Quantcast
Opinion

Letter: Get to the bottom of it

Comments

Return To Article
  • Schnee Salt Lake City, UT
    June 16, 2014 2:02 a.m.

    Hmm, then what are all those jobs bills Democrats keep pushing for that either get left in Boehner's to-do bin or filibustered in the Senate?

  • Hamath Omaha, NE
    June 16, 2014 5:00 a.m.

    This is true!

  • Hamath Omaha, NE
    June 16, 2014 5:01 a.m.

    Unfortunately, it reminds me of the last oh... say.... um... hard to count that many administrations regardless of the party.

  • The Real Maverick Orem, UT
    June 16, 2014 5:42 a.m.

    Benghazi!

    I think someone might need to look at the job creation and unemployment numbers. They don't seem to match to correlate with this letter writer's description.

    Benghazi!

    Obama and the Democrats tried to push through job stimulus bills. But they were killed by repubs.

    Benghazi!

    And your solution is...

    Benghazi!!!

    Can we finally hold house repubs like Chaffetz accountable for cutting embassy funding and then bragging about it on national tv? See, that's actually one of the reasons why the Benghazi attack was so severe. We didn't have enough security.

    Benghazi!

  • ECR Burke, VA
    June 16, 2014 6:07 a.m.

    The year before President Obama took office, the U.S. economy lost 4,389,000 jobs. The first year of the Obama presidency, while he started the cleanup, the economy lost 4,271,000 jobs. Since that time, over the past 52 months, the economy has gained 17,195,000 jobs. This according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

    Since the Republicans took control of the House in January of 2011, they have passed no legislation related to job growth. They have claimed their bills supporting deregulation and tax cuts are all about job growth but if that were the case, George W. Bush would have presided over a landmark economic boom instead of the disaster he left Obama. The House Republicans have passed 34 bills to either defund or repeal Obamacare. I think John Boehner might have even argued doing that would increase job growth. Count that for another attempt at job growth, according to the Republicans.

    Certainly the president didn't create all those 17M jobs but whatever he's doing is working better than the previous president. And what have the Republicans done?

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    June 16, 2014 6:25 a.m.

    Charlotte;

    Nothing is going to make any difference until the Tea Party/Republicans stop refusing to do ANYTHING as long as there is a Democrat in office, and a black democrat at that.

  • ordinaryfolks seattle, WA
    June 16, 2014 6:43 a.m.

    So we are supposed to believe that the extreme, near Depression brought on by the Bush years would be magically wiped out after only a few years. Nonsense. And never, ever forget that the Republican Tea Party goal after 2010 was to make Obama a one term President. This meant thwarting every move made by the President to speed up recovery and give assistance to the average person. And it continues till today.

    And then we are supposed to somehow conflate the notion that a magic wand will make the economy hum in only a brief time with the made-up Fox scandal of Benghazi. This has been investigated to death already. Is there no end to the faux scandal mongering of the right wing?

    And besides all of the fear mongering, and scandal manufacturing done by our Fox friends, the free enterprise system embodied and loved so much by free marketeers, the Stock Market, is doing quite well. If you bothered to save money and put it in the market, your 401K is probably doing pretty good. If you are going to blame Obama for all the bad stuff, what about the good stuff too?

  • Roland Kayser Cottonwood Heights, UT
    June 16, 2014 7:17 a.m.

    The economy of the entire developed world crashed in 07-08. Among all of the major economies, we are doing better than anyone else. Anyone who expected us to just shake of the biggest banking collapse in eighty years is living in a dream world.

    Looking at history, it takes at least a decade for an economy to get back to normal following a banking crisis. Since our crisis was much worse than than most banking crises, it may take even longer.

  • Thid Barker Victor, ID
    June 16, 2014 7:25 a.m.

    Schnee. Jobs bills? What jobs bills? Oh, you must be talking about all those shovel ready jobs and bailouts that didn't create anything except more debt? If they had worked, don't you think the economy would have improved? And since it hasn't, what now? More Obamacare, more food stamps, more illegal immigration, more scandals? Yep, it has to be that evil Boehner and the GOP!

  • FT salt lake city, UT
    June 16, 2014 7:27 a.m.

    @Ranchhand is correct. The right wing radicals are the problem not the solution.

  • UtahBlueDevil Durham, NC
    June 16, 2014 7:44 a.m.

    Charlotte, the problem isn't that things are not being looked into, it is just that the answers are not what you want them to be. Big difference.

    Nothing this president or any other president can do will bring back the level of low skill jobs back to the US.

    Nothing any administration does will remove the impact of the baby boomer generation retirements

    Not much will change until we as a country understand that college isn't for everyone, and we need an education system that produces "skilled" workers - not just educated workers. Not everyone is going to be an MBA, CPA, Dr, or Engineer. We need a new class of highly skilled workers to build our middle class back. Swinging a hammer isn't one of those skills.

  • Open Minded Mormon Everett, 00
    June 16, 2014 7:55 a.m.

    "Democrats have had six years to get to the bottom of the poor economy and job growth but have shown no insight, realistic solutions or genuine concern. What makes anyone think that putting aside Benghazi or the other questionable situations would make a difference in solving domestic problems?"

    =====

    1. This letter ignores reality. The economy was in nose dive, jobs were being list by the millions, the Stock Market had crashed -- and all this BEFORE Obama ever took office. Tea-Pubublicans need to acknowledge this, and OWN it.

    2. What of earth does the FauxNews Benghazi scandal have to do with the economy?
    Help me, I can not connect the dots, make cause and effect, ect.

    3. Folks like this just need to write a single class action "We Hate Obama" letter and just sign it, and keep sending it in week and week...

  • pragmatistferlife salt lake city, utah
    June 16, 2014 7:59 a.m.

    "Anyone who expected us to just shake of the biggest banking collapse in eighty years is living in a dream world."

    There's your answer Charlotte..wake up, you're dreaming.

    There are no cover ups. We know what happened at the IRS, we know what happened in Benghazi, Everyone is working to repair the VA, and in case you hadn't noticed we now have more jobs than before the crash and the stock market is flirting with another all time high.

    Wake up...you're dreaming.

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    June 16, 2014 8:27 a.m.

    Democrats were in control during the last two years of the Bush administration. The first stimulus bill was written and passed by Democrats. The bailout was administered by Democrats. The stock market crash happened when Democrats controlled Congress.

    Everything that is hurting America started when the Democrats controlled Congress. Now, fortunately, Republicans control the House and the House is the originator of all revenue bills, i.e. taxes. The Democrats refuse to stop spending money that they don't have and the Republicans refuse to destroy the businesses that are still solvent by taking even more money out of the economy so that Democrats can buy votes.

    47% of Americans receive money from the Government. Some of them deserve what they receive because they were forced to pay into Social Security and Medicare. Others, who should work, refuse to work because they know that Obama will send them a check for not working.

    The only way to solve America's financial problems is for the PRIVATE SECTOR to generate jobs. That generates income tax. Every job that takes someone off welfare is doubly beneficial, it reduces government spending and it generates tax revenue.

  • wrz Phoenix, AZ
    June 16, 2014 8:32 a.m.

    "Democrats have had six years to get to the bottom of the poor economy and job growth but have shown no insight, realistic solutions..."

    That's because Democrats don't understand what makes the economy in a capitalist society hum. They think the way to do it is to tax the rich and give it to the poor.

    Also, they have no regard for the millions of unemployed Americans. They let immigrants (illegal and otherwise) pour into this country by the millions who take jobs, usually for way less pay, depressing wages and consumer income.

    The answer? Vote them out of office in the fall.

  • The Real Maverick Orem, UT
    June 16, 2014 8:39 a.m.

    Other than impeaching Obama and placing Mitt Romney in the White House while gutting all social programs, what would make this letter writer happy?

    More tax cute to the rich?

    Another war in the Middle East?

    Just what does the right want to be happy because they've been nothing but obstructionist crybabies for 6 years.

    Let's get to the bottom of it.

  • SharpHooks Sandy, UT
    June 16, 2014 8:44 a.m.

    Doesn't this letter get published about once a week?

  • Tyler D Meridian, ID
    June 16, 2014 8:48 a.m.

    Charlotte, the only thing at the bottom of most of these Faux created scandals is more Kool Aid.

  • Alfred Phoenix, AZ
    June 16, 2014 8:58 a.m.

    The Real Maverick:
    "See, that's actually one of the reasons why the Benghazi attack was so severe. We didn't have enough security."

    Embassy security is provided by the military. Obama musta forgot, or wasn't smart enough to realize it. Besides, what were the embassy folks doing in Benghazi when the embassy is in Tripoli?

    RanchHand:
    "...and a black democrat at that."

    I think you'll find he had a white mom. Why do people keep insisting he's black?

    ordinaryfolks:
    "And never, ever forget that the Republican Tea Party goal after 2010 was to make Obama a one term President."

    Here's what Obama said about economic recovery... "if I don’t have this done in three years, then there's going to be a one-term proposition."

    Roland Kayser:
    "Since our crisis was much worse than than most banking crises, it may take even longer."

    Maybe you should mention that to Obama. (See his comment about the recovery, above.)

  • 4601 Salt Lake City, UT
    June 16, 2014 9:19 a.m.

    "Jobs, jobs, jobs" is the punchline of a bad joke. The only way Mr. Obama knows how to create jobs is to borrow money with his Chinese credit card and hire more public employees, fund crony capitalism or short term public works. He has no fundamental understanding of economic development. His advisors such as Paul Krugman and other Fabians can only blame others for the economy's failure. Bush still is a favorite straw man for the administrations foundering.

  • Esquire Springville, UT
    June 16, 2014 9:20 a.m.

    The job market has vastly improved. The rate of growth in the deficit is falling again. The number of federal employees has fallen. The markets a vibrant and record setting. We are unwinding the mess of war. The Pentagon (despite GOP opposition) is seeking to be more efficient. Finally a President is addressing the environmental problem we face. I could go on, but all in all, things actually are going pretty good.

    But you know what cracks me up? Republicans saying that the government doesn't create jobs, and then they demand the President to create jobs. They say the want market solutions, then complain when the President doesn't control the marketplace. Which is it, Republicans?

  • UtahBlueDevil Durham, NC
    June 16, 2014 9:27 a.m.

    "I think you'll find he had a white mom. Why do people keep insisting he's black?"

    Gee Alfred.... I don't know.... I am sure it has absolutely nothing to do with anything. Maybe this kind of stuff keeps bringing the subject up...

    "WOLFEBORO, N.H. (AP) — A police commissioner in a predominantly white New Hampshire town says he won't apologize for calling President Barack Obama the N-word, and he sat with his arms crossed while angry residents at a meeting called for his resignation on Thursday."

    I know it is a few weeks old, but many do remember back that long.

    Alfred... then you quote "Here's what Obama said about economic recovery... "if I don’t have this done in three years, then there's going to be a one-term proposition."

    Only logical explanation is that "conservatives" put up candidates that made Obama's poor performance still look better then what they could provide. I am not sure who really comes out worse looking in this scenario. Obama as bad as he is, beat the best of the best Republicans could put up against him. Not sure Obama was the problem there.

  • Kent C. DeForrest Provo, UT
    June 16, 2014 9:30 a.m.

    wrz:

    "That's because Democrats don't understand what makes the economy in a capitalist society hum. They think the way to do it is to tax the rich and give it to the poor."

    Republicans, however, think that reducing taxes on the wealthy and reducing corporate taxes will create jobs. Hate to break it to you, but we've tried Reagan's idiotic voodoo economics now for over 30 years. What has it brought us? Not more jobs (except in Third World countries). It has brought us the largest income gap between the rich and the rest that we've seen since the 1920s.

    Please, before claiming the Democrats don't understand economics, admit that supply-side economics is a disaster and look for a different solution. What you may find is that the Democrats have been pushing for solutions that will work if given a decent chance.

    Oh, but please realize that the Democratic solution isn't to tax the rich and give it to the poor. It is to tax the rich and pay down our federal debt, which we were well on the way to doing before Bush's tax cuts and two unfunded wars.

  • The Real Maverick Orem, UT
    June 16, 2014 9:36 a.m.

    I agree with many conservatives here. Obama has no clue.

    So let's give more money to richies, deregulate the markets further, subsidize oil companies, cut all welfare and food stamps, drill everywhere, outlaw green energy, start another war in the Middle East, make driving trucks mandatory, repeal Obamacare, outlaw all abortion, and watch the economy just take off!

    Yes We Can!

  • ECR Burke, VA
    June 16, 2014 10:19 a.m.

    4601 stated: "Bush still is a favorite straw man for the administrations foundering."

    In the final year of the Clinton Administration, when we were experiencing budget surpluses, the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office estimated that under the existing conditions we would have paid off the national debt - that's not eliminating the deficit, that's eliminating the debt - within 10 years. That's the economy George Bush inherited. But his first move once he got into office was to pass a major tax cut which, couple with a slow down in the fast moving economy, started deficit spending that left our national debt, when he left office, at 100% above where it was when he took office. ($5.0T vs. $10.T) That circumstance coupled with a world wide economic downturn, caused by deregulation and radical speculation on the part of investment bankers, has left us where we are today.

    George Bush deserves to be the "straw man" for the next several generations when one considers his squandered opportunities. Since the day Barack Obama took office everything related to the economy has improved, not fast enough for most of us, but it has been headed in the right direction - jobs, stock market, etc.

  • SG in SLC Salt Lake City, UT
    June 16, 2014 10:25 a.m.

    @Alfred

    1) The U.S. Embassy is in Tripoli, but I'm pretty sure that the facility in question was the U.S. Diplomatic Mission (essentially a consulate) in Benghazi; all of which has no bearing on the fact that diplomatic security funding was a bigger issue than security asset allocation.

    2) Black, white, mulatto . . . it shouldn't make any difference, but apparently it does to some folks out there.

    3 & 4) I think the salient point here is that congressional Republicans COULD have collaborated on bipartisan economic recovery legislation (and taken credit for bringing about a more rapid and robust recovery than anyone expected), but what they chose to do instead was engage in a kamikaze/scorched-earth strategy that aimed at taking down President Obama, with a delayed and anemic recovery being the "collateral damage". An unconscionable and cowardly act, in my opinion.

  • There You Go Again Saint George, UT
    June 16, 2014 10:41 a.m.

    "...insight, realistic solutions or genuine concern...".

    No insight...

    No realistic solutions...

    No genuine concern...

    Three reasons among many why Republican's are not in the White House.

  • ugottabkidn Sandy, UT
    June 16, 2014 11:53 a.m.

    Quick, name one law that was passed and enacted by the Republican House that was elected in 2010. You can't because there has not been one. There has been only one item on their agenda since 2009 and that is obstruction. Obstruction of bills their members have themselves written in many cases. Obama's failures are one thing but it is nothing to the failures of Orrin, Lee, Chaffetz, Bishop and Stewart not to mention Mr Dino Matheson. They are the most unproductive Congress in our nation's history.

  • Schnee Salt Lake City, UT
    June 16, 2014 12:08 p.m.

    @wrz
    Democrats understand that when your economy is only growing slowly due to a lack of demand... the solution does not involve cutting sources of money to the poor that they spend into the economy quickly. Nor does the solution involve tax cuts to the rich, they have plenty of money, they just aren't creating jobs because there's not enough demand to justify the jobs and they aren't idiots; they won't make jobs for no reason.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    June 16, 2014 12:40 p.m.

    To "ECR" it is interesting that you bring up the Republicans and their taking control of the House. If you look at the BLS data on total jobs, it was tanking until the 2010 elections, and didn't stabilize until the Republicans took control of the House. Businesses were getting rid of anything questionable because they feared what the Democrats were going to do. Smart businesses know that the best thing for the US was to have a House and Senate fighting among themselves. That is why job growth has been around since January 2011. It isn't because of anything Congress accomplished, it is because of congress being too busy fighting among themselves.

    Also, under Clinton, we did not have any budget surplusses. We reduced the deficit to around $23 billion, but that still was an increase in debt. It is only through highly questionable accounting does Clinto have a surplus. Plus, you are ignoring the dot com bubble that burst about 6 months before Bush came into office.

    To "ugottabkidn" yes, nothing has been enacted because Harry Reid won't bring it up for a vote. So far the House has passed 25 different jobs bills.

  • UtahBlueDevil Durham, NC
    June 16, 2014 1:06 p.m.

    Redshirt... really.... 25?

    You mean bills that Boehner's website states as one of these..... House Resolution 872. It is entitled "Reducing Regulatory Burdens Act". And its job creating / economy boosting benefit to the economy - per THOMAS - is "reduce overlapping federal regulation on pesticides, thereby reducing costs to both farmers and small business owners." This is one of the great saviors to our economy?

    Here is another job boosting bill that he lists.... the "Jumpstarting Opportunity with Broadband Spectrum (JOBS) Act", by quote "bolster emergency response infrastructure".

    Not that either of these two bills don't have merit. They did pass with bi-partisan support... but jobs bills? I think we are really trying to push things here. Included in this list was a vote for force Obama to approve the Keystone pipeline - before the states had approved their routes. Problem is you can't approve a project before it has the necessary state approvals first... minor detail often left out of the discussion. It was a sermonical vote at best - nothing the Senate could act on.

    There is blame on both sides here... both sides are playing the same game, not just one.

  • Frozen Fractals Salt Lake City, UT
    June 16, 2014 1:12 p.m.

    @Redshirt
    "That is why job growth has been around since January 2011."

    Actually job growth started March 2010 and 2009 was highlighted by a rapidly declining (i.e. improving) rate of lost jobs. Going from -800k in Jan 2009 to -50k in Jan 2010 was a significant improvement similar to stopping the bleeding on someone who has a significant injury.

  • ECR Burke, VA
    June 16, 2014 1:34 p.m.

    RedShirt - According to Brooks Jackson of the Annenberg Public Policy Center at the university of Pennsylvania - "Readers have noted a USA Today story stating that, under an alternative type of accounting, the final four years of the Clinton administration taken together would have shown a deficit. This is based on an annual document called the "Financial Report of the U.S. Government," which reports what the governments books would look like if kept on an accrual basis like those of most corporations, rather than the cash basis that the government has always used. The principal difference is that under accrual accounting the government would book immediately the costs of promises made to pay future benefits to government workers and Social Security and Medicare beneficiaries. But even under accrual accounting, the annual reports showed surpluses of $69.2 billion in fiscal 1998, $76.9 billion in fiscal 1999, and $46 billion for fiscal year 2000. So even if the government had been using that form of accounting the deficit would have been erased for those three years."

    Sources

    Congressional Budget Office, "Historical Budget Data," undated, accessed 6 Sep 2010.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    June 16, 2014 1:39 p.m.

    To "UtahBlueDevil" yes, reducing regulatory burdens is something that would help businesses. If you ask the CEOs of many of the largest US corporations, they cite regulations as being some of the biggest problems that reasons why they are not expanding and hiring.

    But, the fact that you found the web site shows that you cannot deny that the Republicans in the House have passed many bills that could help the economy, but the Harry Reid won't even put them up for a vote.

    To "Frozen Fractals" go to teh BLS web site, and look at the total jobs. See "Employment, Hours, and Earnings from the Current Employment Statistics survey (National)." on the BLS web site We were shedding tons of jobs, until the 2010 election cycle started and the American public began to demand more of their elected officials.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    June 16, 2014 2:32 p.m.

    To "ECR" actually if you look at the latest publication of the "2014 Historical
    tables Budget of the U.S. Government" as published by the Office of Management and Budget, in section 7 they list an accounting of the tax revenues along with the debt held both publically and privately. There is a column titled "Gross Debt". Here are the figures that the OMB released for the public debt:

    Year Gross Debt (millions)
    1991 $3,598,178
    1992 $4,001,787
    1993 $4,351,044
    1994 $4,643,307
    1995 $4,920,586
    1996 $5,181,465
    1997 $5,369,206
    1998 $5,478,189
    1999 $5,605,523
    2000 $5,628,700
    2001 $5,769,881

    Tell me, when did the debt remain constant (no debt added) or when the debt went down (surplus).

    The numbers you list is the debt held by the public only, and do not include the debt created by borrowing from SS. Using that accounting practice, the debt is only $13 Trillion, and Bush only increased the debt by $2.4 Trillion, and Obama has increased the debt by $6.4 Trillion.

  • The Real Maverick Orem, UT
    June 16, 2014 2:33 p.m.

    @ redshirt

    Oh, you mean the 25 job growth bills which included tax cuts for the rich (that would increase our deficit and pile on more debt for our children), repeals of Obamacare, and keystone pipeline (so we can tear up valuable farmland so Canada can enjoy refined oil)? No thanks. I'm so proud of Reid killing those bills.

    Also, regulations as the top reason why businesses aren't hiring? You must not have passed Econ 101 nor have read from any credible economist. No one has stated that regulations are what's killing job creation in this country. It's not even in the top 5. Lack of demand is the #1 reason. Why? The poor and middle classes no longer have the wealth to continue to buy products which fuel American growth.

    One of the major problems today is that a dwindling minority continues to place ideology ahead of facts... The wealth inequality and deregulation nearly destroyed this country in the late 20s. This was resolved and our country saw the greatest economic boom in history. Then, these Great Depression policies came into place again. And we continue to suffer from them because this vocal minority refuses to work with democrats.

  • Frozen Fractals Salt Lake City, UT
    June 16, 2014 2:35 p.m.

    @Redshirt
    I'm not saying we didn't lose a ton of jobs in 2009, I'm saying that when you go from -800k in January to around -300k by summer and -50k by the start of the next year, that's a significant improvement in the situation. The jobs numbers were trending in the right direction the entire time after Obama got into office (losing fewer jobs just about every month until we started gaining).

  • SharpHooks Sandy, UT
    June 16, 2014 2:38 p.m.

    What will be MOST entertaining --watching the fist-shaking GOP--is when we elect, then re-elect Hillary Clinton. They offer only attacks and criticism--never a viable solution.
    Want to know what's killing the Republican party?
    Republicans.
    So get on board with the progress the Dems are making, quit lying, and if you REALLY think you can do BETTER, offer it up.
    Let's hear something intelligent from the right for a change.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    June 16, 2014 2:53 p.m.

    To "The Real Maverick" so then you agree that the House has in fact passed at least 25 bills designed to encourage employers to create more jobs either through tax breaks or through reducing red-tape. I have read the statements of the CEOs telling us why they are not expanding. Why look to second hand guesswork when the CEOs will tell you themselves?

    To "Frozen Fractals" when Obama took office, and for the next year we were shedding jobs at an alarming rate. We still are not creating enough jobs to handle the increase in population. The unemployment number has been going down at the same time so has the labor participation rate. That means that fewer people are actually working. When you look at the U6 unemployment rate, the job situation is much worse than the Government reports.

  • FreedomFighter41 Provo, UT
    June 16, 2014 3:06 p.m.

    @ Redhirt

    Are these the same CEOs that claimed that they'd provide us with more jobs and better salaries after Bush gave them tax breaks? Are these the same CEOs that claimed that NAFTA would be great for the American worker?
    Are these the same CEOs that claimed that deregulating the banking and finance industry would be great for the American economy? Banks would then be too big to fail?

    Those CEOs?

    Why trust in corrupt and greedy folks like the Koch bros? Why not go with the guys who look at economics as a profession? What's wrong with using the policies that worked during the 1950s? Why do repubs insist we rely on the (failed) policies of the Great Depression and Reaganomics?

    We're all still waiting for the wealth to begin to trickle down!

  • ECR Burke, VA
    June 16, 2014 3:35 p.m.

    RedShirt - The Heritage Foundation has a publication called "Federal Spending by the Numbers, 2013: Government Spending Trends in Graphics, Tables, and Key Point" which lists, among other things, the surplus/deficits for the last 20 years and they look like this:

    1996 -$152B
    1997 -$30B
    1998 +$95B
    1999 +$170B
    2000 +$314B
    2001 +$167B
    2002 -$202B
    2003 -$473B
    2004 -$504B

    You see the trend. Who you gonna believe? Aren't these Heritage Foundation folks on your side? Obviously these numbers are smaller than the ones I conceded to in my note above. But regardless of the actual numbers, there were surpluses. I'm sure I can find higher surpluses if you want to press the issue.

  • wrz Phoenix, AZ
    June 16, 2014 3:36 p.m.

    Kent C. DeForrest:
    "Republicans, however, think that reducing... corporate taxes will create jobs."

    I'll tell you a secret... corporations don't pay taxes. Only people pay taxes. Any 'tax' corporations pay is included in the cost of goods/services produced... which is passed to consumers. Corporate taxes in some smart countries is zero.

    "Please, before claiming the Democrats don't understand economics, admit that supply-side economics is a disaster and look for a different solution."

    A different solution... like what? Tax the rich and give it to the poor?

    "What you may find is that the Democrats have been pushing for solutions that will work if given a decent chance."

    Like running up the national debt another $7 trillion in 5 1/2 years?

    "It is to tax the rich and pay down our federal debt.."

    Paying down the debt simply means giving the, mostly, money to China. How will that help our economy?

    Schnee:
    Democrats understand that when your economy is only growing slowly due to a lack of demand... the solution does not involve cutting sources of money to the poor..."

    So... lets' cut investment funding to reduce jobs availability.

  • airnaut Everett, 00
    June 16, 2014 4:00 p.m.

    SharpHooks
    Sandy, UT
    What will be MOST entertaining --watching the fist-shaking GOP--is when we elect, then re-elect Hillary Clinton. They offer only attacks and criticism--never a viable solution.
    Want to know what's killing the Republican party?
    Republicans.
    So get on board with the progress the Dems are making, quit lying, and if you REALLY think you can do BETTER, offer it up.
    Let's hear something intelligent from the right for a change.

    2:38 p.m. June 16, 2014

    ===========

    Agreed.

    Did you see Mitt Romney's interview and GOP stategy planning meeting this last weekend held in Deer Valley, Utah for winning the WhiteHouse in 2016?

    #1 -- trash Hillary Clinton and talk Benghazi...
    They are totally putting all bets on a Hillary run, and nomination.

    Not a single idea,
    platform,
    solution,

    just trashing Hillary and Benghazi.

    Might win the AM radio listeners,
    but we all know 90% of America wants solutions or alternatives.

    Running a "Vote for me, I'm not Hillary" campaing with nothing else is for sure GOP looser...

  • FreedomFighter41 Provo, UT
    June 16, 2014 4:10 p.m.

    "I'll tell you a secret... corporations don't pay taxes"

    They used to. What happened?

    Why don't corporations pay taxes anymore? Why don't they care about America? They use American services. Why don't they look to do for their country rather than always looking for what their country can do for them?

    Besides, aren't corporations people?

    All Corporations should pay taxes, period. Hire on more IRS agents then. Reform the tax code. Tax corporations, they aren't a protected class!

  • wrz Phoenix, AZ
    June 16, 2014 5:06 p.m.

    FreedomFighter41:
    "Why don't corporations pay taxes anymore?"

    They pay taxes... but they pass the taxes they pay to the consumer by adding all taxes paid to the cost of goods and services they produce. You coulda realized that had you carefully read all my post.

    For example, you buy a loaf of bread at your local grocery store and you pay some part of the store's (corporate) income tax which has been added to the price of the loaf of bread. You buy a car at your local car dealership and you pay a portion of the business (corporate) income tax they pay which has been added to the price of the car.

    "Besides, aren't corporations people?"

    Corporations were declared people by the Supreme Court because the may hold and exercise certain rights under the common law and the U.S. Constitution. For example, corporations may contract with other parties and sue or be sued in court in the same way as natural persons or unincorporated associations of persons.

    "All Corporations should pay taxes, period."

    They do pay taxes, period... but they pass it the tax to the consumer, period.

  • Curmudgeon Salt Lake City, UT
    June 16, 2014 7:45 p.m.

    wrz:

    Certainly corporations try to pass on all of their costs to their customers, if they can. The thing is, they can't pass on costs to non-customers, and they are usually still subject to competitive pressures to hold prices down, so it isn't always as easy as you say to just pass corporate taxes on to "the consumer." Unless the corporation is selling something that no one can do without (inelastic demand, like public utility service) and that can only be obtained from that corporation (i.e. the corporation has a monopoly), it is not a certainty that corporate taxes will be passed to the consumer; sometimes they have to get eaten by the shareholders.

  • UtahBlueDevil Durham, NC
    June 16, 2014 8:28 p.m.

    WRZ.... so what you are saying is taxes for corporations are based on gross sales, not net income. Interesting. So since the tax rate is based on net operating cost, how do they calculate that way in advance?

    I like most other people thought corporations were only taxed on their profits... not gross sales. Per your comments, corporations should be able to state their net earning for the year way in advance. I wonder why Wall Street doesn't know they yet.

    "They do pay taxes, period... but they pass it the tax to the consumer, period."

    Yep... just like GE.... that didn't pay any income taxes..... because their customers paid if for them? (sigh)

  • Tyler D Meridian, ID
    June 16, 2014 9:36 p.m.

    @RedShirt – “If you ask the CEOs of many of the largest US corporations, they cite regulations as being some of the biggest problems that reasons why they are not expanding and hiring.”

    Nonsense…

    The main reason they’re not hiring is the economic uncertainty driven by political gridlock.

    Of course finding CEO’s to say publicly that they wish regulations were reduced… yeah, that’s about as challenging (and ingenuous) as finding an alcoholic to say he wishes liquor was free.

  • Sven Morgan, UT
    June 16, 2014 11:40 p.m.

    Under Obama:

    * Real unemployment is over 14% (And no, it's not 8-9% like the Obama likes to tell us)

    * 92 million Americans are out of the workforce; the highest rate in 35 years

    * Over 47 million Americans are on food stamps; which is almost double what it was in January 2009.

    * College Grads cannot find jobs; more and more are living with mom and dad

    * The CBO Report from 2/4/2014 projected that Obamacare will reduce the number of hours Americans work by the equivalent of 2.5 million full-time jobs.

    This is nothing, wait until the EPA begins instituting their new economy crushing regulations on coal and energy. As Obama put it, "energy rates will necessarily skyrocket." This will affect every facet of our lives. Some think these new regulations will just mean a small increase in our monthly energy bills. Wrong! Everything you purchase will be going through the roof...not just energy.

    Any wonder why Obama and the Democrats want amnesty. They need a new minority group to exploit for their votes. And just like Black Americans, liberals will destroy the Latino family structure, rendering the Father obsolete.

    Obama's "fundamental transformation" of our nation is nearly complete.

  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    June 17, 2014 8:43 a.m.

    To "FreedomFighter41" and "TylerD" the CEO never promised anything or claimed anything. Nor are they banking and finance CEOs.

    From the Washington Post we read "Business leaders say Obama's economic policies stifle growth". There the CEO of Verizon explains that new regulations are hurting business.

    In IBD's article "Home Depot Co-Founder: Obama Is Choking Recovery" there we hear from the CEO of Home Depot that in todays regulatory environment the could never be as big as they are. In "Loews CEO: Obama Administration 'Anti-Business'" at CNBC the Lowes CEO says similar things.

    From IBD's article "Wynn's Rant: One Among Many" we hear from the CEO of Wynn Hotels, 3M, Boeing, and Intel stating that the Obama administration's policies are hurting business.

    Steve Jobs hated the regulations Obama imposed. See "Steve Jobs Biography Reveals He Told Obama, 'You're Headed For A One-Term Presidency'" in the Huffington Post.

    Conservatives are telling us that we cannot rely on the policies of the Great Depression. Liberals are re-creating the failed policies of the Great Depression. Reaganomics actually worked, just look up some studies done by some unbiased sources.

  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    June 17, 2014 8:48 a.m.

    To "ECR" again, that is the debt held by the public, and is not the total debt. That report is only looking at the deficit as the amount borrowed from the public and not the debt owed to Social Security. Do you want the US government to pay back its debt to SS, or should they just ignore that debt? If we just look at the net debt, not Gross, the current debt is much lower than reported, and we find that Obama has added even more debt than Bush did. Which measure of debt do you want to look at, Gross debt or net debt?

  • Screwdriver Casa Grande, AZ
    June 17, 2014 11:01 p.m.

    We got the bottom of the poor economy. It was poor conservative business policies.