Shared publicly  - 
President Obama called on Congress to move forward with a “To-Do List” that will create jobs and help restore middle class security.
President Obama calls on Congress to remove incentives for employers to ship jobs overseas and encourage companies to bring jobs back to Amerca as the first item on a to-do list he's asking Congress t...
Johanne Friedman's profile photoᗪᕮ ᐯᒪᗩᗪ  .fm's profile photoCorey Prevatte's profile photoKenneth Argabright's profile photo
This To-Do should have been To-Done 4 LONG years ago.
I would have started working on this 3 years ago.
He's been hard at work fighting against Republican babies.
OB, the issue you have with creating 'jobs' is that we're only trying to create them 'here' in the US for the US, while the real creation of employment might come from a real plan to reEDUCATE the unemployed so that they can participate in GLOBAL economics for real, rather than just focusing on creating 'local' works. Encourage people not to be afraid to grow into and become 'someone else'... start over, learn something new, build something new... but for craps sake, stop hoping that your government can create more 'nine to fives' like what you 'used to have'... get out of the idea that work comes from someone else recreating 'your past'... I say 'duh'. ;)
To late now, all my working class friends have been out of work mostly for 4 years and many have already lost their homes.
That's exactly what he's been wanting to do Izzy, how many times have you heard him express his views on higher education. The House just stops him. It's time to clean the House!
I lost my home, file bankEruptus, lost my career too and I'm not working in it anymore either, but I am working, I am 'recovering' and I am, doing something completely different in my 40s, so I have to wonder how people stay unemployed for four years my friend. And my hopes go with you.
"Change yourself"
+Dimas Zacks: Because the Democrats said they'd work with Republicans. And then proceeded to give the Republicans everything they asked for. Then the Republicans said that it wasn't enough and moved the bar.
What do you think you people will get with a Romney administration? Think he'll care AT ALL about your salaries? History people, when the rich get so rich that there's nothing left for the majority of the public then eventually that government will be toppled.
Jon - it should go to the person who will do the best/most efficient work... not the cheapest. Globalization is good..
I can appreciate what you say Ken, but truth is, I don't pay hardly any attention to what 'they' are doing 'up there', but I do keep informed about my fellow 'man'... I watch and talk and listen and we the people, need to hold each other accountable a bit more than we do. It's okay to change and it's okay to start over and start over in pay and give it all up, it's okay to know we're not 'old' and done because we lost one career, one house, etc... we forget who we are as a nation and we'd do well to find our old 'spirit' and beginning fire. I don't care mostly what we've put on the hill, I care what our mindsets have become and therefore, what goes up, does come back down... it's we who need to break this cycle within ourselves and maybe our ego...
+Paul Johnson That's exactly right, we now have two parties that are both marching to the right when they need to be moving to the center. It's their approach. Go crazy right, so when what use to be conservative looks liberal.
+Izzy Gumbo I think the emphasis on education for specific jobs is a waste of time. We need to make sure people are educated enough to be trainable, some employers will need to step up & hire on potential, then train for the specific tasks.

Almost everything is easier to learn if there is a practical application, it doesn't get more practical than retaining a job.

I'm not against good educations or higher learning but the idea that attending school for an additional 4,6,8 years for a job that may or not be viable when you're done doesn't always make sense.

I've read that people in the job market now can expect to change careers 3-4 times over the span of their life. They can't return to college every time they need to make themselves marketable again.
Well said Charles, I do mean 'that' type of 'education' ... skills training, of all kinds and yes, we need to relearn 'how' to learn and how to apply that learning and skill set. I think there are many people who don't even realize their own potentials and judge their ability on 'what they do' rather than what they can do .
This Nation is never going to be like that again. It's going to get to the point, which i am, that I can't stand to even listen to the right. I always make sure to get many different sources of news and really make it as diverse as possible but I think these people live in another universe.
They say Obama has done nothing, We've grown in GDP from 2 - 3%, while most of the other countries are growing at .8 - 1.5. The unemployment is because people don't want to work sometimes but its usually they don't want to have to 'downgrade' from what they were doing. They're going to have to because all Bush let happen, and I blame Obama too for not fixing it, it make us more exposed to these corporate fat cats. They run this country, 'We the People,' that's a joke. Corporations are people too and have the same rights as we do, according to Romney and many other Americans. Trust me when I say when I donate my small donation it doesn't sway their vote for us, but the corporate lobbyist sure do.
Thanks +Izzy Gumbo, I'm glad I'm not alone in my thinking.

Johnny, yes, we want the world to do better but we live in the USA & Pres. Obama needs to look after us first. I think that's why he was elected in the first place. ;-)
+Chris Lang & +Charles Bowman our president is very busy trying to fix what Bush messed up. The whole world is basically in his hands. I mean, he's only one person handling all these tasks and people like you don't give him any credit. If you think you can do a more better job, then let me see you run for president and see how much pressure it is being the one the world depends on to make everything better.
[God Bless You]
The unemployment is because people don't want to work sometimes but its usually they don't want to have to 'downgrade' from what they were doing... yes, Ken, that's exactly the issue with "we the people"... we are now "we the ego" and I'm done even blaming the hill. We need to shake it off and rethink ourselves, our government is a bi-product and a buy-product... if we'd stop waiting for them to 'take care of us'...sorry Charles ;) we might have actually done it already.
+Dominique Sowell Absolutely Right! The Entire World, is looking at the U.S. to bounce back. If we fail, they all will fail and our enemies will gain all the power. That's what your making a decisio on in November. A guy who's been doing a steady job or a guy who might follow his usual MO and gut it for all it's worth and take what he can and leave. I'd vote +Barack Obama
+Izzy Gumbo: The U3 rate counts people who are underemployed as unemployed. So you can bust your ass for minimum wage 40 hours a week and still be counted as not working because you don't make enough.
"My To-Do List"... 1.stop waiting for the government to do my dirty laundry...
No, I'm with you +Izzy Gumbo, we count on government for too much.

We didn't get this way overnight.
+Kenneth Argabright: [citation needed]. The Demublicans were one party at one point. Now they're just a difference without distinction: Both are too conservative for America.
+Charles Bowman: Oh, I'm sorry, pretty sure we the people established our government to work for the people. But then again, I don't confuse Charmin and the Constitution.
I'm only using 'words' Paul, the government that we created for us doesn't work, so why bitch, let's just rethink how to do business, how to make new business, how to apply our skills and move forward with them. I just think we're still a 'greater Nation' than we apply ourselves to be, governments good or bad, it really is just you and I who will make the difference within our own lives, Obama won't actually keep me from or encourage me to personally accomplish anything... it's only me who does that. I'm just saying we 'gripe' quite a bit more than we apply our brilliance. "hugs" ;) it's a good chat here.
+Paul Johnson where did I say different?

I want & prefer a Constitutional government.

Ok, after reviewing a couple of your comments it would appear that you feel the Constitution should guarantee life & happiness, while I'm content to adhere to life, LIBERTY, & the pursuit of happiness.

We both respect the Constitution, we just have a different interpretation.

I do agree with you, the two parties are more alike than they are different.
+Jerod Weeks That sounds like the one person who has the will, and presumably the power to repeatedly buck the status quo to me...

"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."
- Albert Einstein
Job#1 take away freedoms.
Job#2 take away wealth.
Job#3 take away guns.
Job#4 make me Dictator.
Job#5 Obey me, the dictator.
+Jerod Weeks I wouldn't be too worried about President Obama doing things his way without trying to compromise. He seems to reach across the isle even when no one is listening on the other side.

After all, he made about 1/2 of the stimulus bill tax cuts that the Republicans, not the Democrats, wanted even though the Republican's still didn't vote for the stimulus as a matter of principle.

He made the Affordable Care Act privatized by having people buy from an insurance company and allowing existing insurance policies to stay in effect (a Republican idea from the 90's) even though the Democrats wanted a mandatory single-payer system.

In fact, many of the appointments the Republican's are filibustering are actually Republicans, but all the appointments continue to be blocked because either no one appointed is conservative enough or the Republicans disagree in principle with the existence of the federal departments to which the appointees will lead.

He has attempted compromise time and time again, but its falling on deaf ears.
+Jerod Weeks: The Republicans are against uncovered cuts in taxes? Since when? Reagan and W did a pretty good job at deficit spending against tax cuts in the primary revenue brackets.
Totally agree with +Barack Obama on this. We need to bring back manufacturing in particularly, this is also needed for the long term competitive advantage.
+Paul Johnson Neither of them had racked up 5 trillion dollars of debt in the first 3 and a half years in office either.....
+Jerod Weeks It seems like the things we say the republicans are fundamentally against, they have only been fundamentally against during this administration. Since +Paul Johnson already covered taxes, let me remind you of the republican idea on an individual mandate...

"In 1993, 23 Republican senators, including then-Minority Leader Robert Dole, cosponsored a bill introduced by Senator John Chafee that sought to achieve universal coverage through a mandate..."

"Gingrich backed a federal mandate in the early 1990s as an alternative to the health care proposal Hillary Clinton pushed."

And of course we all still remember Romney's individual mandate.
Err, you might want to go read the actual numbers... W currently holds the record for that, +Jerod Weeks, followed by Reagan. At this point in his term, Obama's shaping up to be the most spendthrift administration in my lifetime.
+Jerod Weeks has it exactly right. Politicians pushing socialist agendas are a detriment to the country no matter what letter they have next to their name. That being said... Obama is by far the worst offender we've seen in decades in this regard... And he has the debt to prove it. 
I think spending is one way out of a recession. After all, the European Austerity certainly isn't working for them, and the auto bailout has brought back jobs in Detroit. Although I do think it is time to start paying down the debt.

There are two ways to pay down the debt. The first option is to cut government spending. So far this has resulted in cutting government jobs so much that the latest unemployment numbers showed massive private sector gains while increasing unemployment in the public sector (firing teachers, police, firefighters, etc). The second option is raising taxes, which republicans say should NEVER be done in a recession. They must think that firing people is better in a recession than having the very well employed pay a little higher taxes.
+Jerod Weeks: Yes, spendthrift. Keep in mind that the bank bailout and two wars fell on Bush's watch, not Obama's. Can't blame him for what the previous administration left behind.
The democratic party is constituted of independent thinkers. They don't always go the "way of the party". Republicans, although I dislike them (on a whole, some that I've voted for weren't morons), get pretty united towards whatever "agenda" they want to pursue. The Tea Party has introduced some ideological mania that has actually managed to fragment the party. The one pursuit that all republicans agree on is to obstruct Obama. If the democrats were as cohesive (and single-minded?) as the republicans, the period where democrats "controlled" both houses of congress would have been much more productive.

I'd rather have independent thinkers debate and collaborate to create better legislation (slowly), than have "party zealots" ram shoddy legislation through (quickly).
+Paul Johnson That's true. And it still leaves 5 trillion dollars worth of blame all to Obama. Not to mention a shrinking work force, unconstitutional health care disaster and an open attack on the energy industry... Just to name a few of his failures
And let's not forget all the US Auto makers, the banks that are now lending money, the Trillion or so the US made by issuing student loans directly, the fact that even the bipartisan CBO agrees that the health insurance bill will pay down the deficit, ending 2 wars, and not leading us into the Republican austerity that has failed the European economy when what we needed was a stimulus. And by the way +Chad Hernandez the only reason the work force is shrinking is because we keep cutting back the size of government and laying off government workers.
+Luke Rogers The Federal Government, under Obama's Administration, has fewer workers than there were under Reagan.
Yes, and the corporate tax rate was higher under Reagan too.
+Luke Rogers and why is that Luke? Why was Nasa gutted and defense spending cut? Could the fact that we have 46 trillion dollars in unfunded liabilities from just the top two federal entitlements alone while Obama is trying to add trillions more to that already growing number have anything to do with it? 
I wish the government would stop incentives for everybody. And instead of food stamps, expand Americorp to employ people as a safety net, including health benefits.
+Luke Rogers Again +Jerod Weeks speaks the truth. Government intrusion has been a detriment to every industry its intended to fix. From the housing market to farming to energy....
I wish this man would have spent the last 3 years trying to fix things, instead of waiting till election year.
First, tuition was rising exponentially long before the government allowed students to borrow directly. Second, sometime government intervention is needed when the private sector can't or won't act. For example, the auto industry wouldn't have survived since private banks weren't lending, factories and power plants would still be poisoning their employees and communities without the EPA, and people currently on Medicade and Medicare that truly need it would not be able to survive on private charities. That's not even getting into things like the government mandating desegregated schools and ending Jim Crow.
Stipulate that when there is a surplus of something in the market that exceeds the demand that price falls to seek some sort of equilibrium. Stipulate also that when the price of a thing is too high that consumers in some proportion will shy away.

Now to explain why college tuition is rising so fast consider that the government-backed injection of money to students has removed a natural governor to price escalation.

If students can't afford to go to college, if they can't find the funding, they won't go or they will slow down the process (this is why I needed 6-1/2 years to get my BA) OR maybe to continue to have income to cover salaries, colleges and universities will adjust their cost and fee structures to promote attendance.

A similar free market example can be made for healthcare. Separating the purchaser of the goods and services from the provider by an unseen hand removes responsibility and affects natural market dynamics.
I will stipulate that. So if colleges were to decide that they can be more profitable with higher tuition and having fewer attenders, then the free market has reached an equilibrium. This is fine for the higher education industry; however if we believe in any of the following: knowledge is intrinsically good, higher education leads to other intrinsic goods like happiness and health, or that having a greater % of the population college educated is better for the national economy, then the above market equilibrium is not acceptable.
Luke, I disagree with the correlation that college education = knowledge formation.

The amount of information that can be obtained with little or no cost via today's technology is staggering.

From a cost/benefit standpoint, today's bachelor degree at most schools requires far to many years to pay back (taking the way it's paid for off the table for the moment). It's not a rational investment. What's the solution?
+Luke Rogers In that case why half step the logic? Let's have the government mandate that higher education be free to all who want it. Take it a step further and mandate everyone attend.

You're missing the point. Government intrusion hasn't improved anything. If the consensus is that higher education is good for both students and institutions than the free market will reflect that. Government manipulation always ends up in a win lose scenario rather than a win win.
Reductio ad absurdum... if extreme government is bad than all government is bad. We can drown in water, so does that mean we shouldn't drink? All I'm saying is a little government can help.
+Luke Rogers Don't drink? No. Like water government is necessary. The key is knowing that drowning is a possibility....
+Chris Cecil The problem with your statement is that you have effectively said that spending 100K on a house and spending 100K on a sandwich are EXACTLY the same. Do you need me to explain why that kind of thinking is idiotic? I can, if you need me to.
+Drew Heyen Bush spent recklessly on wars, Obama spends recklessly on social programs.

Spendthrift - someone who spends money prodigiously and who is extravagant and recklessly wasteful

My main point is it seems that people think "spendthrift" and "frugal" are the same, when they really mean the opposite of one another.
+Paul Johnson There's nothing spendthrift about unneeded illegal wars?

So, unneeded illegal wars are frugal?
+Chris Cecil "Obama spends recklessly on social programs." Not according to the history of our economy. Where we are, economically, is not new territory. We have seen it before, and have tried all possible solutions, and your denial of what has, in fact worked, (as well as what has conclusively failed) is sad and delusional. Not only has Obama's spending worked, it has worked to the number, exactly as expected,
When have we seen this in the past? Spending your way out of debt is the sad and delusional thing. Just like digging down to climb out of a hole, it will never work.
Ronald Reagan spent us out of recession.
No, Reagan didn't spend us out of recession, he outspent the soviets until they toppled and them we boomed by exploiting their misery. It wasn't a real recovery, it just passed the buck far enough down the road that it felt like one.
+Chris Cecil you are starting down a dangerous path. I might agree with your observations about Reagan's spending, except that isn't an isolated situation. All of them. All of our economic ddownturns have, with perfect consistency, gotten worse with budget cuts/budget balancing and better with infrastructure spending, including this one, and the big one. How much evidence are you willing to deny?
Chris, it sounds like you are trying hard to not agree with me only because I reference Reagan and what he actually did. The government spent a lot of money and multiplied our debt to create demand in our economy.
keyesian bull. government debt cannot create true demand. The money is stolen out of your pocket thru inflation and the buck gets passed down the line making the next crash even worse.
So Chris, I'm having a hard time figuring out if you are against Obama, Reagan, or both. Or maybe you are against history and the facts.
the crash of 1921 solved itself just fine without government debt spending. "the big one" (i'm guessing 1929) you refer to would have done the same thing and been over with barely a mention in the history books if it wasn't for all the government printing presses making it longer
We are talking about recent history, and Reagan qualifies.
"I have sworn upon the altar of god eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man." -Thomas Jefferson

I am for freedom, liberty and "just weights and measures"
President Obama is it hard to become president and is it true that there are secrets hidden within the White House.
Oh my god, regan made the debt 300 times what it was when he took office, bush 200 times. Obama, 50%. This is the problem Republicans get the same vote value we do but don't bother with pesky facts! I say succession is the answer. I'm embarrassed by these people, that's why the world celebrated more than we did when Obama was elected. Please, succeed again, this time we'll not crush you but send you a welcome home basket. 
+Chris Cecil Once again, not knowing wtf your talking about. Not even going to point out how different they were because how about just typing it in Google! Stop saying crap you aren't willing to research before you open your Comment window! Instead of saying something as if you knew it as fact how about asking "I'm confused, we didn't do the same thing for the 1929 crash, why are we handling it differently."

This is why every conversation online or offline is like talking to a two year old. You have to go back and start from the beginning instead of moving the conversation forward. I really think there should be an application for citizenship for every single person in America at age 18. Don't pass, and sent to...somewhere away from the rest of us. Those who immigrate here know more than these people.

Just because you can type doesn't mean you have to post people. You know who I'm talking about. Apparently Sarah Palin inspired a nation of idiots that their voice should be heard. I just heard the other day two children say "I hate Obama, he's giving all of our money to businesses and trying to take away guns." I said, "Why do you think this girls?" and they looked over to their father who said "because that's what he's been doing since he took office." "Name one bill where he's tried to take away guns." and to that question "........" just dead silence. The kicker, they're on welfare. Which Without the democrats would be literally be left to die because the only welfare Republicans believe in is corporate welfare. I'll give them credit though, they've went so right that they fell off the page and the democrats have been pulled with them.

So we have the party of the ill informed (R) and the party of no backbone (L). It's time this country purges these ideas and perhaps the people behind them. When you have leaders of a country doing what the freshmen lawmakers of 2010 did to literally ensure a economic recovery didn't happen just so they can use it as a political tool to get another idiot of their wilk into the White House, should be charged with treason not simply 'voted' out. The time of one person one vote should be reexamined. In high school you had those in honor classes and then those in the 'special' classes. They should be given the right to say whatever they please and given the ability to vote when we all know those people are just easily influenced by people like Glen Beck and other right wing nut jobs? I say, look to your history books. Look at the trend of the more educated a person is the more democratic they are. There's a reason for that and there lies the flaw in out type of government. Greece may have been the first to starting idea of democracy but even they knew there's more 'plebs' than there are well educated. They made sure that if they ever took over the vote, there was a way to supersede it. Let's not repeat history, let's not lose sight on our true vision, moving FORWARD. Next time you hear someone saying some bull crap don't try to educate them. Destroy them, get them fired, call child protective services or the welfare office. Take them down, before they take us ALL down. This country isn't poised to fall, it's already falling and has been for awhile now. We have a President trying to pull it back up but our debt, domestic policy and foreign policy isn't our problem. It's an intelligence gap and the Internet, which could solve the problem, is actually exacerbating it. Facebook matches whatever their interest are and so they think their views are legitimate, when they're not. Facebook isn't the only instigator but they're a big one.

Don't let them take over the greatest nation ever created. A country made the same mistake in the 1930's and it's people let the extremist take over and they and their children and their children still bare that shame. It's the Nazi party I speak of, and Adolfo Hitler their leader. In my next post I'll show you the similarities between the New Republican party and the Nazi Party.

Add a comment...