years ago

"Faith in the system"? what faith and what system are you talking about?

[-] 1 points by thoreau42 (595) 7 years ago

There's no flaw in the argument.

Do companies hire based on profits, or based on the amount of work that needs to be done?

So if the economy is TANKING, meaning that people are not creating actual goods and services, WHY WOULD THEY HIRE MORE PEOPLE?! Companies are trying to make money, not spend all of their profits. If we focused on the holistic growth of the economy, this problem fixes itself. If we just keep pumping money to bank cartels and redistributing wealth, the situation will keep repeating itself. It's government intervention that has gotten us here!!

You don't fix a head wound by smashing yourself in the head.

[-] 1 points by Beca (69) 7 years ago

By the way, the only economy that is tanking is the Main Street Economy. Wall Street Economy is doing very well, thanks to our taxpayer handouts!

[-] 1 points by Beca (69) 7 years ago

You are trying to argue the chicken of the egg thing, besides, you seem to have ignored a few points. Corporate profits are at RECORD HIGHS--way more than they expected--yet they still won't hire more people!! Why, because they figured they don't have to, since they managed to make the existing people work twice as long for less pay!
Here is the thing, if there are more people who don't have jobs, there are less people to buy their products!! Eventually, the bailouts that afforded them the record high profits are going to dry out--then what?
If they don't take care of the communities in which they work, the communities won't take care of the corporations!
I KNOW they exist for profit! that is the entire flaw of the system--unless there is an entity (like a government that is not owned by them) to force them to include social responsibility in their policies, and to hire a certain percentage of people per every % increase in their profits--they won't do it.
At the end, they are going to loose--they won't be able to maintain the profits if there aren't people who have the money to buy their stupid shit--and people need jobs to have money!! You don't expect the chair to sit you!

[-] 1 points by thoreau42 (595) 7 years ago

We cannot have a discussion about economics if you do not understand what value is and how it is created. You wanna keep propping up the system longer? Go right ahead. Peeps were warning about the big crash in 2007, and they're saying it'll be worse the next time around, before the end of the year at the earliest. When shit hits the fan, please remember this post, realize that you are close but don't know what you're talking about, and go study economics. Please.

How about the government start by forcing itself to be socially responsible?

Seriously, I am so sick of the argument that government needs to force people to do something good. Do you hate people? How about the government do something good? I'll be happy to entertain your argument as soon as gubmint stops stealing in the name of charity, murdering in the name of peace, controlling in the name of freedom, and destroying our economy in the name of prosperity. Okay?

[-] 1 points by Beca (69) 7 years ago

How will you force the government to be socially responsible? Haven't' we been trying to do that for the past 30 years? We finally figured out why our efforts haven't worked--because the government is not listening to us--regardless of what corporate party occupies it's halls--they are owned and operated by the Corporate cartel.
It's like going to wall mart and demanding from the cashier that they carry a certain product you like!! Still trying to get the chair to sit you!

[-] 1 points by thoreau42 (595) 7 years ago

That's my point. Nobody can get the government to be socially responsible. It is INHERENTLY socially IRRESPONSIBLE.

The fact that it succumbed to corporate influence in the first place should be a clue.

[-] 1 points by Beca (69) 7 years ago

But you seem to miss the point. Humans..we can be dumb, and we certainly can awaken the selfish greedy monster within us, especially when we have the greed monster dangling that shinny green object at us all day long! The ones that populate the government are human--hence, can fall for the same crap. So we have to keep the monster caged--the monster lives within the corporate realm--that is where it is fed and cared for--we have to keep it caged and away from our government. Then we can have a government of,by and for the people.

[-] 1 points by thoreau42 (595) 7 years ago

I want to get both the chicken and the egg. I play no favorites.

[-] 1 points by thoreau42 (595) 7 years ago

nope. You can't say when it's convenient for the argument that it's "people" and then in the next argument say that its "corporate". If human nature is to be greedy, it rears its ugly head whether in corporate, or government, or anywhere...

This whole "for and by the people" crap is just jargon. Tell me when the government was for and by the people?

[-] 1 points by Beca (69) 7 years ago

Oh my gosh, we are going in circles here! So you want to kill the chicken and I want to kill the egg. OK, we'll do both! ;-)

[-] 1 points by jdelassus (50) 7 years ago

Why don't you try to explain how government can not create jobs?

[-] 1 points by thoreau42 (595) 7 years ago

Done. aaaaand Done.

Where does it get the money to hire people?

It takes from private enterprise. Money that would have been hiring and employing people privately. At best, government jobs are a zero sum game. And, if the inefficiency of government, historically, is any indication, not even close to that.

how is "building infrastructure" actually doing anything for the economy? You have to understand economics in a basic sense to talk about this stuff...Economic growth occurs with the production of value. Value is taking something not useful, and making it useful (or improving its usefulness). That's an increase in resources, an increase in the economy, and an increase in the standard of living.

So what does ripping up a road that you already have, or ripping up a school, do to increase the economy? It's no better than just taking cash from productive people and giving it to people who aren't working. I mean, you get a newer road, but you already had a road to begin with. It's like trading in your year-old car, buying a brand new car, and then saying you made a great financial decision. The reality is that it's a horrible financial decision.

if the government stepped out of the energy arena, and let businesses develop and compete, you'd see a ton of alternative energy being driven. Such as sugarcane ethanol, which is not being driven because the government is intervening on behalf of corn.

If there is money to be made, private actors would be there making it! The government, by default, almost always engages in money losing ventures.

[-] 1 points by Beca (69) 7 years ago

Private enterprise has been making out like a bandit these past few years! Profit margins have never ever been so high as they are now--so where are the jobs! Oh by the way, the big corporations, they don't eve pay any taxes anymore, they have so many tax loopholes that at the end of the page, they end up paying zero taxes. Check it out if you don't believe me! GE, GM, BP, EXXON, etc, etc.

[-] 1 points by jdelassus (50) 7 years ago

I can't believe you asked such a numb skull question as ...'how is building infrastructure actually doing anything for the economy'. Oh, I get it. You're just talking about your own personal economy.

[-] 1 points by thoreau42 (595) 7 years ago

Yeah, there's a lot of value in ripping up roads you already have and replacing them. And by "a lot", I mean "almost no".

[-] 1 points by jdelassus (50) 7 years ago

Yeah, just like McDonald's and other burger doodles tearing down perfectly good eat joints and building new ones right next to where the other one was. Witnessed that myself.

[-] 1 points by morriden (128) from Burton, MI 7 years ago

have to agree on that. They sure as hell can destroy them.

[-] 1 points by stevemiller (1062) 7 years ago

http://overthecoals.blogspot.com/ read more

BP $20 BILLION oil spill fund

The fund set up for victims of BP Plc’s oil spill has paid $5.5 billion to more than 213,000 claimants in every U.S. state and 38 nations, according to Kenneth Feinberg, who runs the compensation program. The Gulf Coast Claims Facility receives about 2,270 submissions a week, Feinberg said today in testimony to the House Natural Resources Committee. The fund is “achieving its objective” and the number of new applicants is “proof positive that we are doing something right,” Feinberg said. The totals are current as of Oct. 21.

Representative Doc Hastings, a Washington Republican and chairman of the panel, said there has been a “large hole” in oversight and accountability of the claims facility, which started writing checks in 2010. State officials and residents along the Gulf of Mexico have called the fund inefficient and the payments too low. BP set aside $20 billion for the fund last year and named Feinberg as manager after negotiations with the Obama administration over damages to homes and businesses from the April 2010 spill, which spewed crude into the Gulf for 87 days.

That was the report by Bloomberg here is what Bloomberg forgot to report. The hearing revealed that $20 billion is a floor not a ceiling but that was contradicted by on August 2013 if Feinberg who receives his own monthly compensation of $1,250,000 monthly doesn't disperse the $20 billion the remaining balance will be returned to BP. In addition to the oil BP purposely dumped toxic chemicals called dispersants to disperse the oil making tiny drops from globs so the oil can't be seen. Shrimpers are catching 40% less than normal now but that could be much less 5 or 10 years from now. The oil can't be seen and neither can the missing shrimp be seen.

That huge decrease in shrimp doesn't account for the reduction of shrimp feed for all the sea creatures that eat shrimp for their diet. The BP fund won't compensate starving sea inhabitants. Every BP statement proved untrue. The SCREWED AGAIN remedy would be to arrest all the BP executives who purposely tried to save money when they used 6 centralizers instead of 23 and confiscate the entire company the same as the DEA would confiscate all the cocaine, the cars, homes and assets they would sell from cocaine dealers. The USA would then sell all the BP stock to remedy all the victims of the 4,900,000 barrel spill.

[-] 1 points by morriden (128) from Burton, MI 7 years ago

While this is rumor, I have heard from Friends of family who work with BP that the leak was never actually fixed. It was patched, but it didnt work and it continues to spill into the gulf. The chemicals are just masking the continued spill.

[-] 1 points by stevemiller (1062) 7 years ago

I go only by facts, not rumors. I watched this hearing and its on the C-span website in case you want to watch it. If I was elected to congress, I would force this case into the open to have the BP execs arrested and confiscate the entire company.

If OWS continues to not nominate candidates like me for election, instead of sitting in the park with their signs, this protest will be worthless. TheOWS people are uninformed. I've been there 6 times and spoke with many of these people.

[-] 2 points by morriden (128) from Burton, MI 7 years ago

Sadly in thi country unless your the richest man on earth you will never convict them without going outside the law and arresting them yourself viliganty stile. Dispite what Americans' think, our rights only work depending on your income and how much bribing power you have.

[-] 1 points by stevemiller (1062) 7 years ago

You've been brainwashed with 99.99%. If you people would come out of your trance we could easily elect a 3rd party right now 2012.

Thanx for screwing up America.

[-] 1 points by Beca (69) 7 years ago

Nah, the 99.99% are not who are doing the 'brainwashing'! Its the .001% who are doing all the brainwashing, hence the ongoing divide and conquer game of "left vs right".
I do agree with you that we need to elect someone who is outside these two corporatist political parties--that will take time, most people are brainwashed into believing the world will come to an end if they don't keep voting in the same corporatist parties that have been fully complicit in the destruction of Main Street.

[-] 1 points by stevemiller (1062) 7 years ago

Beca too bad you can't read. Happy Thanksgiving.

No psychologist recognized Y2K

Remember Y2K? They went on hysterically for 2 years that the world would end at midnight on 12/31/1999 because no computer was designed to have the date change to 1/1/2000. Huge corporations spent massive amounts of money on a complete nonsensical farce.

It wasn't a small cult that bought the Y2K ruse. It was main stream America. It was Yale, Harvard, Princeton educators. Nobody with any stature ridiculed the Y2K farce and when nothing happened they all chose to ignore their own stupidity. If there was ever a high water mark for ignorance and arrogance, it was at 0001 hours on January 1, 2000.

If there was an Olympic competition for ignorance and arrogance, the high water mark set by Y2K was broken by "globalization". The judges for this contest are the psychologists throughout the world. Its the emperor has no clothes fairy tale, but in real life. It is the complete acceptance of slavery that is completely ignored by economists, clergy, psychologists, Yale, Harvard, Princeton, lawyers, judges, and people who claim to be educated.

There is flagrant bribery that has been ruled OK by the United States Supreme Court. They claim money is speech. America went over the cliff on Y2K and now America is a bottomless pit of ignorance and arrogance with the 9/11 incident that was filmed from the moment that the 1st plane hit the north tower. To have a crime filmed not only visually, but even audibly with explosions that blasted steel beams further than Mickey Mantle could hit baseballs in all directions symmetrically from the towers that people become outraged whenever these facts confront them. Look at the beams that were cut by the explosives. There were tiny bits of human bones found all over the area.

If Flight 77 had actually hit the Pentagon, there would have been 2 huge titanium jet engines inside the Pentagon. There would have been massive steel landing gear, there would have been hundreds of seats, baggage, bodies, and the frame of the plane. Pentagon security would have pictures that prove it was Flight 77. The bodies recovered inside the Pentagon were the 125 military personnel who were murdered by the missile shot into the Pentagon. Who on this planet has the power to order the NORAD planes stationed to protect the Pentagon, but had been sent off to North Carolina for a training mission?

I was at the 2nd Circuit hearing before a panel that included Judge John M. Walker, Jr. who coincidentally is the cousin of George Walker Bush to hear the appeal of April Gallop. Judge Walker asked an incompetent, scared attorney Bill Veale, "Where did the plane go?" If bank tellers who were just robbed were asked by the cops - where did the robbers go - how are they supposed to know where the robbers went? Would that mean the bank didn't get robbed because the tellers didn't know where the robbers went? The only people who know where Flight 77 went were the government officials who met that plane and murdered all 64 people on it.

There are no holds barred in America for ignorance and arrogance. There was no media report of the 2nd Circuit hearing in New Haven broadcast on TV. A case that was dismissed against Cheney, Rumsfeld, and General Meyers with Bush's cousin presiding on appeal is covered up by the main stream media. How can no one notice this?

[-] 1 points by morriden (128) from Burton, MI 7 years ago

NAa it was screwed up before we came along. Infact its why they are here now.

[-] 1 points by Beca (69) 7 years ago

The dispersant Corexit is also highly toxic and carcinogenic, and they've found that crap in samples of fish and seafood from that area. Which means that the damage from the BP oil gush is so much more enormous than we can even imagine. People eating fish and seafood contaminated with that dispersant will be a higher risk of developing cancer--but we will not know until years from now--enough time for BP to make sure they get their lobbyists to push their paid Congress people and President to enact a law that would destroy all evidence of the oil gusher or it's clean-up. or a law that would fully absolve BP of any further damage.

[-] 1 points by stevemiller (1062) 7 years ago

This should be a huge OWS beef. BP is never mentioned.

If George Washington rode into the park on his white stallion, these people would reject him. see my blog and spread it. http://overthecoals.blogspot.com/

[-] 1 points by yosteve (64) from Newbury, OH 7 years ago

Here's a question I already know the answer to. Has BP paid what they owe the EPA in waste disposal and hazard fees and fines? (I work at a chemical company) we pay A LOT to dispose of 1 drum of waste. If we were to spill that one drum in our industrial pond, we would have to pay for the cleanup (as BP has been doing) but we would have to pay EPA fines too.

They talk about FEMA having no money. Well, has BP paid their fines yet. Why would my company be held accountable for their fines.

Is BP too big to fine? Or do they get they 1%er discount? We seriously need that election reform NOW.

[-] 1 points by Beca (69) 7 years ago

If they did, they charged the gov. back for it by writing it off on their taxes!! Seriously, they wrote off the oil spill as a loss--which means we the taxpayers get to pay for it!

[-] 0 points by barb (835) 7 years ago

I seriously don't think that Obama had any intention of passing a jobs bill even though he created it as a bluff for the American people. He signed more trade agreements which further allows more jobs to leave. We are in this mess due to jobs lost to other countries and the President is fully aware of this fact and why. We need new laws to stop all of the lying in government. I am sick of it and they should just tell us to our faces that they plan on screwing us over royally.

[-] 0 points by mrjim1 (21) 7 years ago

You should write your own list. I'm sure if you read a list written by anybody else you'd say they were lying.

[-] 0 points by mrjim1 (21) 7 years ago

The ONLY ones who will get any of the money from the jobs bill will be Union. If you are not a Union member, you won't get anything.

[-] 0 points by Scout (729) 7 years ago

but what simultaneously pursuing these crooks to recover money by prosecuting those that committed fraud?

read this

Yes We Can … Recover Fraudulently-Earned Money

"And because fraud caused the Great Depression and the current economic crisis, and the economy cannot stabilize until the rule of law is restored, and criminal fraud on Wall Street is prosecuted, suing to recoup criminally-gotten gains is the best thing we can do for our economy."

http://www.ritholtz....luding-bonuses/

and listen to the incredible statistics in this video comparing the number of prosecutions in the savings and loan debacle compared to the recent shenanigans

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4XJe7O-3QBc&feature=player_embedded

[-] 0 points by robert16797 (17) 7 years ago

uh its Obama that screwed you his bill will do nothing

[-] 0 points by figero (661) 7 years ago

How about a list of the democrats that voted against it too? or does that not matter? The dems have enough seats in the senate to pass anything they want in the senate. The tax bill couldnt even clear one chamber !

[-] 0 points by GeorgeMichaelBluth (402) from Arlington, VA 7 years ago

I'll save you the time. Government can't create jobs. Don't bother looking them up.

[-] 1 points by jdelassus (50) 7 years ago

That's the most ridiculous thing the cynics spew out these days. I've had government jobs that were created by someone, some place a long time ago and so have millions of others.

[-] 1 points by GeorgeMichaelBluth (402) from Arlington, VA 7 years ago

At the expense of the many. Government is a model to inefficiency that leeches off producers and honest hard working people.

[-] 1 points by jdelassus (50) 7 years ago

Absurd! An over generalization and over simplification!

[-] 1 points by GeorgeMichaelBluth (402) from Arlington, VA 7 years ago

Perfectly simple so people understand.

[-] 1 points by hyarborough (121) 7 years ago

Completely disagree. People in government are the same as the people in the private sector. I currently work in a government job, and have also worked in the private sector. There isn't a huge difference. In fact I've worked on at least several projects that we as government workers performed more efficiently and at less cost and higher quality than the equivalent contractors out of the private sector.

I find the private sector to be at least as inefficient as the government when you compare apples w/ apples.

[-] 0 points by Beca (69) 7 years ago

By the way greenearthan, did you not notice that just this past week, the President signed THREE MORE FREE TRADE AGREEMENTS that will have the same devastating effects on our jobs market as NAFTA did.
Now why in the hell do you think he would initiate three more free trade agreements when we have such a terrible problem with unemployment in this country? And then come up with some fake "jobs bill" that will do nothing to increase the number of jobs--real jobs, not crap, slave jobs!

You need to wake up! He is a corporatist President, just like his predecessor! Only difference is that he can articulate a complete sentence and smile at the same time.

[-] 2 points by jdelassus (50) 7 years ago

Naa, I don't think so. He's no Hoover or FDR. He's trying to walk a tight rope and sometimes he slips but he hasn't fallen off yet.

[-] 0 points by Beca (69) 7 years ago

Wake up people! have you actually read the bill, or just followed the deceptive narrative fed to you? Here is the thing, this past December, the President pushed the then Democratic Congress to pass a TWO YEAR Tax cut re-authorization bill (aka Bush Tax cuts bill). He signed the bill at the end of December. This means that Congress passed a tax cut bill that is good for TWO YEARS. Do you honestly believe that only 10 months later, the President and Congress have any intention of reversing that now? NO, it's all a deceptive P.R. game, meant to keep people tied up in their 'divide and conquer' game. Both parties are fully bought and paid for by the Corporate cartel, do you not get that yet? Did you also notice that part of the President's "jobs" bill includes additional payroll tax cuts? Do you know what that means? He wants to further weaken our Social Security and Medicare funds by further cutting their only source of revenue--the payroll taxes!! FICA and Medicare taxes ARE the payroll taxes he so deceptively speaks of. Please wake up!! This past December, sneaked into the Two year tax cut re-authorization bill, was a 2% FICA tax cut, and that alone cut the Social Security Fund's revenue by $128 Billion Dollars! Now he wants to cut its revenue more! What this means is that he is "offering" you an extra dollar on your pay now, in exchange for no Social Security benefits when you retire-since those revenue cuts are going to end up destroying the only solvent fund we have! Please wake up and stop paying attention to the deceptive P.R. crap you hear from members of both parties----their owners are the corporate cartel and they are working for them, not us!

[-] 1 points by jdelassus (50) 7 years ago

That's somewhat true but politics is the art of compromise and it's probably the best that can be done at the present time.

[-] 1 points by Beca (69) 7 years ago

Sorry, don't agree with that. They were elected to represent OUR interests, not to screw us because they felt they "had to compromise"! that is bull! The majority of Americans were opposed to the tax extension, opposed to the 2% FICA tax cut--and the majority of Americans were ignored! THAT IS NOT OK, THAT IS NO DEMOCRACY!
It's not "compromise" when the president offers two programs up to the chopping block that neither party asked for!! Then create the deceptive and false public narrative that the "other" ones are bad, "they want to cut those programs, say no to them"!! Don't you see the divide and conquer game? I guess not, you must watch corporate TV.

[-] 1 points by jdelassus (50) 7 years ago

True but as you know the present day politicians don't represent us much. They mostly represent the rich, ruling elite. We don't need no more steeenking reps. We got the tools to represent ourselves. You know that line from an Eagles song, something like - most people live lives in chains without even knowing they have the key.

[-] 1 points by Beca (69) 7 years ago

"they mostly represent"? really, just "mostly"? I think they've crossed the river by now--they fully represent the interests of the corporate cartel, period. They still keep up the false narrative to keep us from really occupying them!

[-] 2 points by Puzzlin (2898) 7 years ago

Beca, your right. It's largely the money that is too big in politics now, it has corrupted the process.

And, as Americans, we are beginning to do the right thing. We are not represented well at all in our government because we feel asleep at the wheel and let this Tea Party run rip-shot over us.

We don't hold our representatives feet to the fire. They misrepresent us but we elect them anyway. Generally only half our country even cares to vote in General Election, it's down to 25% for the mid-term.

In here, that is HERE, we conversing with some of us that more than likely do vote. That's why we're HERE, we do care.

But, remember, others who don't vote, & r still are affected by the politics, maybe even more in some cases. They certainly aren't represented, and it's by choice most cases.


However, here's the rub, if the non-voters only knew and realized how important it is to vote and take that vote seriously. They would vote and start becoming active. Some hear this message and still don't vote. They may feel a little guilty, but no vote.

It's all about Enlightenment. The very thing that sparked Thomas Jefferson into action. This man became a real renaissance man reading every book in every language in sight. And then he wrote the most precious document ever produced, our beloved constitution.

He was highly aware and enlightened. We had entered into the Age of Reason as Thomas Paine coined.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Paine

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Age_of_Reason

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Jefferson

We need a new enlightenment. It is our only chance.

[-] 2 points by Beca (69) 7 years ago

Puzzlin, agreed. I just read that only 20% of registered voters here in my city decided to bother to vote this past election. That is horrible! Yes, we need a new enlightenment, I am hoping OWS will help us move in that direction--but like our elections--OWS can only succeed if we are all involved, in whatever capacity we can participate, we need to participate.

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 7 years ago

It's a big key Beca. Every election cycle I not only vote I spend hours upon hours calling like minded voters inspiring and encouraging them to get out and vote. I know it helps and it's my way to get my vote in and more.

Good post and thanks for the support. We need to support each other and keep fighting. We always will when we remind ourselves what this fight is about. It's serious and our future will be shaped by it!!!

[-] 0 points by tarnfeathers (39) 7 years ago

Well here's a few names of those screwing us the most:

Nancy Pelosi Harry Reid Barny Frank Barak Obama John McCain

Ok, go get em ray!

[-] -1 points by OWSForObama (151) 7 years ago

YES! Pass The Bill!

Can't Obama declare some kind of emergency that would give him 100% power?

[-] 1 points by tarnfeathers (39) 7 years ago

You mean like a king or a dictator?

[-] 1 points by jdelassus (50) 7 years ago

There are good kings and there are bad kings. The question needs to be asked....why do we or anybody need a king at all? We decided against that over 200 years ago. Now the question is why do we need a president? Are we ready for that? Probably not now, not yet.

[-] 1 points by OWSForObama (151) 7 years ago

No, more like he was voted by us to do a job and nothing should stop him from doing it!

[-] 1 points by Beca (69) 7 years ago

He has no intention in doing the job we voted him in to do, don't you get that by now? If he really wanted to get done what he "promised", he would have done it by now. Have you not noticed that he has done exactly the opposite of what he promised? and please don't bring up the HCR bill! that is the biggest deception to the American people I've seen!

[-] 1 points by jdelassus (50) 7 years ago

Naaa! I think he has intentions of doing the job we voted him in to do but the president isn't all powerful when it come to things like this. Congress has the purse strings. There's an old saying - the president proposes and congress disposes.

[-] 1 points by tarnfeathers (39) 7 years ago

I think your living in the wrong country my friend. I hear Libya is looking for a new dictator.

By the way, we were founded as a Republic, which means rule of law, not rule of men.

[-] 1 points by jdelassus (50) 7 years ago

That is not what republic means. Look it up!

[-] 1 points by tarnfeathers (39) 7 years ago

John Adams defined a republic as "a government of laws, and not of men."

No single individual is allowed to exercise executive, legislative and judicial powers. Instead, these powers are separated into distinct branches that serve as a check and balance on each other. In a constitutional republic, "no person or group [can] rise to absolute power."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_republic

Seriously, you make this too easy. You see I've made it a point to study and read books about our economic and political history over the last few years. I suggest you do the same.

[-] 2 points by jdelassus (50) 7 years ago

You better go back and actually understand what you've read. Your little quote actually reinforces my position - the filthy rich have subverted democracy.. it's called a plutocracy. Government of by and for the wealthy

[-] 0 points by tarnfeathers (39) 7 years ago

Ok, I think I just realized something. Your on crack. So discussion over. Conversation with scrambled brains makes no sense.

[-] 2 points by jdelassus (50) 7 years ago

It's your brain that's scrambled eggs in a pan. Only someone using crack themselves would make such an absurd statement - go back to school dude!

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 7 years ago

no...

[-] 1 points by OWSForObama (151) 7 years ago

Damn! We need to amend the Constitution to give the President full control when congress or senate don't cooperate.

Better yet, forget about amending it, just throw that trash out!

[-] 1 points by Beca (69) 7 years ago

I must say with all due respect but the name "owsforObama" is an oxymoron. Just saying, how could you protest against the owners of the president you are supporting? OK, end of discussion, I don't want to get into a political discussion here--that's not what we are about.