Comments


  • Obama was smart not to insist on a public option. It will come as a result of the insurance companies raising their rates and this has already started. The left needed to just have patience.

    Many may not realize it but there are many people and companies working on getting us less dependent on foreign oil, and moving away from oil as the basis. This is another one of those things that will take some time. An energy bill that causes higher costs will make the companies less able to do this important work.

    August 11, 2010 at 7:54 p.m.

  • One poll by the Washington Post shows those against 46%, for 43%, and then they showed the indivicual issues separately and found overwhelming favorability. Which proves to me that if they had tackled this issue individually and simply rather than adding so much to make up over 2000 pages, maybe it would be much more popular. Maybe much of the problem was in presentation.

    However, if he had asked questions we might be faced with if we see some of the problems we are seeing in countries which have government run health care, the answers might not have been so positive.

    August 11, 2010 at 7:18 p.m.

  • And if your a small business owner and need a loan, try Vista Bank Texas, good people and easy to work with.

    August 11, 2010 at 6:41 p.m.

  • ok here it is in the Wall Street Journal, I do not know why it is not in the news, it is part of the report.

    http://online.wsj.com/article/NA_WSJ_...

    August 11, 2010 at 5:52 p.m.

  • Legion357
    It's been three days now that and I've been saying that the GOP main opposition to the bill, was the equity the government would hold.

    Have a good night.

    August 11, 2010 at 5:44 p.m.

  • Not at all but I read the Wall Street Journal every morning and I know it's about 99-1 against president Obama and his policies... I just wanted to point that out.... I did say I would call your WSJ and raise you a NYT.

    People believe what they want to believe, you left your source and I left mine.... Now that's fair and balanced.

    Got to go because spaghetti and meatballs do not taste good,cold.

    August 11, 2010 at 5:40 p.m.

  • Ok I skimmed the bill, in fact the treasury would purchase preferred shares of qualifying small bank stock, participating banks would be required to pay dividends as directed by the treasury to the preferred stock the treasury owns, depending on how much the banks lent to small business.

    A 3% to 7% guaranteed return on treasury s share of preferred stock. I wonder if the non government owners of preferred stock in the banks are guaranteed the same dividends?

    Overall, IMO, taken as a whole, the bill had some good things in it and some not so good, that should have not been included in it.

    Interesting, but a moot point anyway.

    August 11, 2010 at 5:36 p.m.

  • Yeah, the WSJ is just a single source so I guess that means they are full of crap, but not the NYT, correct? BTW it's just amazing how each bill these buffoons pass or try to pass is loaded with all kinds of tax credits, revisions, penalties, perks and other junk. How anyone including the IRS can keep up with this is beyond me - great way to run a country.

    This is how the WSJ summarized the proposed tax cuts in this failed legislation:

    "And sure enough, most of the tax cuts are so narrowly targeted as to be economically trivial. The list includes bonus depreciation, small business expensing and a temporary zero capital gains tax rate for small business start-ups. These would be in place for a year or two and then vanish, which means they'll do little to change business behavior. Only a small fraction of America's 40 million or so small businesses would even qualify for the capital gains cut. But at least all of this would do little harm."

    August 11, 2010 at 5:34 p.m.

  • jbj
    I know l don’t corner the market on information, news or facts but I really don't like to discuss conspiracy theories or stories that cannot be verified.... I put a lot of weight on the source but I will read an opposing view and I'm not that proud to admit I was wrong.

    That's the main difference between fiscal conservatism and liberalism.... Fiscal conservatives see things as they are and liberals see things as they could be...i.e. Fiscal conservatives will show you OBM numbers on health care and scream" the sky is falling; the debt is too large”; the liberals will say" preventive care will save you money in the future."... A case could be made for both theories... In today's climate, no one wants to talk about tomorrow.

    That's the reason I'm making a case for alternative energy because I've heard the same excuses for many years.

    This morning I heard Erin Burnett of CNBC said most economists think that high unemployment will go into the year 2015... She also said most CEOs (just about all) have discounted a double dip recession but they're wary of our slow growth. That's why I said “we’ve already know all the theories, let's put a practical plan (with actual numbers) in place.”

    August 11, 2010 at 5:30 p.m.

  • Mike, you may not like the source, I don't either. I actually heard the info on tv. But you insist on links and that is the one that came up when I googled the info. I will find it on another site. I just wanted to know what to make of the info. If you continue to blog on a political site, you will see some blogs that offer info that may not support what is in the news you watch.

    You are right, I don't agee that health care will save us money, but when an opinion is offered that may be significant, we could at least discuss it.

    I saw your new blog, agree with much of it, and wish it would work out the way you suggest.

    August 11, 2010 at 4:55 p.m.

  • jbj

    I don't really care what the White House sees but I've told you numerous times to stop trying to use this blog as a propaganda tool..... I don't want anything from the racist hate merchant Andrew Brieitbart on this blog.... I thought you didn't know how to copy and paste links?

    Since you learned how to paste a link of your choice, maybe you learn how to write your own blogs to spread your right wing propaganda.

    Have a good day

    August 11, 2010 at 4:02 p.m.

  • This comment was removed by the user.

    August 11, 2010 at 3:59 p.m.

  • I'll call your WSJ and raise you a NYT
    http://boss.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/07...

    August 11, 2010 at 3:52 p.m.

  • So the tax hikes, which are permanent?Tax increases like tax cuts are a budgeted item that is passed by congress...Can you show me where that is not the case?..It didn't pass so all the fears and speculation is not important any more.

    You do know the WSJ is anti-Obama,so that's why you always single source your info...Guess I'll have to Google your info since you didn't provide a link.

    August 11, 2010 at 3:49 p.m.

  • Well I guess I was right. That was something the white house did not want people to see.

    August 11, 2010 at 3:46 p.m.

  • "We are not talking about derivatives, credit default swaps or fictional AAA ratings."

    What are we talking about, subprime loans? This is what the WSJ said about the Small Business Jobs Act:

    "The bill authorizes Treasury to purchase up to $30 billion of stock in small, community banks across the country. The banks in turn would agree to issue as much as $300 billion in loans to small businesses that they wouldn't otherwise lend to. You can bet that many businesses that get the loans will be engaged in not very profitable, but politically correct activities, such as diversity investing and renewable energy. Sound at all like subprime mortgage loans?

    Here's the best part: The whiz kids at the Congressional Budget Office and Joint Committee on Taxation estimate that this program will raise $1.1 billion for the federal government. So there really is a free lunch.

    The assumption is that these banks will make such wise loans that they'll make a bundle and the Treasury will get its money back in dividends on its preferred stock. But then why not have Treasury invest $100 billion to leverage $1 trillion in new loans? Or why not $2 trillion? If government-directed investment and lending can conjure such returns, the deficit should vanish in no time.

    The false assumption here is that banks are reluctant to lend because they lack the capital. This ignores that small business lending is also down because the business demand for loans is weak. Businesses don't typically expand when Washington is raising dividend, capital gains and personal income tax rates while piling on the new costs of ObamaCare and other regulations.

    The tax cut in this bill will provide $12 billion in relief over 10 years. The tax increase that Mr. Obama favors for 2011 would raise what the Joint Committee on Taxation figures will be $600 billion of revenues, about half of which comes from the coffers of small business.

    So the tax hikes, which are permanent, are about 50 times larger than the tax cuts, which are temporary. And the Obama Administration wonders why some people think this President is antibusiness."

    August 11, 2010 at 3:33 p.m.

  • Legion357

    It was the Small Business Jobs Act which would have authorized a lending fund.... This bill would have pumped in ~ $12 billion in small business tax relief between the years of 2010 and 2020. This is no different from SBA loans made to creditworthy businesses.... Subprime and this act... Not even close to an apples and oranges. We are not talking about derivatives, credit default swaps or fictional AAA ratings.

    I've seen representatives of cities and businesses begging for these funds.

    Your assumptions are way off base: The White House's Q & A

    http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2010/0...

    August 11, 2010 at 1:27 p.m.

  • jbj jbj

    This comment was removed by the user.

    August 10, 2010 at 6:51 p.m.

  • This comment was removed by the user.

    August 10, 2010 at 6:21 p.m.

  • Umm, Mike

    Concerning your comment,"the democrats tried to give small business community banks some money that so they could start lending to small business"

    I don't know what was in that bill, I didn't read it, but if a small business community bank is still in business, most likely they are because of their lending practices and they have more assets than outstanding loan liabilities.

    Why would they want to make loans they do not believe should be made because the government wants to "give" them the money to do so?

    To me, that seems to go against the banks lending policies, the very reason they are still in business today.

    If they accepted this money "given" to them, it seem to me that that would put them in the same situation as the large banks and mortgage company s that wrote all the sub prime loans, backed by F&F, packaged and sold them and also bought credit default insurance.

    Why would a successful community bank want to expose themselves to the same risks that plagued the large banks?

    August 10, 2010 at 6:04 p.m.

  • jbj

    I know you never let the facts get in the way of your talking points but Wall Street is doing just fine, and companies inside the Fortune 500, have a $1.8 trillion surplus. No one is stepping on their neck, unless you call finance reform, a hindrance.

    As I've posted, the democrats tried to give small business community banks some money that so they could start lending to small business..Your party (GOP) voted against that because they did want the government holding any more equity.

    It's not for lack of trying.

    August 10, 2010 at 4:47 p.m.

  • jbj,

    You know danged well that I am not talking about small businesses. They are in dire straights right now and don't have the luxury of playing politics, but the bigger businesses, bankers, and wall street, do.

    August 10, 2010 at 4:35 p.m.

  • This week-end Alan Greenspan acknowledge the rift between big business and the Obama Administration.... I think one reason is taxes, since the administration wants to tax the top 2%. They don't want to pay that extra 4% on their personal income tax.

    Does not make this blog about unions but in 1983 , unions were 20% of the workforce,today it is ~ 12%. Unions are about collective bargaining, you know a contract between the company and the workers... They freely enter into this contract... I know the right likes to carry the water for big business but there's nothing wrong with workers bargaining for better work conditions, benefits and pay.... It's the American way.

    The problem remains demand..... Europe is in a financial crisis, so it is going to take a little time.

    President Obama is not failing; neither is this country... We are in a economic downturn. In

    August 10, 2010 at 4:23 p.m.

  • Hey, born2, no one has had to help Obama fail.

    That's right, blame the struggling businesses for stepping on their own necks.

    Looks like more money is going to the unions. And to Freddie and Fannie. Talk about trying to control elections.

    August 10, 2010 at 4:10 p.m.

  • Hey, everyone in the business world has made it their top priority to see President Obama, and the Democrats, fail. They want to make a huge statement and have a hand in controlling the elections. It wouldn't benefit their cause to help the economy recover, so they are sitting on the money for now. It doesn't take a genius to see that.

    August 10, 2010 at 3:49 p.m.

  • Guffaw - duh, good one Mike!

    August 10, 2010 at 3:41 p.m.

  • I can name naysayers without being a spokesman....I have seen posts by right-wingers that have forgotten that 2008 ever happened.

    Happy gloom & doom day. Oh,that's every day for you.

    August 10, 2010 at 3:39 p.m.

  • In other words monetize the debt - what a great idea, I'm going out right now and buy a bigger wheel barrow to haul my pocket change around.

    August 10, 2010 at 3:39 p.m.

  • "They seem to forget 2008 ever happened." You are the spokesman for who? Well anyway I remember 2008 and I also remember 2009 and two thirds of 2010.

    I remember the stimulus package was going to hold unemployment below 8% and then some. In fact four trillion dollars of stimulus has not lowered it below 9.4999999999999% to be exact.

    But this stubborn problem has nothing to do with the huge, burdensome bills that have been passed - naw no way that's for sure. Why small and big business can surely shoulder this extra load and still increase employment, hell we'll just pile on some more. Yah-all just wait for it and remember "keep hiring" - welcome to la la land!

    August 10, 2010 at 3:36 p.m.

  • It was just announced that the Federal Reserve will use funds that it has invested in mortgage securities to help pay for some of the government debt. Amidst one of the worst economic crises since the Great Depression, this measure will hopefully provide economic stimulus while minimizing interest rates and tax rates.

    Among the goals are the reduction of government debt, the stabilization of short-term interest rates, and a decrease in the unemployment rate. Earlier in 2009, the Fed purchased the mortgage securities of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in addition to $300 billion in government debt. The continuous purchase of government debt may be a short-term solution, but hopefully tax rates do not continue to climb as a result.

    Everything has its Pros and Cons.

    This is the action I was talking about....http://www.execte.com/business/2010/federal-reserve-chairman-ben-bernanke-announces-financial-measures-to-bolster-economy-10081618.html

    August 10, 2010 at 3:31 p.m.

  • On December of 2008

    In December, the number of unemployed persons increased by 632,000 to 11.1 million and the unemployment rate rose to 7.2 percent. Since the start of the recession in December 2007, the number of unemployed persons has grown by 3.6 million, and the unemployment rate has risen by 2.3 percentage points.

    http://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2009/jan/...

    They seem to forget 2008 ever happened.

    But they would like you to believe that all about tax cuts to the top 2% , no regulations, the estate tax, and cutting corporate rates...lol

    August 10, 2010 at 3:10 p.m.

  • It a vicious cycle. People are losing jobs, so cannot buy things. People cannot buy things, so companies lay off. Government steps in and helps those who need it, so those people start buying a little bit, but not enough to give companies confidence to start hiring people.
    Banks will not lend out the money, so small businesses cannot get started hiring people, and so on and so on.
    It's going to take people back at work to get things started and if it takes the government to step in an create jobs to make that happen, then so be it. it will be a snow-ball effect.
    Without customers, nothing else is an issue. Without jobs, well, you can figure that out.

    August 10, 2010 at 2:57 p.m.

  • Mike says, "I believe that is just a theory because.....Companies will hire.....they are not going to check and see what government policies are...."

    Hmmmm....that sounds eerily like another theory - oh well, here is another theory:

    "According to the BEA (Bureau of Economic Analysis), wages and salaries of U.S. workers have declined only 3.6% since the first quarter of 2008. This small drop is really surprising considering the unemployment rate was 5.0% in December 2007 and was 9.5% in July 2010. More government jobs and government subsidized jobs prevented this number from being much worse.

    Even more amazing, total personal income actually increased by 1.5% during this time. How is this possible during a recession? Examining the figures indicates that there was a 27% increase in 'Government Social Benefits to Persons' in the last nine quarters.

    These various forms of stimulus payments, which are essentially welfare, along with government subsidized employment, were paid for by the approximately $3.5 trillion in deficit spending in 2008, 2009, and 2010. This has been the major source of funds for consumer spending recently.

    So even though consumers have been borrowing less, the government has been borrowing more and giving the money to consumers to spend (or at least to some consumers). This is equivalent to the 'bread and circus' of Roman times.

    It is not a sustainable model for economic growth. Nor is it even honest to claim that this is actually economic growth. We don't exactly live in an age of financial honesty however - and that is another trend that can be expected to continue."

    http://seekingalpha.com/article/21953...

    August 10, 2010 at 2:45 p.m.

  • jbj
    "nervous about the economy and this limits spending, hiring, growing is just a theory?

    I believe that is just a theory because we have a DEMAND PROBLEM which could come from perception but I think it comes from lack of demand...Companies will hire when their sales require them to..i.e. If they need to add 500 more employees, they are not going to check and see what government policies are, they're gonna strive to stay ahead of their competition and maintain their reputation by fulfilling their contract. If they don't their competition will.

    It's more about numbers, than it is about a feeling.

    August 10, 2010 at 1:38 p.m.

  • jbj
    You continue to speak as a spokesman for the people; which you're not.

    I don't think president Obama's description of an energy bill (that wasn't even in place) matters that much; that's just a tactic the right likes the use.... That's exactly why, I made reference to Sarah Palin's in John McCain’s stance on cap-and-trade; prior to the 2008 election (does not matter).... I believe John McCain and Joe Lieberman introduced a bill. It doesn't matter what 1 or 2 people say, it's about the numbers. I don't believe every word president Obama says on the stump; I never have and I never will....I understand political rhetoric. If the president speaking from the West Wing or answering the press questions, that's different matter.

    Are the people talking about a fantasy bill? Senate majority leader Harry Reid nixed the climate change bill; it did not have enough democratic votes to pass a filibuster. No one is talking about a climate bill.

    I'm not that pretensions; I don't claim to know how people feel about a particular piece of legislation. Again, we have 50 states in the union.

    The main theme of this blog was a plea, to put aside theories, ideology, and agendas and come up with a plan and some numbers to move this country forward. In the fourth plus years I have been in this forum; I've heard just about every theory...I want our legislators to work on our problems ;not come up with new sound bites to avoid it...That's why we have a deficit reducing commission;now we need a compromise on a energy bill.

    The country is anxious and some are paranoid because there are people who are taking advantage of our slow recovery, to spread their fear mongering. It is a worst recession since the great depression and I have been saying for two years; it’s going take about three years, before we see real change. The democrats have made some mistakes, and they should admit them but they should not apologize for trying.

    August 10, 2010 at 1:19 p.m.

  • Mike, everyone who knows anything wants to limit pollution. It does not take much to find people who agree with that idea. More were in favor of a cap and trade, originally.

    Mr. Obama used the words "necessarily sky rocket" in reference to our energy bills under cap and trade. That, along with some other items have some people a little nervous about this particular bill they are talking about today.

    I read the entire blog, I respond to parts where my experience gives another view or the rest of the story. There is not always a link to my comments, I get them from what I see around me. Do you feel that my comment that people are nervous about the economy and this limits spending, hiring, growing is just a theory?

    August 10, 2010 at 12:46 p.m.

  • jbj
    I have a sneaky feeling that you don't read one line of the blog; you just submit your talking points.

    Throughout the blog, I stated that the economy has been stagnant for the last two months, the fed chairman will decide whether to raise interest rates and continue to buy the worthless mortgages. There's nothing earth shaking about that and if it was in; why is Congress going home on recess?
    I also stated that it's time for some numbers not the same old 30 year old talking points about a Cap and Trade, which Sarah Palin,John McCain, and Lindsey Graham initially supported, will now be a Cap- and- Tax. An energy policy will tax the polluters, now the utility companies may turn around and and shift that price to its consumers; but the free market should take care that,right?

    You have a lot of theories but you don't back them up with any links, facts, or numbers, so it just your theory.... I take it as that.

    I have talked to a lot of local utility and plant operators, they have told me that they are already getting ready for the new anti-pollution laws. They have interlocks and detectors in place. I read an article in business week about a year ago, it said chemical plants do not want to pollute, so they are on board,but they would like to know in advance if it's gonna be a Cap- and -Trade or a carbon tax? They also want a permanent plan that will not change with administrations.

    The SC and the EPA have declared CO2 a pollutant.

    I can understand those that want status quo;they will fight any energy legislation. I want to start taking steps in getting off oil.

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Palin became more direct about cap-and-trade when she teamed up with McCain, a Republican who famously went against his party in 2003 by introducing a cap-and-trade bill with then-Democrat Joe Lieberman. McCain stuck with his pledge to to lower emissions during the campaign, writing in the March 18, 2008, edition of the Financial Times that "the risks of global warming have no borders."

    Palin echoed McCain's platform in the Oct. 2, 2008 vice presidential debate against Joe Biden. (It's on YouTube . Skip to the 29-minute mark to hear her talk about climate change and cap-and-trade.)

    During the debate, Palin emphasized the importance of energy independence, of "cleaning up the planet" and of "encouraging other nations to come along with us." She went on to say, "We've got to reduce emissions."

    "We've got to become more energy independent for that reason also. ... As we rely on other countries that don't care as much about climate as we do, we're allowing them to produce, and to emit, and to pollute more than America would ever stand for."

    When debate host Gwen Ifill asked Palin whether she supported capping carbon emissions, her answer was unequivocal:

    "I do," she said. "I do."

    August 10, 2010 at 9:25 a.m.

  • Today there are reports that the recovery is going into reverse. Tune in to the report from the federal reserve at 2:15, that may be eastern time.

    Obama will either change his course or history will talk about the Obama economic collapse.

    August 10, 2010 at 8:13 a.m.

  • To make this simple, the message from the President is dead, the Democratic Party message is dead, and your message is dead… The liberals have sold their soul to pass healthcare, finical reform, and billions to bailout this economy and now unions (teachers); it’s just not working, pull down your blinds in that glass house, and turn out the lights the party is over. People are not buying this leftwing BS anymore. You can summaries the numbers all you want, they are just too many lies, distortions, and no more truth or trust to back anything up anymore. The argument that you’re trying to make is old and tired. You have, along with the democrats have continued to blame Bush and the GOP, because you have nothing too show because the people just didn’t care for the policies coming from this President and the democrats. I know you think everyone is stupid, but just how many more times are you going to shoot this dead horse???

    August 9, 2010 at 8:57 p.m.

  • An energy policy that taxes the use of energy will hurt the middle class and a voucher system to reimburse the poor will eat up tax dollars just as Obama promised it will. Will it make someone invent a solar car any earlier? No it will probably slow down any business working on it because of extra costs and taxes.

    Our education system will improve, not when they get better teachers, but when they come up with a curriculum that will better educate the students. It is not necessary they come out all the same, they didn't start that way. Learning to use each person's individual talents and skills will get us caught up with other countries. But if we take in students who cannot speak English in grade K and pressure our teachers to make all students read on a 5th grade level by fifth grade, and yes they do this, we are hurting the results and destroying our standing in comparison to other nations. We are getting just what we are demanding from our teachers. Students who excel should be allowed to excel, or we will have to import doctors and engineers. Not everyone will go to college, but most will be able to earn a living based on their own skills and talents, if we will make it possible for them.

    August 9, 2010 at 8:53 p.m.

  • Not a clue. You hit it on the head.

    To say that top Republicans admited that lowering taxes will not create jobs is not the whole story. Economic recovery is not going to take just one step to work. It is like trying to bake a cake with just sugar. Confidence in the economy will have to be earned by the administration before anything will grow. Right now confidence is at an all time low. That is why we are stagnant.

    Businesses are not going to hire, expand, or grow and people are not going to spend until they know that this economy will support it. They feel that some of the bills Obama has passed are not helping the economy and that some of them that he plans to pass are going to damage it further. This will not support recovery.

    You may find polls that support some of the legislation. But we will not find movement in the economy among those who hire until people feel the economy is stable.

    August 9, 2010 at 8:33 p.m.

  • Excuse me, I should have said jobs created in the last few years and shucks I was off by 5% - my bad.

    Straight from the horse's mouth:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qLMTpv...

    August 9, 2010 at 4:21 p.m.

  • Can't you make one post that doesn't exaggerate the facts in your favor.

    A small business is one with less than 500 employees
    "
    Employ just over half of all private sector employees"

    How important are small businesses to the U.S. economy?
    Small firms:

    • Represent 99.7 percent of all employer firms.
    • Employ just over half of all private sector employees.
    • Pay 44 percent of total U.S. private payroll.
    • Have generated 64 percent of net new jobs over the past 15 years.
    • Create more than half of the nonfarm private gross domes­tic product (GDP).
    • Hire 40 percent of high tech workers (such as scientists, engineers, and computer programmers).
    • Are 52 percent home-based and 2 percent franchises.
    • Made up 97.3 percent of all identified exporters and pro­duced 30.2 percent of the known export value in FY 2007.
    • Produce 13 times more patents per employee than large patenting firms; these patents are twice as likely as large firm patents to be among the one percent most cited.

    http://www.sba.gov/advo/stats/sbfaq.pdf

    August 9, 2010 at 3:57 p.m.

  • A "boardroom" is a metaphor for a place of decision-making. Small businesses do have stockholders.

    Again, Paul O'Neill ran Alcoa and several other businesses; I kind of believe someone that makes the decisions; rather than the usual talking points of those wanting tax cuts. There may be some cases where businesses actually take government policies into consideration but that is not a truth certain.

    I get it; Ron Paulites, like yourself, do not like taxes, regulation, unions, minimum wage, or anything that affects the bottom line.... That's not mainstream.

    Before the Wall Street meltdown, people were saving less than 1% of their income; they're now saving about 5% of their income.... I know it's hard for top to bottom people to understand, but consumers have to spend to get the cycle moving again. Consumers will not be spending like they did before the Wall Street financial crisis, most of the jobs were outsourced overseas, employers have found ways to get more from the current employees, and Wall Street is not lending to small businesses.... The democrats tried to pass a jobs bill to grant loans to small community banks (so they could lend to small businesses) but the republicans balked because Mitch McConnell said he did not want the government to hold any more private equity.

    We don't have to settle for anything and I hope the prognosticators are wrong.

    August 9, 2010 at 3:49 p.m.

  • Small business accounts for 70% of the jobs - I don't know any with a board room.

    A lot of uncertainty has been created with the monster bills passed and pending. It has created a tax and regulatory climate where it is difficult to make long and short term business decisions.

    We had a 5% unemployment rate before the subprime crisis I don't see why we have accept an 8 to 10% rate now - Joe Biden, a financial genius is the only one who says we do. It's time for the government to "take their foot off our neck."

    August 9, 2010 at 3:23 p.m.

  • For the record, taxes or tax cuts, will not immediately solve the jobs issue... And I stated two or three months ago, the unemployment rate will have a new norm of ~8%, no matter what party is in charge. Many many of the jobs that were lost will not ever come back. We need to find a new manufacturing base.

    As Paul O'Neill said yesterday, boardrooms don't normally monitor government policies, to form an opinion about hiring. They look at national and global sales, inventory, and purchase orders.

    The unemployment rate will be ~9.5% in November, the GOP(by default) will pick up a lot of seats but the job numbers will not come down in any great number..

    August 9, 2010 at 2 p.m.

  • I just asked some questions - maybe a little too difficult for you. But you were the one with the sarcastic remarks. And a nap you are too late - so there!

    August 9, 2010 at 1:52 p.m.

  • Rollingstone
    I advise a nap, because is obvious(to me) that you just want to engage in sarcastic, tit for tats.

    August 9, 2010 at 1:49 p.m.

  • So raising taxes will destroy jobs, right - uh...I mean correct? Which is it?

    August 9, 2010 at 1:44 p.m.

  • We have an economic crisis and republicans are playing political games, such introducing legislation to give Congress two months off after the election before reconvening. The GOP is afraid that the Dems will pass legislation's during the lame duck session. When the democrats won in 2006; they didn't ask for a two month vacation.... It sure wasn't because they trusted an honorable GOP.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08...

    August 9, 2010 at 1:30 p.m.

  • And then comes Rollingstone with the same old talking points and the the same" either you are for it or against it."

    I never said that raising taxes would create jobs and that just the same Rushbo,Beck tactic of attacking the messenger and the unions, every time education is mentioned.... That 26 billion will keep 160,000 teachers employed... We're spending two billion a week for Afghanistan... We need to establish priorities.

    We don't need term limits ;we need informed constituents. Two years for a representative in just about right. If the electorate want to keep sending that person back; that's democracy.

    August 9, 2010 at 1:19 p.m.

  • "Now that the media has finally caught onto their" tax cut" scheme, all the top republicans have admitted that tax cuts do not create jobs and it adds to the deficit."

    But, raising taxes will create jobs? Will raising taxes reduce government spending? Show me the numbers.....

    Is the $26 billion going to be used to help the teachers or their union? One way to help education is to get rid of this union and eliminate tenure. These two things are why our education system is filled with incompetent teachers and administrators.

    As far as Congress is concerned they need term limits and they need to take back all the power they have relinquished to the executive branch - if they can.

    August 9, 2010 at 1:10 p.m.