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?
This is true!
Unfortunately, it reminds me of the last oh... say.... um... hard to count that
many administrations regardless of the party.
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!
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?
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.
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?
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.
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
@Ranchhand is correct. The right wing radicals are the problem not the
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 retirementsNot 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.
"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...
"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.
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.
"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
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.
Doesn't this letter get published about once a week?
Charlotte, the only thing at the bottom of most of these Faux created scandals
is more Kool Aid.
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,
"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
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
"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.
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.
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!
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.
@Alfred1) 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.
"...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.
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.
@wrzDemocrats 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.
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.
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.
@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.
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."SourcesCongressional Budget
Office, "Historical Budget Data," undated, accessed 6 Sep 2010.
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.
To "ECR" actually if you look at the latest publication of the "2014
Historicaltables 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
$3,598,1781992 $4,001,7871993 $4,351,0441994 $4,643,3071995 $4,920,5861996 $5,181,4651997 $5,369,2061998
$5,478,1891999 $5,605,5232000 $5,628,7002001 $5,769,881Tell 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
@ redshirtOh, 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.
@RedshirtI'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).
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.
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.
@ RedhirtAre 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!
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 -$152B1997
-$30B1998 +$95B1999 +$170B2000 +$314B2001 +$167B2002 -$202B2003 -$473B2004 -$504BYou 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.
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.
SharpHooksSandy, UTWhat 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...
"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!
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.
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.
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?
@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.
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.
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.
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?
We got the bottom of the poor economy. It was poor conservative business