Shared publicly  - 
 
Is 38 straight months of unemployment above 8% the progress President Obama and the Democrats had promised? http://mi.tt/II3jQJ
50
3
Stephany Hurkos's profile photosogbalimartial's profile photoJorge C.'s profile photoDylan Bozarth's profile photo
123 comments
 
May have started but the anointed one said he would bring change, and change for the worst has come. Grats you left wing ass.
 
And another thing you narrow minded lib, stop blaming Bush for your lack of performance from your anointed one. He had his chance and has DONE NOTHING to help any of us. Let Mitt take a shot.
 
I just get so pissed at you Bush blamers sry
 
5 trillion in new debt, unemp out the ying, mean to Israel, huggin the muslim assholes, on and on ... why do you support him, i just don understand
 
You're forgetting history. I don't think either team really has your best interests in mind.
 
THey aren't happy unless they are blaming someone or complaining. Have you EVER seen a happy lib?
 
You may be right about that, but to fail has consequences and he certainly has failed.
 
both sides blame the other... time for a new side? I thought I was watching old footage when I saw Obama blaming bush recently... nope... that happened... yes it was a mess, yes bush was a pretty awful president but damn... you wanted the job...
 
As I can tell, the team not in power does everythng it can to stop, hinder, delay the current president.
 
He rode the wings of change on Bush's mistakes, now he need to reap his own reward. Moving van :-)
 
Unemployment topped out in 2010 near 10%, and has been steadily dropping since then. Anyone who thinks that the worst economic recession since the 1930s could be fixed in two years is fooling themselves. Rampant greed and deregulation caused the mess we're in, and it takes time to sort out. I think Obama could have done more, but it certainly has not gotten worse. The economy is much stronger now than it was 4 years ago, and our deficit is less daunting as a pecentage of GDP.
 
I mean honestly Shaun what has he done for you :-)
 
anyone who thinks we're not still in a recession and we're significantly better off is just buying the lies and rhetoric.
 
This became the worst recession sice the 1930's because of what Obama has done.
 
This recession did not start from the hands of Obama it started under our Republican leader! So please stop putting the blame on Obama he was put in a difficult situation with trying to pull us out of this mess! He could do better but it was bad before he stepped into office.
 
+mohammed martin it started under NIXON if you wanna talk history... and the housing bubble started under clinton... look up reverse redlining... no doubt Obama is in a difficult situation, but also no doubt that he has failed to do anything to solve it. what little job growth we've had has been lower wage jobs, so many have left the work force completely, people in mass are claiming disability or on food stamps(yes part of this is due to the recession itself) the bottom line is, things are not better and he has not done anything to help
 
It was bad before, it's worse now, but guess what? No matter who gets in that office (Richman Romney or Broken Promises Obama) we'll be even worse before it gets better. This used to be a government for the people and by the people. We need it to be that government again.
 
+Brad Dillon What, now you are going to change the definition of Recession?

Recessions end when the economy begins growing again. That happened in June, 2009.

I realize that facts don't mean a lot to you and your comments are just random attempts to draw attention to yourself.

This post is just a warning to everyone else.
 
The best way to fix this is to pay for your tax cut by increasing taxes on the very poor. 200 million isn't enough and a 14% tax rate is to high... amiright?
 
We had the S&L crisis in the 1980's and did not end up this bad. This president took a recession and prolonged it with his energy policies. He is completely to blame for this economy. If Obama was a leader he would stand up and take credit for it. Reagan took responsibility for his mistakes.
 
Please "change" America. I'm Japanese and I can't take part in this election but American political policy always has much to do with the attitude of Japanese politician. So please "change" America. 
 
VooDoo economics is just that VooDoo, if that wasn't bad enough Mr. Rmoney has "Secret" accounts in 7 different Countries .
 
Like Obama proposed stopping legal insider trading when he was in the Senate. No that was the republicans. Obama made millions as a Senator.
 
+Jeff Beamsley again, if you believe that... you're sorely mistaken... this is artificial growth, it's fake, it's inflated... operation twist, QE1 QE2 were designed to do exactly what they've done... but we have no long term sustainable growth. The Economy isn't growing it's a sham. educate yourself, your claims are laughable.
 
+Steve Kirk You should check your facts before posting. The debt is now the same as the GDP. So No our deficit is not less daunting then our GDP. President Obama have added 5 trillion in debt in 3.5 years.
 
Can we all at least agree on one thing, that when someone takes on the role as president, they assume all blame, for the bad and the good?

So I say:
Unemployment is above 8%. Blame Obama
Unemployment has dropped about 2% points since its peak in 09. Joint effort. (Why not blame Obama?)
Troubled relationship with Pakistan. Blame Obama
OBL is dead. Joint effort. (Why not blame Obama?)
Horrible energy policy. Blame Obama.
US is currently producing highest level of energy resources. Joint effort. (Why not blame Obama?)

Are we noticing a pattern here? Trust me, it can go on and on. I think it is time we all stop acting like, Mitt and stick to a principle. Yes there are thing that Obama could and should have done better. But at the same time there are things that he has done very well. I guess what I'm getting at is, if we are going to point the finger, then when the time comes, let's point it at both his successes and failures.
Lance G
+
1
2
1
 
+Brad Dillon good point. It really isn't real growth at all if Obama's policies can't even get us back to where we were before it began. We're still just trying to reset back at zero.
 
Ron Paul's strategy = ignore haters, acquire delegates
 
Ron Paul is proof of the popular votes irrelevance, he has more delegates than have been "Advertized"
 
Hope to suffer from no more mistakes in politics.
 
+Brad Dillon Talk is cheap and your's is of particular low quality.

If you think the economic data is a fiction and we are still in a recession (a decline in GDP for two consecutive quarters or more). Please post your proof.

BTW going off your meds is NOT acceptable proof.
 
Riiiigggghhhhtttt..... The reason there is unemployment like it is is due to the fact that Congress wont get off their collective butts and pass legislation that would help put people back to work. Every one of them needs to be FIRED. It wouldn't matter who the president is if Congress wont do their job!
 
I've gained a stalker/troll in +Jeff Beamsley that's cute... ooh he even followed his nonsense with name calling and insults... I should probably take your nonsense seriously then huh? like I said, it's a fake... go examine how much money we've pumped into the economy and what effect that has on GDP... the numbers are a lie and do not represent the real situation... just as the housing bubble replaced the nasdaq bubble... they're trying to do it all over again and not having any success
 
If you think things are going to get better under Romney, you are right. For the 1% it will because that's all he cares about. So go head and vote for him and remember all his promises he made so 4 years from now they will just be broken promises. He doesn't care a think about the poor or middle class. How can he. He doesn't even know what it means to be middle class and let's be honest, the first day Obama took office the GOP were planning how to make him a one term president anyway. Man, that shows they only care about the 1% also and there own personal agenda.
 
+Jeff Beamsley what do you want me to prove? that QE1 and QE2 pumped insane amounts of money into the economy inflating the markets? that operation twist exists?... it's not a secret... look it up yourself lazy ass ;)
 
+Dwight Driskill what does bush have to do with anything? I'm not defending those guys or the economic decisions of any of them... they sure as hell didn't save my job, just the "too big to fail" banks ... I don't subscribe to this keynesian system of economics... and more name calling... where are the adults here that actually know what they are talking about, don't divert to (if you're against obama you must be for bush? or romney? wow) and don't feel the need to call people names because they have no argument otherwise...pathetic
Lance G
+
1
2
1
 
I love the 1%.
 
+Cameron Smith Big business owners are the ones putting our jobs in china. And they're republicans because republicans want to give them tax breaks.
 
+Jeff Beamsley says talk is cheap and keeps talking... I said it's a fake recovery, you aren't understanding the concept, I'm not going to teach you what QE means, what the idea behind keynesian economics is and why it doesn't work... You'll have to put some effort into it.. .get on my level
 
+Jeff Campbell would you say you were forced to do so with the economic environment here? gotta do what you gotta do right? It's not as if companies desire to move over seas, they desire to stay in business, make a profit...not lay people off, corporations get a bad wrap as "evil" when they still offer us a lot of great things for cheap.
 
I live in a county with over 10.5% unemployment. The recession is still here!!!!
 
+Jeff Beamsley , I certainly can't speak for +Brad Dillon, but I can offer a slightly different explanation for the comment. I believe that the very technical definition for the end of a recession has been met. That being said, there are few people that would honestly claim that the economy is anything like recovered. There is a large chasm between these things. When compared to expectations and promises made, the US is not performing in typical recovery fashion. And if you are unemployed or underemployed, the fact that some dry statistics meet some arbitrary standard doesn't much comfort you.

During the first Bush presidency, it was found that the US had gotten out of the recession while he was still in office. It did nothing to help him get re-elected because the country "felt" that the recession was still going on.

So if I were to score your argument, I would give you a point for technical accuracy, but your opponent a point for more relevancy.
 
+Jeff Beamsley I don't think you even know what that means... come back and try again when you've figured out what operation twist is and QE (inflation) you'll see how it is really distorting the numbers, people who pay close attention to the markets are still cautious for this reason, it's not real growth it's 'inflating the busted bubble'
 
+Dale Burgess I'll agree with you and that's what I keep saying... if you wanna go by the 'book' the technical definition is what it is... and I'm telling him WHY it's just an illusion and the numbers are lying... I guess that's tough to hear...
 
Mitt Romney and Barack Obama are 2 dumb political whores. We need to implement Glass-Steagall, put these idiots in an institution and get a real US president in the tradition of FDR and Lincoln.
 
+Jeff Campbell sounds similar to what I saw from Apple execs on the idea of 'moving jobs back here' they said openly that even if the labor was just as cheap the responsiveness of the factories and versatility is far superior. They cited an example of a last minute change they were able to handle on the factory level to re-tool at a rapid pace and continue to deliver quality/on time. They said they just can't get that here in the U.S.
 
+Cameron Smith - I couldn't disagree with your assessment more. While I believe the outcomes of the vision President Obama has would be detrimental, there is no credible evidence that he is somehow un-american. People can be wrong without being bad.
 
+Dale Burgess I dont' have any problem with what you've posted.

From the nature of the post, I'm confident we could have a rational discussion about the nature of the recession and the quality of the recovery. We may not end up agreeing with each other, but would both learn something.

Doesn't appear that +Brad Dillon is able to have that sort of discussion. He seems to prefer posting outrageous things and then criticizing those who disagree with him.

So for example, he claims that the numbers lie, but is either unwilling or unable to post anything that supports that claim. The closest he comes is to suggest that his point of view is so obvious that it doesn't require any proof.

Thanks again for your attempts to clear this up.
Lance G
+
4
5
4
 
Great points +Dale Burgess


Three years after the recession "ended", the recovery has been the weakest and most lopsided of any since the 1930's. Workers' wages and benefits historically have made up a stable 64% of the economy (through book and bust alike). Right now in the Obama economy they are at an all time low, 57.5%.
Unemployment has never been this high, this long after a recession. The last three recessions at this same point avgd just 6.8%.
The avg worker's hourly wages, after accounting for inflation, were 1.6% lower in May than a year earlier. Rising gasoline and food prices have devoured any pay raises for most Americans.

The jobs that are being created pay less than the ones that vanished in the recession. A record 45 million Americans are on food stamps.
 
+Jeff Beamsley I told you from the start... look up what I'm talking about.. I'm not your economics teacher today.. you aren't making a lot of sense, you're accusing me of posting outrageous things... so I guess it's outrageous for me to suggest that you educate yourself on the topic, you've picked up a dictionary for what recession is defined as now go look at what's really happened... lemme know when you realize how wrong you are about any kind of REAL recovery taking place.
 
+Brad Dillon Sorry buddy, but I'm not the one with a point to prove.

The recession is over according to NBER. The recovery is slow according to everyone. Those are my positions.

If you think those numbers are "cooked" please post something from somebody other than you to support your position. Until then, you remain the poser that I called you out about.
 
You are absolutely right the recession is over there are millions of jobs for those who wish to work, and whether one holds one job or ten will always be underemployed. You are absolutely right there is no recession just a new form of slavery.
 
+Jeff Beamsley I told you why... you refuse to believe it or look it up... now I just think you're in denial, choosing to be ignorant, I can't help you over come that... it's not my problem you wanna ignore the truth... I claim the numbers are distorted and the recovery is only artificial, I told you why, and I told you what you can look up... it's just that simple and you're just that lazy or ignorant... pick one...
 
+franc simari I agree with you that there are too many people and too much production capacity sitting idle.

So the basic question is what if anything needs to be done.

Libertarians would say don't do anything, simply rem
ove the burdens from the free market and it will figure out the right thing to do.

Republicans are saying that we have to adopt an austerity plan which dramatically reduces the size of government, eliminate regulation, and cut taxes. That will encourage businesses to invest in new domestic production and add more workers.

Democrats are saying this is the time for government to actively invest in infrastructure, education, and innovation. These investments will directly result in new hires. Those hires will drive demand across the board, and it is that demand which will cause businesses to invest in more capacity and a larger workforce.

We SHOULD be spending our time asking our parties about the details and repercussions of each of these visions rather than wasting time trying to convince each other than one guy is more trustworthy than the other.
 
+Jeff Beamsley your group characteristics are overly simplistic, but the call to less rhetoric and more solutions is one I can agree with.
 
+Brad Dillon Your first claim was "anyone who thinks we're not still in a recession and we're significantly better off is just buying the lies and rhetoric"

You backed off on that claim when confronted with the facts.

Now your claim is that "the numbers are distorted and the recovery is only artificial".

I challenged you to post something from some credible source to support your point. Your only response is to challenge me to look it up.

So you remain the poser that you've been from your first post. You have no proof because this whole argument exists in only one place, your head - along with alien invasions and private talks with Jesus.

Post something from a credible site supporting your position and prove me wrong.
 
+Dale Burgess it was a long post to start. Hard to get into a lot of detail. Just trying to draw some broad comparisons.

How do you suggest we try to move the conversations away from personality and ideology and toward practical solutions with measurable results?
 
+Jeff Beamsley I'm not backing off that... you're clearly buying the lies... this is a fake recovery... I think you're getting confused because you don't even know what QE or operation twist is... I'm trying to keep it really simple for you but you're making it really difficult... take a look at the amount of money literally injected into the economy to make this 'recovery' happen and you'll see that it's all an illusion... go ahead, you might learn something
 
+Dale Burgess Different people have different definitions of "unamerican". I would agree with you that Obama's detrimental policy effects mentioned by +Cameron Smith are more likely due to incompetence than to malice. That said, I can also see where he is coming from, especially if the economic issues are affecting him personally.
 
+Jeff Beamsley We should also ask whether the policies have worked empirically. The Democrats have been putting their policies into effect for almost 4 years now and it has only prolonged the depression.
 
+Brad Dillon Let's see if I can get this straight.

You are admitting that there IS a recovery, but that it isn't REAL because the Fed has been stimulating the economy.

So you must also be admitting that the recession is over if you feel that the recovery is artificial.

I guess my response is so what? If we end up with a sustainable growing economy at the end of this artificially stimulated recovery, who (except maybe libertarians) cares?

So you are still on the hook to come up with some expert opinion which says that a Fed-stimulated recovery is bad.

Knowing how the Fed works, it is only bad if it results in overstimulating the economy and we end up with inflation. So far we have seen no evidence of any inflationary pressure in the economy.

You feel otherwise, please provide proof.
 
Also, with respect to whether we're still in a recession: economic numbers are no longer dropping; however, employment and per capita real GDP remain below their 2007 peaks. Technically we are no longer in a recession because things aren't dropping any more, but there is a technical term for the period where we stay below the previous peak, which we are still in. That term is "depression".

So maybe those who talk about us being "still in a recession" should just start using the word "depression" instead.
 
+Warren Dew "depression"? did you happen to drink the same Kool-Aide as +Brad Dillon ? :)

Can we all agree that we are officially in a recovery however slow it might be?

What empirical methods do you suggest we use?
 
"recovery" in quotes... it's a fake... and you're clueless, enjoy the ignorance while you can.
 
Energy, minerals would be a natural way of putting additional wealth in the economy. When you look at middle class individuals, there is more of a chance that these sorts of positions (some which could last a generation) would kick-start a number of economies. With the advances that have been made in protecting the environment, most people could live with this.

I am a proponent of infrastructure repair and improvement, but not new trains (that is a waste). The millions that would need to be spent upgrading at a more rapid clip than otherwise would be normal may stop that in the future, but would get us moving now.

I don't believe that higher tax rates will do what is thought and would probably scare away some additional monies, but if that was what was needed to get a deal I could support a small increase. The negative effects I think would happen should be surmounted by the positive benefits of having a solid plan people could trust. Businesses like consistency.

I think we need to get real about reforming our entitlements. I am 48. I am assuming I will work until I am 68 - 70. Stop demonizing this move and just tell us that is the way it will be. We're all grownups. The reason this is important is that this is an obligation that we have put on the government. Turning that now will reduce the pain that will come later if we continue to demagogue the issue.

Put a moratorium on additional regulation for most business classes. Refine practices in the financial industries and push to clean up the mess caused by corrupted people. Removing the culture of "Its OK to cheat people" has to be serious business.

Finally stop personal attacks from all sides. Most people have the best intentions. Focus on improved solutions not on nasty attacks.
 
+Warren Dew I'm ok with whatever term you want to use, and for the moment trust that "depression" is technically accurate.

Maybe that will shut +Brad Dillon up for a while.
 
+Dale Burgess good post. I knew you were a reasonable guy.

There is a $109B infrastructure bill that the Senate passed in March, that is bottled up in the house. This money has already been collected in gas taxes and usage fees.

From all I can tell, it is intended to do exactly what you suggest.

Why isn't this law getting passed so we can put some more folks to work?
 
+Dale Burgess good stuff! you mention energy first, any thoughts on Thorium as an energy source? I've looked into it a little and it almost seems too good to be true but as if it gets a 'bad wrap' in a sense being associated with typical nuclear power risks.
Lance G
 
+Jeff Beamsley I'm with you. That needs to happen. But in order for that to begin, President Obama needs to stop the divisive ideological class warfare rhetoric, demonizing and demagoguary. Enough with "the rich aren't paying their fair share crap". My kids lives are not negatively affected by how many millionaires live on my street. My neighbor just bought a brand new boat. It cost probably what my house might have cost. Did it hurt me in the slightest? No!
If the president wants to help that's a good place to start. And also do something about runaway entitlements.
 
+Lance Griggs I am just as disturbed as you about the level of rancor present in public discourse. I don't know how to reign it in.

You don't like Obama making an issue of the rich.

I don't like (pick your favorite Republican) suggesting that Obama is a socialist, alien, or Muslim.

I agree with you that basic math doesn't lie. Taxes have to go up. We have to spend money to put people back to work. We have to reduce defense spending. We have to make adjustments to Social Security and Medicare. We have bring the deficit down somewhere south of 20% of GDP. We have to slow and ultimately reduce the cost of providing healthcare.

You can't cut taxes, reduce the deficit, increase defense spending, and do nothing about healthcare. Math just doesn't work.

Similarly you can't just raise taxes on the rich, keep our entitlement programs untouched, and reduce the deficit. Math just doesn't work.

The solution (like Simpson Bowles) is somewhere in the middle.

The problem right now is that there aren't enough votes to get someone elected who runs from the middle.

How do we change that?
 
+Dale Burgess So, let's take a look at your points, with respect to how to make the current depression as temporary as possible.

1. Energy. The quickest way to get more energy is to use existing technology - accelerate permitting for new oil drilling, encourage fracking, build the keystone pipeline. We should keep in mind there are environmental down sides to these quick fixes, though.

2. Infrastructure. Unfortunately, the programs to date don't permit use of any federal money for repairs, just for new projects. The projects that are being approved often actually hurt the mode of transportation used by most people - namely cars - for example by redesignating lanes in existing roads for lesser used bicycles. If we're going to use infrastructure spending to help the economy, we need to be realistic about what parts of the infrastructure people actually use.

3. Tax rates. I will respond to +Jeff Beamsley on this one.

4. Entitlements. Yes, medicare and medicaid need to be addressed in the near term. Social security doesn't become a major problem until after 2020, though. While it needs to be fixed, I think we can wait until we're out of the depression before fixing it.
Lance G
 
+Thomas Terence rich people are indeed fair game. Obama make sure of that every time he gets behind the microphone. But no one needs to lie about the rich not paying their fair share.
 
+Warren Dew This is the first that I have heard that funds in the proposed transportation bill can't be used for highway repair. Could you please post a link to an article with more detail on that? Thanks

On the Keystone pipeline, Transcanada had agreed with Nebraska to reroute the Keystone pipeline to avoid threatening the Ogalala aquifer before the Republicans forced Obama to deny the permit Transcanada had requested for the original route. Nebraska agreed to kick in $2M to pay for new environmental studies of any new routes proposed. Transcanada submitted their new route for review two weeks ago. Until these studies are done it is premature to approve anything. When Nebraska and Transcanada agree on a new route, Transcanada will resubmit their request for federal approval. This process is working. The right people are involved. Transcanada and Nebraska will find a good route. Then Transcanada will get federal approval. The rest of it is all politics and no substance.

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-04-18/transcanada-proposes-new-keystone-pipeline-route-in-nebraska
 
+Jeff Beamsley "I don't like (pick your favorite Republican) suggesting that Obama is a socialist, alien, or Muslim."

Well, let's pick the Republican whose post we're commenting on: Romney. He does not suggest that Obama is socialist, alien, or muslim. Obama does, however, explicitly talk about "the rich" not "paying their fair share". Yes, some Republicans use rhetoric as divisive as Obama's - but not the one actually running for president.

With respect to taxes, I think we need to be careful to distinguish between tax rates and tax revenues. Tax rates are the percentage numbers people throw around. Tax revenues are the amount of money actually paid to the government.

For example, here's a discussion of how, for an average family of four, Massachusetts state taxes have a tax rate only 1/3 of the federal tax rate, but nonetheless extract 3/4 as much revenue:

http://psychohist.livejournal.com/67060.html

In a more extreme example Warren Buffett's real tax rate is around 0.06%. The "Buffett rule" would only increase it to 0.12%:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203462304577138961587258988.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop

That's not twelve percent, that's one eighth of one percentage point. With the Buffett plan. To put it another way, Buffett is 180 times as wealthy as Romney, but only pays 2 times as much in taxes. Tax all of Buffett's real income fairly, his taxes would have to increase by something like 50 000%.

That also touches on +Thomas Terence's point: the problem with Obama's approach isn't so much that there aren't rich people who aren't paying their fair share - like Buffett - but that Obama actually advocates continuing to protect those rich people, while raising taxes on less rich people who already are paying their fair share.
 
+Warren Dew The context of discussion was how divisive political speech has become. While I understand that you like Romney, he is as engaged as anyone in divisive speech.

As far as not calling Obama a socialist, I think his intent is clear.

"I think President Obama wants to make us a European-style welfare state. Instead of being a merit society, we’re an entitlement society, where government’s role is to take from some to give to others. What I know is that if they do that, they’ll substitute envy for ambition. And they’ll poison the very spirit of America and keep us from being one nation under God.”

"I want you to remember when our White House reflected the best of who we are, not the worst of what Europe has become."

“(The President)takes his inspiration from the capitals of Europe; we look to the cities and towns across America for our inspiration.” Mr. Obama wants to “turn America into a European-style social welfare state. We want to ensure that we remain a free and prosperous land of opportunity.”

I've got plenty more if you need them.

So, just between us, can we agree that Romney is in substance calling Obama a socialist?

Then we can move on to discuss other things like taxes.
 
+Jeff Beamsley Whenever I talk to someone in a European welfare state, they agree that they are a welfare state, which they see as a good thing, but they disagree that they are socialist. So no, Romney is not calling Obama a socialist.
 
+Warren Dew You are splitting hairs and it isn't attractive.

If Romney is really making the same distinction between socialism and the European welfare state that you are attempting to make, why did he use the term "European-style SOCIAL welfare state" in the second quote? If he were really concerned about NOT calling Obama a socialist (as Rick Perry did directly), don't you think he would avoid using that word in any context?

Common, both of us know exactly what he is trying to do. The only difference is that you are unwilling to admit it.
 
+Jeff Beamsley "We both know"? In that case, I'm glad you agree with what we both know: that Romney is trying to describe Obama's policies in language that's as neutral as possible, while still remaining accurate.

As far as why Romney calls the European model a "social welfare state", it's because that's what the Europeans call it.
Lance G
 
+Thomas Terence I agree. But before we ask people who already pay the bulk of everything to pay more, should'nt we ask the people who pay nothing to start paying something?
 
+Jeff Beamsley So there are other Obama fanatics out there who like social welfare states but have an unreasoning hatred of the word "socialism". Not a surprise.
 
+Lance Griggs "should'nt we ask the people who pay nothing to start paying something" - if by that you are referring to working poor who pay little in income tax, the more accurate description would be "pay nothing in income tax". They are still paying local, state, and FICA.

So the question about the poor is what more do you want them to pay and what do you suggest they pay with?

If you are talking about wealthy people who pay no income tax, I agree.
Lance G
 
Perhaps the president should take some time off of the campaign trail.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2136851/Obama-held-fundraisers-previous-Presidents-combined-visits-key-swing-states-permanent-campaign.html#comments


People are hurting Mr. President.

Census: US Poverty Rate Swells Under Obama Administration

http://the-american-journal.com/census-us-poverty-rate-swells-under-obama-administration/


During 8 years of Clinton we enjoyed 5% unemployment rate. 8 years of Bush we averaged 5.6% unemployment. How can anyone be satisfied with +8% unemployment? That's the new normal?


Afa Keystone, no one forced Obama to do anything. EPA studied it for 3 years and had already approved it.

As you can see, It was the perfect example of the government having a problem in search of a solution. The aquifer covers 8 states and has thousands of miles of pipeline already running across it. Old antiquated old technology pipeline I might add.

http://heartland.org/sites/default/files/imagecache/internal-image/ogallala_aquifer_2012.jpg
 
Short Term Memory loss people are having... soon they will remember... once the first debate starts... Mitt will remind Obama. Then he won't be able to hide behind all the blitz....
 
+Jeff Beamsley Citing more left wing propaganda sources, I see. At least Romney supporters are not citing Rush Limbaugh.
 
+Lance Griggs"Afa Keystone, no one forced Obama to do anything"

Republicans included a requirement that the President decide on the Keystone application within 60 days of passage of the bill that extended the payroll tax holiday. The President had already said that he preferred to wait until Transcanada and Nebraska worked out a new route.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/12/17/us-usa-taxes-idUSTRE7B827K20111217

The bill was passed on December 17th. Obama rejected the pipeline application on January 18th a month ahead of the deadline set by the bill.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/obama-administration-to-reject-keystone-pipeline/2012/01/18/gIQAPuPF8P_story.html
Lance G
 
+Jeff Beamsley Maybe with some of mine and your tax dollars that was given to them. How about 10 dollars? There seems to be no concern about taking from me and giving to them. Why should there be any concern from where they get it? Are they not using the same government roads, schools,programs and services that we pay for? I mean, were talking about "fairness" aren't we?

Most millionaires and billionaires in the US started from nothing.


If you take 100% of taxpayers income 380k and up= only 938 billion a year.

So, how about taxing people who make less than $250,000? That’s probably whom you want to tax, since they are the ones who have the money (counterintuitive, I know.) The Bush “tax cuts for the rich” cost the Treasury about $800 billion in forgone revenue; the Bush tax cuts for the middle class cost trillions — 2.2 of them, to be precise.
 
+Warren Dew Politifact is a left wing propaganda source?

I guess from where you sit everything looks left.

It's too bad too, because it is really difficult to have a meaningful conversation without facts and they are one of the few sources of unbiased facts available on the net.

To support your conclusion, please post other unbiased sources which expose Politifact's bias.

Also I'm genuinely interested what alternatives you are proposing as a source of unbiased information.
 
+Jeff Beamsley Sources of unbiased information on the claims the candidates are making: the candidates' own words, on their own web sites or in published columns or videos, with context.

Romney hasn't used the word "socialist" with respect to Obama. Simple as that. Anything else is just spin.
 
+Lance Griggs you might have missed an earlier post where I agreed that just taxing the wealthy is not going to solve our problems.

Similarly, the math just doesn't work by somehow eliminating the support currently proved to the poor because all of that money goes almost immediately back into the economy.

If we are talking practical solutions rather than emotional or philosophical ones, Simpson Bowles included letting the Bush tax cuts expire for everyone.

The problem right now is that neither candidate is telling the truth about their budgets and the amount of debt that they will add.
 
Making more historic achievements!
 
+Warren Dew You are correct. Romney has promised that he won't call Obama a socialist and he has kept the letter of that promise.

As a demonstration of character, however, he has not kept the spirit of that promise.

Both candidates spend huge sums of money developing ways to deliver messages that are both effective and deceptive.

Disappointed that you are so in the tank for Romney that you are unwilling to admit that this is just another one of those "spins".
 
+Jeff Beamsley Glad you like Simpson Bowles. By the way, the Simpson Bowles proposal reduced the top tax rate to 24%, much lower than even the Bush tax rates.
 
+Warren Dew " Sources of unbiased information on the claims the candidates are making: the candidates' own words, on their own web sites or in published columns or videos, with context."

So you believe that every claim that Romney posts on his site is True?

Does that mean that every claim that Obama posts on his site is also True?

And one of the few sites that holds both of them accountable to the facts is biased?

Now that's wacked!
 
+Jeff Beamsley I believe that every claim that Romney posts on his site is a claim that Romney makes. Other sites using terms that Romney doesn't himself use are engaging in political spin - warping the facts about what he has said.
 
Just what we need... Romney trying to Bainize the country and send even more jobs overseas.
 
hes complaning about the last reublican presedent
 
Whatever you think of Romney and how boring and stiff he is, do you actually believe that the economy would be in better hands under Obama than Romney? If you have a paycheck job, or have ever had a paycheck job, you already know more about the economy than Obama. He's never had a real job, nor has he managed people working at a real job, in his life. How could anyone imagine such a person is going to be successful at solving economic problems?
 
obama is a joke, I can see it all the way from europe, funny tere are so many americans that are blind...
 
Many Americans are beginning to experience the tyranny their ancestors escape Europe for.
 
Nope, it's the fallout from Bush's 8 years...
 
+Cecil Sanders Tell Congress that the US has to compete with China and all the other countries that use low taxes and rational regulations to lure companies to do business overseas.

I don't expect people who hate capitalism and could never qualify for a real job to understand the dynamics of a free market.
 
Shut up, you Freemason piece of shit.

How does it feel to be Lucifers' Bitch, you old kike???

You know... when you become a 33 degree, you are told that you worship Lucifer. Don't blame me....blame You Tube and Walter Veith. They are the ones that put the info out there...The series is called Total Onslaught...

And since Mormonism was founded by a Freemason, carried on by a freemason, and copies the rites and degrees inside the Temple, Mormonism plays right into the scheme.

Don't forget, Mittens, Jesus Christ WAS THE STONE THAT THE BUILDERS REJECTED...
 
maybe American's need to quit blaming political parties for your problems and think about blaming yourself.
 
+derek rider Agreed. Too many Americans are looking for what the government can do for them and not what they can do for themselves.

As powerful as government has become the people that fill those offices are still our employees, not our bosses. We are the ones who allow government the power to cause problems.
 
Our goal for our government aught to be to have them govern the least amount needed, not the most we can stand.

What that means for us though is to organize ourselves in ways that are worthy of that freedom. I imagine us as teenagers moving toward adulthood. Decisions would be wiser and safer if our parents continued to make them, but we would feel stifled under their "protection". Just as we chafe under our parents good intentions, citizens will chafe under the good intentions of an ever expanding government. So we become adults - free to do much that we couldn't do as children and responsible to the consequences of our actions. They HAVE to be tied together.

But if an adult child suffers mightily through bad decisions, what caring parent won't at some point bring them back in, help them fix their issues and then send them back out again. The mercy shown to those who need it (but haven't earned it) is a sign of our true compassion towards those who need it. The fine line of compassion vs indulgence and freedom vs immaturity is where we find ourselves most often in disagreement. So our disagreements with each other should be on policy, not on motives, not on character. Stop listening to those who whisper the nasty secrets they want you to hear that poison the water. They are the ones who don't have your best interests at heart.

And now ... back to the rants ...
 
+Dale Burgess The problem is that government isn't an adult, it is a servant and we adults are not children.
Government has become an abusive, rebellious servant and the adults have become voluntary children and invalids dependent on an overpaid, incompetent servant.

A hundred years ago when adults faltered there were more adults willing to come to aid of that person. There were countless charities and benevolent organizations. Now we have fewer charities and many have been replaced by nonprofits who hire people to petition government for the bulk of their funding- This is no accident because poeople allowed government the wealth and power to become a clearing house for taxpayer-based cash to the point that much of that budget is borrowed from foreign countries.

This is the wrong policy in any language.
 
+Milton Ragsdale that is in part my point. When we behave like children, we look for our parent (the govt) to do what we won't do ourselves.It isn't like a servant, because when we pass that control to the government, we don't get it back.

Frankly, I don't think everything that has been done via the government is bad - even if it weakens us. While I imagine that I am hearty enough to deal with all problems that come my way, I don't doubt that some people will never be up to it, not because they won't, but because they can't. There are countless reasons to be a compassionate people. I only wish we were all more willing to help each other without the government getting involved. It dehumanizes things and turns good intentions on their head.

I think this is not a problem that can be handled in one bite. It must be changed with a great deal of effort, with setbacks and mistakes. In the end it is a direction far more than a final destination.
 
why don't they tell the truth about unemployment. it's a dam sight closer to 21%.
Add a comment...