The Long Awaited GOP Ideas

Larry you are correct. I wonder how many jobs the libs on here have created.
Here is the latest on some job creation by persons making less than $40K per year. And some of Obama's early job creation as a senator in chicago.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MceFVpJ-Gyc

No Larry d Obamas got it right – stimulate the economy by giving money for infracture road repair – etc creates jobs. Health care reform to help
those who right now are going bankrupt and selling their homes because of health care costs helps the economy in long run. No one creates a job just because you let them keep more of their money – they have to have a need to create a job. Targeting tax cuts to those who hire creates jobs. But giving money for some to just invest in their over seas bank account does us nothing.
Housing market has begun to stabilize under Obama .
We already know what Bush years of tax cuts has caused . Rich are richer,poor are right where they always were and more going bankrupt.
And we dont need political fear mongering about the deficit that the Bush years helped cause. Proposed tax cuts by the republicans are only to get votes.

You are operating under some misconceptions because your research is so poor that it limits you to parroting tired democrat talking points, Andrea. We've got the fattest poor folks in the history of mankind, partly due to the evil corporations, and the gap between the rich and the poor actually narrowed under George Bush.

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/san-club/

Pajamas Media? I mean, really?

Andrea is correct….larry, you are mistaken….and the finely tuned 2003-2007 Pajamas Media gobbleygook comparison is no comparison at all.

The deep and historic Bush tax cuts did NOT result in the creation of millions of jobs. We can believe our own eyes as we read today's unemployment numbers…OR…we can believe the lying and deceptive rightwing machine. The same machine which exists to enrich the already wealthy.

The larger issue is how, over the last 4 decades, wealth has been transferred into the hands of the top .1% of Americans. I would suggest that even if that top .1% never paid another dime in taxes and were permitted to monopolize further in their specific industry….they wouldn't create one single job for an American.

larry has kind of a supernaturalistic understanding of how jobs are created.

Bush saved over 100 million jobs with his tax cuts, Reverend. Haven't you heard–that's the measurement that counts these days.

Your statements are ludicrous. I don't think even Obama or Krugman are stupid enough to contend that taxes don't affect investment and investment doesn't affect employment. Maybe you should stick to anti-Catholic screeds for a while.

Rev until you blame the right group you are spinning your wheels. It's like a diabetic that can't understand why he is going blind but still insists on eating cake with his freinds each day during their break. Yes investment does effect employment. The more important thing is business confidence and sentiment. Obama is threatening many programs that could negatively effect the soundness of certain industries. Who would invest there. This logic cannot be understood by liberals because most haven't been in charge or ran a business. Most are followers and they rely on professors or so called experts to tell them how it should work out in theory but with the many variables seldom do in the real world. This is profit taking and capital holding time not expansion time. If you had a company that produced widgets and on the horizon there was legislation that would create an increase to an unknown amount to produce that widget, what would you do? Also until you realize and see that our economy collapsed after 2007 when pelosi and reid became our leaders and understand why it did what ever you say is dribble, no disrespect intended. The truth Bush maintained 4-5.5% unemployment and 8% under employment. Compare that to 9.7(really about 11% if the census workers weren't counted) and 18% underemployment. When the dems took over and failed to control energy costs especially gasoline that started the slide to destruction. Bush was also at fault, however congress should have done something. As many Dems said "there is no need to waste a perfectly good crisis". That meaning, "we'll apply just enough pain to get our bot voted in as the president. This is not a good thing wouldn't you agree? Also what's wrong with the rich wanteing to get richer? That's like asking the lazy poor why they want to stay fat, lazy and on welfare. The simpe answer is : because they can. Someone being rich and having more money isn't taking a dime morsel of food from anyone else? Is it? No. There is plenty of money out there folks need to figure out how to get their share.

Hey, I like cake.

I want Americans to make money. A lot of money. At the same time, I want much higher income tax rates and payroll tax caps. 50% should be the new top bracket. Payroll caps should be lifted…..and I mean lifted……no cap.

The problem with our economy, the reason it fell….was because virtually all Americans bought into the debt=riches theory. Now, we're trying to pay down those debts and not incur any new ones. Easy money was America's problem. Then the sharks exploited the problem….engorged themselves on cash, while GOP bodyguards watched the door…..then those same sharks gambled the rest of everybody's collateral value down the sh*tter just for kicks.

larry….this is from Paul Craig Roberts who was Reagan's Assistant Treasury Sec…

"The failure to regulate financial markets has produced enormous losses to all Americans except the super-rich. But the U.S. government is guilty of an even greater failure. Washington has not only permitted but also encouraged the unemployment of its citizens by enabling greed-driven corporations to send American jobs abroad in order to maximize profits for CEOs’ bonuses, shareholders, and Wall Street.

As Ralph Gomory has made clear, economic theory has been shattered because there is no longer any connection between the profits of American companies and the welfare of Americans. The profits of American companies are derived from the cheap labor in offshored locations and are at the expense of the American work force."

"…economic theory has been shattered because there is no longer any connection between the profits of American companies and the welfare of Americans."

"was because virtually all Americans bought into the debt=riches theory." Good point Rev because this type of buying was done mostly by the new rich, middle and lower classes trying to catch up. It's just like the way under capitalized investors in the 20's bought on huge leverage and then when it was time to re-call the stocks after an econmic downturn the people didn't have the money to cover the leveraged margins.

"The failure to regulate financial markets has produced enormous losses to all Americans except the super-rich. But the U.S. government is guilty of an even greater failure. Washington has not only permitted but also encouraged the unemployment of its citizens by enabling greed-driven corporations to send American jobs abroad in order to maximize profits for CEOs’ bonuses, shareholders, and Wall Street."
The first sentence is BS. There were regulations put in place from the crash of 1929 that were lifted in th 90's. Short-selling etc. The current govt 1992 until now, lifted these safety features to pay back thier backers for their support. Funny thing even though these regulations are what saved us in the 30' they still haven't been put back in place. Why?

The2nd sentence is also bs. The govt sent many of our jobs overseas by taxing and feeing our businesses to death. They also didn't send work overseas to raise the CEO's but to raise the standard of living in other countries and to try to catch them up with America. Just ask Bill Clinton, he was the one that did the biggest to destroy these companies and to send jobs out of the country.

Walt, you should email that quote to some of the unemployed autoworkers who used to build GM, Ford and Chrysler products. Or any unemployed American, really.

walt…I read that Roberts piece. He doesn't mince any words….he's an ex-Reaganite, and he thinks the nation is in irretrievable decline.

Of course, Big Corporation, yoked to Wall Street, has sold out American workers. The con-job that began with Reagan and is still going full-tilt today, is meant to put as much money into the hands of the fewest Americans as possible, and subject to the lowest tax rates in over 3 generations.

I'd say it has worked out pretty well for that top .1%.

Privatize Social Security ?? Hell yes. Make our money actually work for us by investing it, instead of having the government steal it from us. Privatization also partially solves the future unfunded entitlement liability problem.

Privatize Medicare ?? Probably not, though I haven't studied Ryan's plan yet. Not like it's gonna happen anyway. We'll wait until Medicare is totally down the tubes and bleeding us dry before we try to deal with it, if history is any judge. Maybe when that happens, we can have the great $30 trillion Medicare bailout added onto the national debt or funded with newly printed money. We are such a responsible nation that way.

Rev says, "Of course, Big Corporation, yoked to Wall Street, has sold out American workers. The con-job that began with Reagan and is still going full-tilt today, is meant to put as much money into the hands of the fewest Americans as possible."

Income inequality among Americans lessened from WWII until about 1970, then it began increasing. Reagan was not President in the 1970's, so you can't attribute the inequality rise to him. In addition, even though income inequality rose from the 1970's forward, the incomes of the lowest quintile have increased, along with the incomes of every other quintile, roughly along the same graph lines.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_inequality_in_the_United_States

The truth will set you free. Propaganda will not.

So, then…..American wealth hasn't disproportionately moved into the hands of the top .1%?

I must be reading the wrong stuff, huh?

From your link, King….

"As of 2006, the United States had one of the highest levels of income inequality, as measured through the Gini index, among high income countries, comparable to that of some middle income countries such as Russia or Turkey,[16] being one of only few developed countries where inequality has increased since 1980."

Who was elected president in 1980?