GOP'ish candidates

[franalexes]

Obama has stopped that trend .....
Too bad you are wrong. We were promised the rate would not go over 8% un-employed. It went to over 10%.
Governors regardless of D's or R's with the help of their legislatures have had to cut funding because the poor economy results in lower income for the States and they wish not to become as indebted as Obama has pushed this nation.

Borrow all the money you can, increase your debt, and then tell me how rich you are. REALLY!and if you aren't rich after doing that it's not my fault because I convinced you to do it.

[franalexes]

Today's news, 1-5-2012 "There are 1,800,000 fewer jobs today than when Obama took office."

[smc]

Originally Posted by franalexes

Today's news, 1-5-2012 "There are 1,800,000 fewer jobs today than when Obama took office."

I am no defender of Obama, as I have made clear in post after post. But this notion that Obama is personally and directly responsible for the loss of jobs is ridiculous and hardly even merits serious discussion.

If the politicians of both major parties were serious about ensuring jobs, they would have created them ... period. There are tremendous needs in this country to do things that only government does. The private sector doesn't fix roads and bridges, build schools, or take on any of the other infrastructure projects that modern societies undertake.

[ila]

Originally Posted by smc

I am no defender of Obama, as I have made clear in post after post. But this notion that Obama is personally and directly responsible for the loss of jobs is ridiculous and hardly even merits serious discussion...

Then do you also agree that it's also ridiculous to blame George W. Bush for job losses that occured during his terms?

[smc]

Originally Posted by ila

Then do you also agree that it's also ridiculous to blame George W. Bush for job losses that occured during his terms?

Job losses can be attributed in part to the policies of presidents. Presidents of both parties have enabled the offshoring of jobs. Clinton presided over NAFTA, a huge job-killer in the United States. Bush's policies (easing or ignoring regulation of the financial markets, allowing for the casino environment from which the world has suffered) that helped lead to the financial system collapse in September 2008 contributed to job losses, to be sure. Obama's failure to pass a stimulus plan with a real job-creation component and that was much, much larger than what he did get also contributed. But in no case are the associated job losses the direct blame of any president. They are the result of a system propped up through collusion by both major parties, a system that puts profits before people, and rewards profit making even when it comes at the direct expense of people.

[ila]

Originally Posted by smc

Job losses can be attributed in part to the policies of presidents. Presidents of both parties have enabled the offshoring of jobs. Clinton presided over NAFTA, a huge job-killer in the United States. Bush's policies (easing or ignoring regulation of the financial markets, allowing for the casino environment from which the world has suffered) that helped lead to the financial system collapse in September 2008 contributed to job losses, to be sure. Obama's failure to pass a stimulus plan with a real job-creation component and that was much, much larger than what he did get also contributed. But in no case are the associated job losses the direct blame of any president. They are the result of a system propped up through collusion by both major parties, a system that puts profits before people, and rewards profit making even when it comes at the direct expense of people.

That's the answer that I was looking for. I would think, though, that the financial collapse was the result of policies put into effect long before either Bush Jr took office. I would also suggest that no administration did anything to correct those policies.

[smc]

Originally Posted by ila

That's the answer that I was looking for. I would think, though, that the financial collapse was the result of policies put into effect long before either Bush Jr took office. I would also suggest that no administration did anything to correct those policies.

The deregulation of the financial markets began, in earnest, with the repeal of provisions of the Glass?Steagall Act via the Gramm?Leach?Bliley Act in 1999. Clinton was president. Bush Jr. accelerated the process. This is why I continue to make the point that both major parties -- which serve the interests of the monied class -- are the political architects of the current situation. Obama brought into his administration the very people who started all this crap under Clinton, including Lawrence Summers.

[paladin68]

Originally Posted by ila

Then do you also agree that it's also ridiculous to blame George W. Bush for job losses that occured during his terms?

Only if they are rational, my friend.

[smc]

There's a great Letter to the Editor in today's issue of The Boston Globe:

I have seen Mitt Romney?s former company, Bain Capital, referred to as "vulture capitalists.?" I don?t think that?s accurate.

Vultures, at least, wait until something is dead before profiting from it by killing, eviscertaing, and consuming it. This comparison is unfair to vultures.

Hey, Jen, I thought you might get a particular kick out of it!

[transjen]

Originally Posted by smc

There's a great Letter to the Editor in today's issue of The Boston Globe:

I have seen Mitt Romney’s former company, Bain Capital, referred to as "vulture capitalists.’" I don’t think that’s accurate.

Vultures, at least, wait until something is dead before profiting from it by killing, eviscertaing, and consuming it. This comparison is unfair to vultures.

Hey, Jen, I thought you might get a particular kick out of it!

While i'm not surpised to hear that Mitt profitted from doing away with jobs what i do find surpising is to hear these charges from his own party

After all this is what the GOP fight and stand for the rich getting richer and the midclass becoming the new poor
Mitt is so full of it when he claims Bain was in business to make jobs
WHAT A LOAD OF CRAP Bain was in busness for Mitt and his partners to make money by gutting companies and taking the profits and run
and now the GOP is blasting Newt and Perry for attacking Mitt on his suscess
Mitt's and the rest of the GOP agenda is for a race to the bottom
low pay jobs no workers rights no rules turn the clock back to the days of the robber barons
Jerseygirl Jen

[franalexes]

Originally Posted by smc

I The private sector doesn't fix roads and bridges, build schools, or take on any of the other infrastructure projects that modern societies undertake.

"schools",,,, be carefull with that one. Most colleges are private even thou they receive government grants. At lower levels, private schools of faith based origin are being financed totally free of government support.

[smc]

Originally Posted by franalexes

"schools",,,, be carefull with that one. Most colleges are private even thou they receive government grants. At lower levels, private schools of faith based origin are being financed totally free of government support.

Of course, anyone reading this would have reasonably assumed I meant public schools, K-12. But you are technically correct.

I could have listed lots more examples of how government creates jobs by building for society. But perhaps you'd like to defend the notion put so eloquently by Grover Norquist: "I'm not in favor of abolishing the government. I just want to shrink it down to the size where we can drown it in the bathtub."

[franalexes]

Originally Posted by smc

Of course, anyone reading this would have reasonably assumed I meant public schools, K-12. But you are technically correct.

I could have listed lots more examples of how government creates jobs by building for society. But perhaps you'd like to defend the notion put so eloquently by Grover Norquist: "I'm not in favor of abolishing the government. I just want to shrink it down to the size where we can drown it in the bathtub."

First, I am not anyone. I am Franalexes. By what assumption do you believe I should assume? You say I am technically correct. Then are you technically in-correct? Should I assume that's what you meant?
Why do you think conservatives want to kill government? We want the same things you do. We just disagree on the manner that government does things.
I have no idea who this "Grover" is, nor do I care, and furthermore I do not find his notion eloquently stated. Am I obligated to defend it just because you asked me to? Probably not.

[smc]

Originally Posted by franalexes

First, I am not anyone. I am Franalexes. By what assumption do you believe I should assume? You say I am technically correct. Then are you technically in-correct? Should I assume that's what you meant?
Why do you think conservatives want to kill government? We want the same things you do. We just disagree on the manner that government does things.
I have no idea who this "Grover" is, nor do I care, and furthermore I do not find his notion eloquently stated. Am I obligated to defend it just because you asked me to? Probably not.

I'll let you play your rhetorical games while I engage in serious discourse.

You are correct that I should have stated more precisely that I meant public schools. But pretty much anyone with a brain who was also inclined to have a serious discussion would have known what I meant, and that I did not mean that private schools are built by the government (although nearly every private school in this country, even those of what you call "faith based origin," get some government funding in one form or another). There ... satisfied now?

And while you may claim not to know who Grover Norquist is, I dare say that you certainly know of his work. He is the founder and leader of Americans for Tax Reform, and the author of the ridiculous "Taxpayer Protection Pledge" that has been signed by 95 percent of all Republicans in Congress and all but one of the 2012 Republican presidential candidates. You know the pledge; it's the one that makes Republicans do ridiculous stuff like working against extending the payroll tax cut extension because it can be interpreted (only in the most asinine way) as a tax increase by simply turning logic on its head.

That pledge, by the way, of which you are aware (I know this, franalexes, because you could not possibly be aware of many of the things of which you write without being aware of the pledge, since they are mentioned in the same sentences on websites, in news reports, and elsewere, without respect to party or end of the political spectrum, and to be unaware of it would require a type of filtering of which the human brain is not capable), reads as follows:

ONE, oppose any and all efforts to increase the marginal income tax rates for individuals and/or businesses; and

TWO, oppose any net reduction or elimination of deductions and credits, unless matched dollar for dollar by further reducing tax rates.

[transjen]

Originally Posted by franalexes

Today's news, 1-5-2012 "There are 1,800,000 fewer jobs today than when Obama took office."

Isn't that the number of lost jobs he inherieted from W
lets look at just the last six months of W and each month the econemy lost between 600k to 800k jobs each month and when the rein of W finaly came to an end his record had way more jobs lost then jobs added
For 2011 100k on average was added not great but we are headed in the right direction even with the GOP doing everything they can to the econemy and hinder job growth
Jersey's piece of crap governor since day one has been on a job elimition program
Jerseygirl Jen

[franalexes]

Originally Posted by transjen

Isn't that the number of lost jobs he inherieted from W
Jerseygirl Jen

In a word, NO.

[transjen]

Originally Posted by franalexes

In a word, NO.

YES!!!!!!! W lost those and more jobs under his failed policies
W destoryed the US encomny
And Obama has been rebuliding it with no help from the GOP

[GRH]

Originally Posted by franalexes

Obama has stopped that trend .....
Too bad you are wrong. We were promised the rate would not go over 8% un-employed. It went to over 10%.

And we were promised that free trade, deregulation, union-busting, and cutting the top marginal tax rates for the 1% would cure all our economic woes under W (and earlier administrations). We see where that got us. So it's far from the first time that political promises were, at best miscalculations, and at worst, outright lies.