Is this the hope and change people expected from this administration?

Are you saying you think the stimulus caused these issues? Or are taxes too high or something?

ASKER

>>The Cost Of Obama's Stimulus Plan: $312,500 Per Job

This is the new stimulus plan Obama wants passed.

>>Are you saying you think the stimulus caused these issues?

I think government caused uncertainty, high capital gains tax rates, and heavy regulation caused these issues.

SOLUTION

membership

This solution is only available to members.

To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.

ASKER

>>Capital gains are taxed at 15%. That's too high?

Yes. Lower rates will encourage investment. Investment leads to jobs. Should be close to zero for a while.

>>There are no job numbers for the new plan yet, so I don't know how they could have come to that number.

Estimated projections. In one city, the previous stimulus cost $1.5 million per job.

>>but I also like things like clean drinking water, clean air,
See link...does Obama want dirty air?
http://news.yahoo.com/obama-halts-controversial-epa-regulation-143731156.html

Cars, with the enormous transfer of wealth to the upper class, the amount of capital major corporations are sitting on, the fact that tax rates right now are the lowest they've been in over 50 years, and the current unemployment numbers, you're still clamoring for more tax breaks for the upper class?

Had Obama given projected numbers would you have believed them? Even if they came from the CBO? So why should we honor these?

Does Obama like dirty air?
No, but it's clear the political climate is such that what should be common sense regulations become "job stifling socialism". and now you're trying to have your cake and eat it too. On one hand, you're saying there's too many regulations and Obama is to blame. When he capitulates to pressure and revokes proposed regulations, he's anti-environment. I don't think there's any policy he can implement that would please you.

ASKER

>>you're still clamoring for more tax breaks for the upper class?

Obama had his way and a democrat congress for 2 years. In that time, the economy has gotten worse, poverty is rising, unemployment rate keeps going up.

Don't you think it's time for conservative ideas?

It's not about tax cuts for the rich. It's about letting people keep the money they've worked for. It's about creating incentives for employers to stay in this country (corporate tax cuts). It's about creating incentives for people to take their cash and buy in to a company and thus increase hiring.

Yawn

SOLUTION

membership

This solution is only available to members.

To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.

Do the Republicans have anything to offer aside from tax cuts and removing all regulations from any industry?

ASKER

Didn't you watch the debate last night, Beetos?

Those are candidates.

When our current Republican congressmen were candidates, it was jobs, jobs, JOBS! Once they got into office, it was abortion, abortion, ABORTION!

What's the new plan? What are the actual Republican politicians proposing, NOT the candidates?

>>Do the Republicans have anything to offer aside from tax cuts and removing all regulations from any industry?

Nope, I think that is enough to spur the economy. It's simply and easy, just the way I like it.

It's simply and easy, just the way I like it.

That's the problem. The economy is extremely complex and interrelated. A bumper sticker solution isn't going to fix it. What happened to Freedom isn't Free?

Furthermore, if taxes are the lowest they've been in 50 years, why isn't the unemployment problem going away?

Furthermore, if taxes are the lowest they've been in 50 years, why isn't the unemployment problem going away?

Because you have Obama as President.

ASKER

>>That's the problem. The economy is extremely complex and interrelated. A bumper sticker solution isn't going to fix it.

And yet you voted for a community organizer that ran on bumper sticker slogans and understands economics as well as a 5 year old.

Beetos, you're too smart for the liberal con.

>>Because you have Obama as President.

Amen.

>>Because you have Obama as President.

And there it is. You could list 100 policies or ideas that you believe in, but the minute Obama gets behind them, you'll say they're no good.

ASKER

That's b/c they are no good.
See economy for proof.

One day my head is gonna make it through that wall!

ASKER

First Wisconsin and now Anthony Weiner's seat.

RIP: liberalism

I'm now convinced the republican nominee doesn't matter. No way B O'carter will win.

>First Wisconsin and now Anthony Weiner's seat.

I do not think Wisconsin is indicative, but loosing Weiner's is a HUGE ringing bell. I am not pretty confident that either Romney or Perry will beat Obama, unless something drastic happens before the next election.

ASKER

>> I am not pretty confident that either Romney or Perry will beat Obama, unless something drastic happens before the next election.

Curious on how you come to that conclusion?

Even the democrats don't think Obama will win. Recent news articles...

Economy erodes election hope for Democrats

Democrats Fret Aloud Over Obama’s Chances

Incorrect typing. What I meant to say:

I am pretty confident that both would beat Obama.

ASKER

Whew!

I expect such spin from my buddy, Beetos, but you're usually a voice of reason.

ASKER

Beetos,

Exactly how bad do you want it to get before you finally realize this guy has no clue? It's like from the song "Dance band on the titanic" and the line "They say that Nero fiddled while Rome burned up. Well, I was strummin' as the ship go down."

HItting the news right this second....

Jobless Claims, Inflation Rise, Manufacturing Gets Weaker
http://www.cnbc.com/id/44532025

“Today I was mulling over election results from New York and Nevada while thinking about that very question. What should the White House do now? One word came to mind: Panic.”

“The time has come to demand a plan of action that requires a complete change from the direction you are headed.”

Obama must fire someone – “No – fire a lot of people”

“This may be news to you but this is not going well. For precedent, see Russian Army 64th division at Stalingrad. There were enough deaths at Stalingrad to make the entire tea party collectively orgasm.”

- James Carville

...this just in, the economy is in a bad state. In other news Pundits are wagging their tongues.

Obama has some great ideas - he's just stymied by a united Republican front who's primary goal is not to improve the economy, not to restore jobs, not to improve our lives in anyway ( unless you're mega rich). No, the primary stated goal of the Republican party? "Make sure Obama is a one term President!"

Seriously, how can you vote for a party like that? A party that cares only about itself and it's own power and NOT the country it's supposed to represent?

"Nero fiddled while Rome burnt down" - at least he did SOMETHING instead of just sitting there with a stupid look on his face!

ASKER CERTIFIED SOLUTION

membership

This solution is only available to members.

To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.

How long was he in office when you came to that conclusion Leon? Was he even in office?

ASKER

>>How long was he in office when you came to that conclusion Leon?

At $4 trillion added to the debt in record time, millions unemployed, gas prices almost doubling, $535 million wasted on a phony "green" company, etc....list goes on and on and on

Of course, we all knew liberalism is a complete failure. It doesn't work. Too bad it took such destruction to remind us.

Beetos, you need to go out and rip off that Obama sticker from your car before your employer sees. You might be the first to go for voting such incompetency in to office.

>How long was he in office when you came to that conclusion Leon? Was he even in office?

When did you start worshiping him? Was he even born yet? But, to answer your question, I am a registered Republican and I did vote for McCain. I do not need to get burned to know that I should not play with matches.

You really think we'd be better off under McCain and PALIN?

>You really think we'd be better off under McCain and PALIN?

Yes, I do. Could not have been any worse.

SOLUTION

membership

This solution is only available to members.

To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.

>I think H.Clinton would have been a lot better, heck even Al 'Check out the size of my carbon footprint' Gore would have been better than Obama.

Yes, on the first, but a BIG NO on the second :)

That wasn't a vote of confidence in Gore.

ASKER

Hell I might even take jimmy carter over the community organizer.

Now that's going too far. All of you guys quit it now.

Now, now. Lets stop this. Lets get our order right. Carter was much, much worse than Obama.

ASKER

No way!

Carter is no longer the worst prez in history.

Stagflation + Iran hostage > Obamacare

Doesn't it bother any of you that these guys.....Carter, Obama, Clinton, Gore are all super rich, yet they keep preaching that the everyone needs to pay more in taxes and we need this and that. It just makes me want to say then "Shut the hell up and put your money where your mouth is.". I'll never understand how they get followers, of course I never understood how Jim Jones or people like that get them either.

Clinton had a surplus - maybe he knew something about it?

Oh yeah Berger - Obama wanted to make health care affordable for Americans. Carter wanted us to conserve energy. Gore wants us to stop polluting so much. That's the same as a suicidal cult?

I never understand how come Clinton gets credit for a surplus, who does the budget? So since Clinton had a surplus, I guess Obama is just the opposite and knows less about it than any president ever. Oh yeah, it's Bush's fault.

Obama has no desire to make healthcare affordable for people, regardless of his speeches, what he wants is control. Big difference. Your right, Gore does want us (not him) to stop polluting so much so I can only guess so he can either make money or pollute more. These guys I mention are the super rich and yet they keep saying how evil the super rich are. Just seems to me their followers are being played. I must admit Carter was a genius at getting us to conserve energy. Obama's doing the same thing with healthcare.

No, but it's clear the political climate is such that what should be common sense regulations become "job stifling socialism".

Ok, so how many light bulb factories do we have? Zero, did americans just stop buying light bulbs? They must have since the last plant in america closed down last year. Oh, wait just a minute. We do still have light bulbs only we don't make any here....why, let me guess "job stifling socialism". . Let's just hope we don't get anymore green jobs of Obamas. Is 'green jobs' a code word for shipping jobs overseas?

Hmm there is a thought:

Clinton failed to pass Health Care ==> surplus
Obama passed Health Care ==> deficit

Looks like Republicans helped enshrined Clinton as a good times president by stopping his foolishness.

>>I never understand how come Clinton gets credit for a surplus, who does the budget?

Clinton had a surplus because Congress passed the budget in 94 or 95 which lead to the surplus. At that time Republicans had the majority and Newt Gingrinch was Speaker. They essentially had to cram the budget down Clinton's throat in order for him to sign it, and now he gets credit for it. Go figure. All the good stuff that happens the Dems quickly jump in and take credit for it; all the bad stuff that happens Bush is blamed for it. See how it works?

Here are some more links to support my information about Clinton and how the Republicans basically forced him to move toward the center, which in the end helped his presidency.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20110126132013AAo7BeN

http://www.nytimes.com/1995/06/08/us/with-first-veto-clinton-rejects-budget-cut-bill.html

http://articles.latimes.com/1995-12-07/news/mn-11428_1_gop-budget-plan

As you can see nothing much has changed in 15 years. The Dems like to demonize the Republicans and then later take credit for Republican ideas.

ASKER

>>The Dems like to demonize the Republicans and then later take credit for Republican ideas.

So true.

>>Obama passed Health Care ==> deficit

Hopefully the Supreme Court strikes down this Unconstitutional law

The next president will have a full plate. Clean up Obama's messes and get the economy back on track.

ASKER

I thought Obama wasn't taking job creation seriously. But now we see he's so concerned about jobs that the phrase "right now" uttered 7 times in his national address meant a month later - that's when we'll see his job creating legislation. Whew!

So, given the president's professed urgency, the next day, Sept. 9, everyone asked where was his jobs legislation?

DURBIN: I think that's more realistic it would be next month.

So, as of right now, "right now" uttered on Sept. 8 really means sometime at least one month later.

Obama's urgent jobs plan: Right now, 'right now' means sometime next month maybe
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2011/09/obama-jobs-speech-right-now-dick-durbin.html

>>The Cost Of Obama's Stimulus Plan: $312,500 Per Job

Having been away for a week or so and after reading a report in LeMonde about how the Stimulus Plan had actually saved jobs and reduced the effects of more serious unemployment, I was interested to see a link which claimed the opposite.

Well, I was interested, but no longer.

cars, where on earth do you did up this junk?

>> Is 'green jobs' a code word for shipping jobs overseas?

No, it's the code word for making things which people want to buy. We have removed all of our incandescant bulbs, have nothing more on standby and have bought a new low energy ice-box (made in Italy) and we are saving money on energy. We have moved up market for our food and veg, eat less and feel healthier for it, throw away less and surprisingly save money.

Jobs are shipped overseas because the labor costs there are cheaper. These jobs might be replaced by new jobs if investment occured, but for investment to occur there must be some attraction, like better educated work-force, better infra-structure, boyant home market (which requires some import restrictions to allow home industries to grow) and so on. The US has been running a trade imbalance for years, the deficit being made up by foreigners investing their earned dollars in government stocks, ie: public debt. To turn the ecomony around requires making things which people need. That requires investment. Where is thing going to come from? Because it certainly is'nt comming from your millionaires If the state is to cut costs, that'll mean that jobs will be cut. Where will these people find new jobs?

Where were your light bulbs made?

>Having been away for a week or so and after reading a report in LeMonde about how the Stimulus Plan had actually saved jobs and reduced the effects of more serious unemployment

Yeap, like the 1,100 jobs that were created at Solyndra at the bargain basement price of $535 million.

ASKER

>>the Stimulus Plan had actually saved jobs

Leon, BigRat is correct.

See this LA Times article. $111 in stimulus funds that created 55 jobs...jobs that wouldn't have been there had the stimulus not worked. But how much is that per job????

Two L.A. agencies get $111 million in stimulus funds but have created only 55 jobs
http://articles.latimes.com/2010/sep/17/local/la-me-stimulus-audit-20100917

SOLUTION

membership

This solution is only available to members.

To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.

ASKER

>>But serious financial journalism does not pay attention to that sort of thing,

Probably why Europe is bankrupt and has riots every other day.

>>the Tea Party people refuse to accept that the Stimulus had any effect whatsoever.

You can't spend a trillion dollars and have it not have it have some impact. But the Tea Party argues that government spending takes that money out of the private market, where it's used efficiently, to the government, where it's filled with waste and fraud and used on temporary jobs.

As Leon pointed out, the government shouldn't pick winners and losers with tax payer money. See Solyndra.

>> I ask myself just how bad has it got to get, before people wake up and do something about it?

I agree.

Well the last incandescant bulb factor in the US closed last year. What do you supposed these layed off workers will get a new job? It's crazy, how many illegals are in the states.....how many legals are unemployed? How many people on food stamps? What's the obesity rate in the US.? Not enough jobs, yet we outlaw the manfacture of incandescant bulb and ship those jobs overseas......I guess maybe it's true....It's Bush's fault.

>>Probably why Europe is bankrupt

Yes, obviously, that's why the Euro, which started at par with the dollar ten years ago, is now running at 1,37.

>>But the Tea Party argues that government spending takes that money out of the private market

Nope. The government bonds are being bought by foreigners, particularly the Chinese who hold just over one and a quater TRILLION.

Isn't it funny? You're all living on credit supplied by those Chinese Communists who you were warning against a new decades back!

ASKER

$.40 of every dollar is borrowed.

Borrowed money has to be paid back. Money taken from the private sector.

>>Isn't it funny? You're all living on credit supplied by those Chinese Communists who you were warning against a new decades back!

Shameful more than funny.

So if we tax Buffet, does that mean we can stop borrowing from China?

Not just Buffet alone, but yes, eventually that is the goal.

ASKER

>>Not just Buffet alone, but yes, eventually that is the goal.

Not that we don't already have enough proof that liberal economics don't work, I almost wish Obama could get his way. Just let him phk up the country more than he's already done.

Even Obama admits you do not raise taxes in a recession. Yet, to win back his nut job base, he's calling for that exact thing, knowing it won't get passed. Has his cake and eats it too.

I believe Obama would sh*t his pants if this legislation actually went through. Solidify even more his chances of going back to the private sector.

What money do we tax of Buffet? Income? What does he do with his current income? Reinvest into the working sector? What would the gov't do? Maybe invest in the non-working sector?

ASKER

>>What would the gov't do?

Solyndra-logo11.png

There is no guarantee what Buffet or his peers do with their income. They can invest it in other countries, tax havens, off shore tax shelters, etc. They don't automatically go and create jobs.

The government on the other hand will invest in things that benefit the country, even if they don't necessarily turn a profit. For example roads and bridges. Or maybe pay for these wars we seem to be in without end.

Also, yes, unemployment benefits. While you guys consider the unemployed as just "lazy"( even though it's widely known that a lot of companies would rather hire currently empoyed workers over the unemployed) the fact is that it's a wide spread problem caused by turmoil in the global economy - helping these people feed their families and stay in their houses means that they will hopefully be able to weather the current storm and prevent them from descending into poverty.

The policies of trickle down economics have failed, as evidenced by the transfer of wealth from the bottom 98% of the country to the top 2%. Are the super rich really working that much harder than the rest of us? Or have the laws changed to favor their ability to acquire wealth?

Ah yes Cars, Solyndra.

It had all the right things going for it ( renewable energy, advanced technology, new jobs) but the company failed. Some say they predicted it would, and the loan went through anyway because of gov't pressure and possible crony capitalism. I hope the investigation yields credible results, but we'll have to wait and see ( and then you can discredit the results).

Now, if that .5 billion offends you, how come you never complain about the TRILLIONS wasted in Iraq? The no-bid defense contracts awarded to Haliburton? The billions of dollars in cash that just *disappeared*? Or the too big to fail banks that got bailed out using a form that is much shorter than a typical mortgage document, and did nothing to curb the bad behavior, and in fact only encouraged subsequent bad behavior, made the banks BIGGER, and allowed them to purchase MORE questionable assets? There, you guys don't even want any oversight or regulation!

Question: Had Solyndra been a Republican project, would you still be using it as an example?

What about the trillions wasted in Afgan? Or is that still ok since Obama says it is? Or what about the money still being wasted in Iraq? Seems to me the banks were a bipartisan problem.

See, here's what I can't figure out. Dems want to pass laws to control the rate a credit card can charge. Well guess what.....people with poor credit can't get one because they don't qualify. Well that's just unfair, so then they want to pass a law that requires the bank to give out cards regardless of credit. Now we really have a problem....but at least they can blame repubs or Bush. When in fact I just want people to take responsibility for themselves. Guess what.....I don't have a single credit card with an interest rate in the double digits. I'm not against all regulation. And I'm not against unemployment, but 2 years, good golly......really. If people really want to work while on unemployment, why not make it forever?

How much did Solyndra cost? They say for every failure, there is a success. What is the success here, what was the most successful company from the stimulus. And why won't Obama say that word? Can anybody tell me the last time he used it?

Berger, we agree about the current wars and money being wasted, 100%. Most of the people in Afghanistan don't even know where NY is, or what happened.

Credit card companies - they have been abusing customers with exploding interest rates on PREVIOUSLY incurred debt and other shady practices for years. No one is forcing credit card companies to issue credit cards to people with bad credit, that's total BS. That's right up there with saying "Dems FORCED banks to loan to people and caused the housing bubble" TOTAL BS and thoroughly debunked.

I don't know if a failure necessitates a success every time, but the $535 million loan is only 1.3% of DOE’s loan portfolio. To date, Solyndra is the only loan that’s known to be troubled.

ASKER

Well, well, well...there's apparently more going on with Solyndra.

Just now hitting the news...

Solyndra execs will decline to testify at hearing
http://af.reuters.com/article/commoditiesNews/idAFS1E78J1KE20110920

Beetos, this is more than just $535 million in wasted tax dollars. It looks as if Obama paid off a campaign donor.

Also, on Iraq, list all the democrats that voted against that war. How much has Obama spent in Libya?

I wonder why a credit card company hasen't ever abused me.

'Overall, First Bank of Beverly Hills (FBBH) has a substantially deficient record of helping to meet the credit and community development needs of its assessment area (AA), including low- and moderate-income neighborhoods, in a manner consistent with its resources and capabilities. The following points summarize FBBH’s overall performance'

'The bank does not make use of innovative and/or flexible lending practices in order to serve AA credit needs.'

http://www2.fdic.gov/crapes/2007/32069_071001.pdf

Community Reinvestment Act. In the case above the bank was found 'Substantial Noncompliance'. Not sure if I'm running a bank I want to be 'Substantial Noncompliance' with the FDIC. I better find a way to make some 'innovative and/or flexible' loans. I can't wait until all the credit card rules kick in, how long will it be till I hear "46 millon americans can't get a credit card!" We need a new law!

Again Berger,

The CRA says banks cannot discriminate when making loans based on geographical areas (neighborhoods). NOT that they must make loans to people who have no ability to pay it back. The bank you've listed does business in a depressed area (the Los Angeles AA). Regarding that area:

Community Development Lending
Overall, FBBH has made a relatively low level of community development lending during the review period. As shown in Table 7, the bank made 32 qualified community development loans totaling approximately $28.2 million in its AA. Only 2 community development loans were made over the past 18 months.

Credit card companies have been using deceptive practices designed to make it as difficult as possible to pay on time, then charge excessive fees, penalties, and increased interest rates. They CAN make money legitimately, but the can make much MORE by being underhanded. You pay your credit card bill off and carry no balance? They want to charge you a fee. Without notice they change the packaging of your statement to look like one of the zillion promotional pieces of mail they send you - hoping you'll throw it out and be late with your payment ($$). You have borrowed money from them over time under different promotions and pay different rates? Your payments go to the portion of your debt with the LOWEST rate, regardless of when such debts were incurred.

Cars,

You're right! There IS more to the Solyndra story!

January 2009: In an effort to show it has done something to support renewable energy, the Bush Administration tries to take Solyndra before a DOE credit review committee before President Obama is inaugurated. The committee, consisting of career civil servants with financial expertise, remands the loan back to DOE “without prejudice” because it wasn’t ready for conditional commitment.

March 2009: The same credit committee approves the strengthened loan application. The deal passes on to DOE’s credit review board. Career staff (not political appointees) within the DOE issue a conditional commitment setting out terms for a guarantee.

>>The no-bid defense contracts awarded to Haliburton?

Obama just awarded Haliburton a no-bid contract for $568 billion dollars for 2011. I guess this is all right as long as Obama does it, but if Bush did it, the media would be running him through the ringer.

No - it's not, and that's an example of why he's losing support from his base.

Bush DID do it, media gave him a PASS.

Also, Obama's VP was NOT the former CEO of Haliburton ( ahem ).

There is way too much corruption with Solyndra. The money was tax payer money by way of the Stimulas Bill, and George Kaiser funnelled the money back to Obama by way of presidential donation. He donated millions of dollars to his campaign. Is there something wrong with this picture? Not only this but this could be happening to other green corporations that received Stimulas money. It is funnelled back to Obama for his 2012 campaign bid. Is this the Hope and Change that people wanted? I thoungt he was going to change Washington.

Because one of the Solyndra investors, Argonaut Venture Capital, is funded by George Kaiser — a man who donated money to the Obama campaign — the loan guarantee has been attacked as being political in nature. What critics don’t mention is that one of the earliest and largest investors, Madrone Capital Partners, is funded by the family that started Wal-Mart, the Waltons. The Waltons have donated millions of dollars to Republican candidates over the years.

February 2006 – October 2006: In February, Solyndra raises its first round of venture financing worth $10.6 million from CMEA Capital, Redpoint Ventures, and U.S. Venture Partners. In October, Argonaut Venture Capital, an investment arm of George Kaiser, invests $17 million into Solyndra. Madrone Capital Partners, an investment arm of the Walton family, invests $7 million. Those investments are part of a $78.2 million fund.

>>The Waltons have donated millions of dollars to Republican candidates over the years.

Did the Waltons receive Stimulas taxpayer money and then give millions of dollars back to the president or members of Congress to help them get elected?

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/ct-met-pensions-legislation-watchdog-20110921,0,4724416.story

ASKER

>>The Waltons have donated millions of dollars to Republican candidates over the years.

I would much rather have donations from a strong business that lowers inflation and employees 1000s than receive donations from crooked unions. See article out today that 23 unions members will receive $56 million dollars. Prime example of liberal economics.

23 retired union officials from Chicago stand to collect about $56 million from two ailing city pension funds

>There is way too much corruption with Solyndra

Solyndra execs to take the Fifth. http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0911/63972.html

This of course is not an admission of guilt, but the stink is in the air. I do not think I could have put it any better than that long time Conservative activist, and Tea Party member Jon Stewart did:

http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2011/09/16/140534741/jon-stewart-skewers-white-house-on-solyndra

If you do not have the chance to read it, or watch it, I will use his own words to summarize it:

"Fox News call your doctor, because the erection you currently have is going to last longer than 4 hours."

ASKER

Great post, Leon. I got a good laugh.

Makes you wonder...

If the Democrats still controlled the House, would they investigate this? This smell worse than sauerkraut cooked in beer with wasabi dijon.

Hey! How come when Leon posts a link to Jon Stewart, it's a great post, but when I do, it's automatically invalid?

Regarding your Walmart vs. Unions proposal, you've made it abundantly clear that you favor the exploitation of American workers on numerous occasions.

If Walmart invested in Solyndra, as did Kaiser, and they both make political donations but to different parties, and it was in fact a corrupt deal, then isn't it bi-partisan corruption?

ASKER

>>Hey! How come when Leon posts a link to Jon Stewart, it's a great post, but when I do, it's automatically invalid?

Motive. But I do get a kick out of all your posts. I say that as a friend.

>>If Walmart invested in Solyndra, as did Kaiser, and they both make political donations but to different parties, and it was in fact a corrupt deal, then isn't it bi-partisan corruption?

Walmart, as a private company, can invest its money wherever it wants. But when Walmart donates to Obama and gets him to invest $535 million of tax payer money to a company predicted to fail, I draw the line.

>>Regarding your Walmart vs. Unions proposal, you've made it abundantly clear that you favor the exploitation of American workers on numerous occasions

Impossible to support the workin' sumb*tch and unions at the same time. Unions are completely in it for themselves and put many, upon many out of work.

ASKER

How pathetic and weak of a president we have.
You think Iran would do this under Reagan?

Iran says could deploy navy near U.S. coast
http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/world/10356471/iran-says-could-deploy-navy-near-u-s-coast-report/

Reagan? Isn't he the guy that SOLD ARMS to the Iranians?

ASKER

Iran hostage crisis: 444 days total

Time hostages held under Carter: 444 days

Time hostages held under Reagan: hostages released within minutes after Reagan sworn in

Weakness invites aggression. Barack O'carter is weak.

Do the Pakistanis, the Afghans, the Lybians, and the Yemeni's think he's weak? Are you saying we should attack Iran because of their saber rattling? Do you think John Bolton is actually intelligent?

How do you give Bush credit for Bin Laden even though it was years after he left office, and then give Reagan credit for Iran even though it occurred "within minutes" of Carter leaving office?

Do you think it was right for Reagan to sell arms to the Iranians?

BTW - what ever happened to trickle down economics? All the juice is getting concentrated at the top - when is it going to TRICKLE DOWN?

And um didn't Reagan raise taxes?

It's important to note that Reagan's tax increases did not wipe out the effects of that initial tax cut. But they did eat up about half of it. And as Peter Beinart points out, the 1983 payroll tax hike went to pay for Social Security and Medicare. ("Reagan raised taxes to pay for government-run health care," Beinart writes.) Reagan also raised the gas tax and signed the largest corporate tax increase in history

Beetos, does that mean youir a big Reagan fan?

I'm not a fan of any politician. I think they all have their good and bad moments and decisions.

I was young when Reagan was president, but I think his policies put us on the wrong road and led to the position we're in now. I'm especially considering the transfer of wealth from the middle class to the top 2%. It's unprecedented in any time in our history EXCEPT leading up to the great depression. While his intentions may have been in the right place, it's time to admit that "Trickle down" has failed.

I think Carter was visionary in the need for conservation, but was ahead of his time. We have a bad habit of not addressing issues until their catastrophic, and he was working to reduce our dependence on oil almost 50 years ago. Had we listened, Solyndra wouldn't have ever existed because solar power would be much more mature and viable already.

ASKER

I guess if you're Hallmark you gotta love Obama killing the economy.

Hallmark Now Selling Unemployment Sympathy Cards
http://dfw.cbslocal.com/2011/09/27/hallmark-now-selling-unemployment-sympathy-cards/

“The cards are flying off the shelves."

ASKER

God bless Joe Biden. Finally someone on the left willing to speak the truth.

Vice President Joe Biden told Florida radio station WLRN on Thursday that voters should hold President Barack Obama, not former President George W. Bush, accountable for the poor state of America’s economy.

Biden: Voters should blame Obama, not Bush, for economy
http://dailycaller.com/2011/09/29/biden-voters-should-blame-obama-not-bush-for-economy/

A little context might help.

Seems they were talking about the economy of the upcoming elections.

He did not say that voters should blame Obama instead of Bush for the poor state of the economy - he said that it's "irrelevant". There's absolutely no way you can blame the Obama administration for the economic crash since he wasn't even elected when it happened.

What he is saying, is that the economy has improved, but not enough, and they're the ones in charge so they're responsible for the RECOVERY. They're not responsible for WHAT WE NEED TO RECOVER FROM.

But I guess if you don't believe in science, reality is just as dismissible.

ASKER

Why is it that Democrats always have to explain what they really meant to say?

A right wing pundit taking a quote with no context and then ascribing whatever meaning to it they want is a bit different than say making a statement during a debate on the senate floor and later saying "That statement was not meant to be factual".

ASKER

We now have two prominent Democrats saying Obama owns the economy...

1. Biden:

voters should hold President Barack Obama.. for the poor state of America’s economy

2. And the head of the DNC, Debbie Wasserman Schultz:

We own the economy

Then you have Obama saying this on the campaign trail:

If this economy hasn’t rebounded in three years, I’m a one-termer

Beetos, why do you disagree with your party's leaders?

There's absolutely no way you can blame the Obama administration for the economic crash since he wasn't even elected when it happened.

But he elected, maybe not as president. Please show me anything he took to the floor to show any leadership in helping to avaid economic crash. Besides remember we have already recovered.....we went through recovery summer 2010. Which one is more pitiful? Recover Summer 2010 or Mission accomplished. Maybe summer 2010 should be renamed "The summer we blew through a trillon bucks and all I got was to get to party like a rock star.".

ASKER

>>There's absolutely no way you can blame the Obama administration

It's liberal policies (that he supports) that got us in to the mess we're in. Liberals pushed loans to those that would otherwise not qualify, foreclosures left and right, home values less than amount owed...instant mess.

And it's Obama's liberal policies now preventing a recovery and getting us deeper in debt. What he can't pass in congress he uses regulations to strangle businesses. Regulations cost companies billions in dollars, prevent energy supplies from increasing, and prevent hiring.

Now we have Democrats that won't even support his jobs bill. Obama can't even get it through the Democrat controlled Senate. REPEAT: OBAMA CAN'T GET DEMS TO SUPPORT HIS JOBS BILL.

Durbin says Democrats don’t currently have the votes for Obama jobs bill
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/184713-durbin-says-democrats-dont-currently-have-the-votes-for-obama-jobs-bill

Berger, Obama is to blame for Bush's policies?

Cars, unpaid for wars and tax cuts were liberal policies?

I think we're better served when bills have bi-partisan support rather than strict party line decisions. We need to get away from the polarized political decisions and actually do what's right for the country, not the party. And I'm not innocent - this partisan bickering led me to defend Joe Biden. Joe Biden!

Seriously, drop the animal farm "Tax cuts good, regulation bad" mantra and actually look at things for what they are. Is food safety regulation bad? If the pipeline is unsafe and can poison our fresh water supplies, is it worth saving $0.25 per gallon?? If gas fracking is poisoning our water supply, should it go unregulated? Should we remove any and all regulation from Wall St.?

How about an experiment - today Anwar Al-Awlaki was killed. Can we agree that was a good thing, and was a direct result of Obama's aggressive anti-terror policies - that he actually is keeping us safe? Or was this another Bush accomplishment? Or was this the wrong thing to do for some reason, like it's a campaign tactic or something?

ASKER

Listen, Beetos, if Obama had spent that trillion dollars and the economy improved, permanent, non-government jobs were created and the money wasn't wasted, I might listen. But things are worse, are they not? No one projects things to get better anytime soon.

On regulations, it's the ones that stifle business.

1. EPA (Obama did stop this the one on smog)
2. Dodd/Frank
3. Sarbanes Oxley
4. Obama's drilling regulations

And why the f**k does Obama need regulations on goat herders? F**kin' goat herders??????

Team Obama Regulates Goat Herders' Workplaces
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=45722

beetos....thanks that made me laugh.....the Joe Biden part. Yes I think Obama should recieve some of the blame....was he not an elected official? Where is the legislation he introduced on the senate floor to prevent the melt down.

You blame Bush for unpaid wars and tax cuts......were these both bipartisan? And the real kick in the ass is after Bush getting slamed everytime I turn around and how did Obama put it about the tax cuts?......morally corrupt I think. He turns right around and extends them. I just don't get him or anyone that supports him.

But I do agree with you, regualtion in moderation is good. I like having speed limits, I don't like speed traps.

About Anwar.......I don't get this either. Obama says these people should be captured and tried in a court of law. We are a country of laws.......Gitmo is evil (which is still open regardless of the repubs). but he sends in Navy seal team 6 to kill Osama who's hanging out eating bon-bons watching the Simpsons, why not capture him and turn him over to police? I don't mind beer drinking and I don't mind preachers.......I do mind preachers who tell me it's evil to drink and then I run into them at the beer store. Kinda like Al (I got a BIG carbon footprint) Gore.

I also think it's BS about the stupid credit card laws..know what? I've never had a problem with a credit card....maybe that my fault since I take responsibility for myself. And after the law guess what? I still won't have a problem with credit cards. But guess who will be hurt....the same people who have bad credit and can now either not get a card or they have to do something illegal to get the money. We need another regulation to regulate the regulations.

See the gas thing......Gas is bad, so lets tax the hell out of it....say $500 a gallon. Guess what? Bad things would happen. Ok so lets take off all taxes on it. Well it's cheaper then economy roars, but we get more pollution. For me we have passed the point where it's good. The same as Greece, why don't they do what we are doing. Raise taxes on the rich and increase gov't spending? When we as a country need the gov't to continue increasing spending to save us, we are in a problem.

Cars.....that's gotta be bull (ok maybe goat). There is no f'n way. Hey I worked at Taco Bell while I was going to college, I wish he would make it illegal to make tacos for people working at Taco Bell, would've made my job easier.

I can't seem to find this article on the huffingtonpost. I wonder why.

ASKER

Bergertime, you can sleep at night knowing Obama has put the smack down on the unregulated business of goat herding.

About f**kin' time a president did something about it.

http://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2011/08/04/2011-19755/training-and-employment-guidance-tegl-letter-no-32-10-special-procedures-labor-certification-process

You blame Bush for unpaid wars and tax cuts......were these both bipartisan? And the real kick in the ass is after Bush getting slamed everytime I turn around and how did Obama put it about the tax cuts?......morally corrupt I think. He turns right around and extends them. I just don't get him or anyone that supports him.

Bush/Cheney used the smoking gun of 9/11 to start war with Iraq.

I don't remember much of the original Bush tax cut debate, aside from Bush saying "Deficits are good", but you accuse Obama of extending them - don't forget that was a compromise with Republicans in order to extend unemployment benefits.

About Anwar.......I don't get this either. Obama says these people should be captured and tried in a court of law. We are a country of laws.......Gitmo is evil (which is still open regardless of the repubs). but he sends in Navy seal team 6 to kill Osama who's hanging out eating bon-bons watching the Simpsons, why not capture him and turn him over to police? I don't mind beer drinking and I don't mind preachers.......I do mind preachers who tell me it's evil to drink and then I run into them at the beer store. Kinda like Al (I got a BIG carbon footprint) Gore.

Anwar and Osama put out videos advocating the destruction of the US and taking credit for attacks on the US. Gitmo prisoners are there because 1). They were captured on the battlefield 2). We paid Afghani's to turn in "terrorists" - so they may be in prison on the word of an unaccountable paid informant, or 3). Prisoners were gave up names under "harsh interrogation" which has been shown to result in unreliable information.

I agree that KSM shouldn't have been tried in civilian court, and guess what, he wasn't.

You're laughing at the goat controversy - but did you ever hear the other side? What do you know about it? Were goat herders being exploited, maybe made to sleep with the herd on the floor? I don't know, but I wouldn't be surprised at abuses by industry on foreign labor.

Speaking of missing news articles, where's the Fox news coverage of the Occupy Wall St. protest?

ASKER

>>Were goat herders being exploited

If i don't like my job or don't think I'm being paid enough, I just find another job that suits me.

>>Were goat herders being exploited

>If i don't like my job or don't think I'm being paid enough, I just find another job that suits me.

Like herding donkeys?

You're a business owner, AND have a job, AND an unlimited supply of jobs if you don't like your current job? Cars, you're truly an inspiration to us all.

Obama could have killed the tax cuts the moment he took office.

Let me ask you this and I agree about harsh interrogation may yield bad info.......but has it been proven that sweet interrogation provides perfect info? I guess it's pick your poison. For me, someone who has sworn an oath to kill innocent people have made their choice. Or let me ask you this, someone has hijacked a plane that has killed several thousand people, and you catch one of the guys that had planned the attack. Are you going down the sweet interrogation or harsh interrogation route?

I wouldn't be suprised about abuses in the goat herding industry either, but let me tell you this.....working at Taco Bell sucked and I hated it. I would go home smelling like a big f'n taco. But if it hadn't been for that I may never have finished college. If they don't want to be a goat herder then do something else.

ASKER

>>Like herding donkeys?

No. The donkey herders work force is obviously being exploited by being unregulated.

>>You're a business owner, AND have a job, AND an unlimited supply of jobs if you don't like your current job?

Pretty much, to be honest.

ASKER

>> I would go home smelling like a big f'n taco. But if it hadn't been for that I may never have finished college.

Should've found a job as a goat herder. Going home smelling like a goat goes against federal regulations.

If it were up to dems, here would be my job at Taco Bell. It's against my religion to harm cows, so I can't make anything with meat, so that takes me out of the food process. So I'm left working the drive thru or the front registar. Well car exhaust is bad for you so I complain and now I don't have to work the drive thru, I'm only left with the front registar. But every time I work it, my registar comes up short. Now people see me take the money but I can't get fired for it because witness testimony can be unreliable. So the manager approaches me and ask me to empty out my pockets, which I do, but there is no money there as I've hidden it my underware, well my manager is not too smart but he's smart enough to know that would be sexual harrasment. Damn I should have been a dem while working at Taco Bell, I could have supplemented my income. Just imagine if I had belonged to a union.

I don't know what you mean by "sweet" interrogation, but I'd rather have good or no information over bad or misleading information. I was just making the point that we don't know a lot about some or most of the prisoners in Gitmo as compared to the Al Qaeda leaders we've killed.

I can sympathize with the taco bell thing, but let me ask you this - if there was no regulation, and Taco Bell could have paid you whatever they wanted, and made you work as many hours as they wanted, where would you be today? If they didn't have to pay you minimum wage and could give you $1 per hour and say you need to work 16 hours per day? You'd go somewhere else? But with no regulation, they could be paying $0.50 per hour, and requiring you to work 7 days. Industry cares about profits, and will go to the lowest common denominator. Without regulation, we'd be back to 3rd world status with an exploited underclass living in poverty with no way out. I prefer America as it is today.

ASKER

>> if there was no regulation, and Taco Bell could have paid you whatever they wanted,

You mean you'd get what the market determines you're worth.

Minimum wage laws hurt blacks the most, which might have been its intent from the get go. Democrats implemented minimum wage laws to prevent low cost black laborers from taking jobs from white workers working on federally funded construction projects.

>>Speaking of missing news articles, where's the Fox news coverage of the Occupy Wall St. protest?

Here you go beetos: http://www.foxbusiness.com/industries/2011/09/29/wall-street-now-home-to-protest-campground/

Yes, buried deep on Fox BUSINESS news. It's got 22 whole comments. Here's one:

Tea bagger protests- wall to wall fa ux coverage. Wall Street greed protests- a tiny piece, buried in the fau x business page- wicked lame...

Read more: http://www.foxbusiness.com/industries/2011/09/29/wall-street-now-home-to-protest-campground/#comment#ixzz1ZTJCYlvG

If Fox could connect this to Obama in a negative way, or if it were the Tea party, it would be the front page headline of the REGULAR news section, and on TV twice an hour every hour.

ASKER

>>If Fox could connect this to Obama

I found a connection to Obama. In the article it lists "high unemployment" as one reason for their march.

But I won't mention that to Faux News.

"I don't know what you mean by "sweet" interrogation, but I'd rather have good or no information over bad or misleading information"

Man, I do to, how do you get that?

>it would be the front page headline of the REGULAR news section

Why should be on a front page? It has really no impact on anything. I work in the area and if it was not for media highlights, I would not even know it was going on. Lets face it, it's none event. Something staged by a few radicals that failed to gain any popular support. I seen Tea Party events which were 10 times large ignored by all networks.

Wanting to hold Wall St. accountable and prevent them from destroying the economy any further is radical?

>> Wanting to hold Wall St. accountable

And who is Wall Street? They are holding a demonstration against an idea. Good luck.

>Yes, buried deep on Fox BUSINESS news.

You wanted it on the front page? Here it is on front page: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/10/02/wall-street-protesters-vow-to-continue-despite-mass-arrests/?test=latestnews

Here's the headline from the link:

"Wall Street Protesters Vow to Continue, Enter Third Week"

'Bout time the news picked up on it. Of course, it's probably because of the mass arrests.

ASKER

Damn! I wish I had a public pension. I could retire at 50 and collect tax payer $ for the rest of my life.

Sadly, I just have a 401K that Obama seems to reduce the balance of every other week.

S&P 500 Valuations Below Recessions Since ‘57

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-10-03/s-p-valuations-below-recession-levels-since-1957-as-analysts-cut-estimates.html

>Of course, it's probably because of the mass arrests.

Of course, before that ... it was just not 'fit to print'.

ASKER

This might just be the answer to this question.

Poll: Majority expects Obama to lose re-election
http://www.wlsam.com/Article.asp?id=2300955&spid=

Just 37 percent of people in a new ABC News/Washington Post poll say they expect Obama to win re-election in November 2012; 55 percent instead expect the eventual Republican nominee to win.

It's just a shame that people fell for the bull sh*t coming out of this man the first go round. How much destruction on this country did it take before people realized electing a community organizer with no business experience was a f*ckin' big a$$ mistake?

ASKER

This administration is not only the worst in US history but probably ranks near the top as one of the most crooked.

ATF Fast and Furious: New documents show Attorney General Eric Holder was briefed in July 2010
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-31727_162-20115038-10391695.html

New documents obtained by CBS News show Attorney General Eric Holder was sent briefings on the controversial Fast and Furious operation as far back as July 2010. That directly contradicts his statement to Congress