When Will the New House Republicans Start Working on Creating Jobs?

You don't understand how government works, do you?

Repubs control 1/2 of 1/3 of the government. The rest of the yahoos with a vote (still the majority) are hell bent on spending us into oblivion and making everyone dependent on the Government. Exactly how are they supposed to actually enact anything....let me guess..public school education??

 

More than 50% of Americans opposed the HCR bill but the fully Democratic-controlled Congress passed it anyway because hundreds of millions of adults obviously don't know what is best for them. Oh, but a few hundred entitlement thugs do.

 

The question was - how many jobs did Bush create in his last two years? Blaming unemployment on the Democrats then is as goofy as blaming it on Obama now when the Republicans are in charge.

 

Right. The only reasonable course is to blame President Bush, blame Congress, blame CEOs, blame the energy companies, blame the banks, blame the American people, and blame the martians. The only ones to escape President Obama's wrath would be President Obama and the unions.

 

Another non sequitor, Dasein. Are you going for some sort of record. You know, if you can't find a response in your Daily Kos playbook you can just not post.

And, you probably haven't noticed but President Bush has said nothing impolite about the nitwit in the White House.

 

LOL...that's because Bush has problems with words longer than 3 syllables.
If Barney can't say it...sure as hell GW can't.

WOOF!

 

But seriously folk...see the poll response?

NEVER wins!

This isn't about the economy. This is all about removing Obama from the White House. Republicans...lead by the noses by the T-Baggers...will crap on the American people in order to achieve this.

So Impressive...

 

I noticed you used no words longer than 3 syllables. I guess if Barney can't say it...Buzz sure as hell can't say it. So, see, even if you can't use words with more than three syllables, you can still be rude and insulting and blame everyone else for your failures.

 

Hey genius, before you start throwing around logical fallacies that you just learned from wiki a couple of days ago. You might want to figure out how to spell them.

It's "non sequitur".

Otherwise, it makes one look like a complete fool that has no clue what he's talking about.

 

Thank you for that, Dasein, and thank for another non sequitur. You still haven't addressed the legislation that the House has proposed and that the Senate is sitting on but all the same it's nice to see the developmentally disabled participating.

And I'm sorry you're upset for some reason with Wikipedia but you know research doesn't start and end with the Daily Kos.

 

Throughout the last century gov't created jobs to pick up the slack during hard times. I don't know where you heard that gov't cannot create jobs, but rather than just repeating crap like that you should stop and think about what you are saying. Sure ,Gov't can create jobs. FDR put all those people to work cleaning up our National Parks. Thousands of jobs were created when we decided to build the Hoover Dam. Ike decided we needed an Intersate System, thousands of people worked 50 years building that. There are hundreds of projects taken on by the federal gov't that creates jobs. You are right about one thing, The democrats want to manipulate the economy in to doing what they deem necessary to help society. That my friend, is the purpose of gov't. To do what is best for society, Not just business owners and shareholders.

 

You're very welcome. I don't mind helping my inferiors.

As another point, there should be a "you" in your first sentence. Frankly, until you learn correct grammar and spelling I'm afraid this is going to quite moot. Obviously, I've upset you. Perhaps, you when you learn to stop being so emotional and are able to form a coherent sentence then we can continue.

Until then, I won't be taking any economic advice from someone who can't even write properly.

 

Is this a grammar forum or a political forum?

 

X2,
I also agree to keep these posts as political and not as a grammar forum.
Some of these people posting act like kids instead as matured adults.

Lets face it, Bush has stayed low and not criticized this president because he is the one that started this mess that our country faces now. He spent tax payers money like if it was growing on trees. He got us into a war with Iraq that was not necessary and even today is costing this country a lot of money.

Obama is taking it to the people now and letting them decide who is trying to create jobs and who is just trying to make the president look bad just to serve their cause for the next election. Even if it is at the cost of millions being without jobs. Cantor is starting to change his tone on what the president recommended on his speech to congress and he nation. Lot of pressure is being applied by his constituents.

 

You have to have standards.

 

Excellent post. Lets all follow Octo's lead.

 

Obama had no choice but to spend big after the mess Bush left us in. When you are losing 750K jobs every month in this country, you have to spend lots of tax dollars to keep the country from going into a great depression. I just can't see how ignorant some are that they can't see why Obama had to spend lots of tax dollars to get jobs going with the Recovery Act. I travel all over this country and I saw bridges being widen all over the pacific north west last year and small cities fixing the streets, curbs etc etc. But in a lot of these Republican states what they done is put the money in their safes and not spend it just to make Obama look bad. They are playing dirty politics instead of trying to help create jobs.

The billionaires need to pay their fair share. We need a ten percent tax code across the board for every tax payer in this country. That would make more money and eliminate the loop holes from big corporations and billionaires and the deficit would be wiped out in ten years.

 

No I mean the falling deficits and full employment until the Democrats took over and reversed all that and whose policies have only made it worse.

 

So did Democrat, both were correct.

 

I guess I'd better repeat it here. Government can't fix the unemployment problem. It never could and never will. Government is a net spender of wealth, not a creator of wealth. So every government job, while it helps the holders of those jobs actually hurts the economy because it put people on the spending side of the ledger rather than the earning side. The earning side of the ledger pays for those workers without gaining anything from them. The only jobs that matter to the economy are private sector jobs. They contribute to the formation of wealth.

The government can't create private sector jobs. Businesses can't either unless they grow and need more people to operate effectively. Remember businesses must profit in order to survive. The people businesses hire must contribute to profitability. So the problem isn't unemployment. Unemployment is the sympton. The problem is that the U.S. economy is slowly and steadily declining. If were growing, unemployment would no longer be a problem.

We are in a recession that is almost 5 years old. Don't pester me with talk of turnarounds and positive quarters. The economy is lousy and it has been lousy for almost 5 years. What caused this? A former president. No. Selling real estate derivatives? No. Giving mortgage loans to people who can't afford them? No. These are all problems that we would have blown through years ago if they were the cause of the malaise.

My own opinion is that the cause is the steady export of our manufacturing, our jobs, our agriculture and our wealth to other countries for the past 40 years. Reverse that and you will solve the unemployment problem. Band aids aren't going to do it. Effective competition in the global marketplace is going to do it. I have plenty of ideas about how to do that but I'll leave that discussion to the group, assuming the group sees the problem as I see it.

 

Of course he had a choice. But Obama is a governmentalist. He sees government as the provider, helper and fixer. People like me view it as a necessary evil that should be as small as possible. Government spending has never fixed an economy. Never. Not anywhere. There isn't the slightest common sense reason to think it would. The government gets its money from the productive side of the economy. It doesn't create wealth. It spends it. Spending more simply takes more from the productive side of the economy. Someone somewhere made a allusion to pumping water from one end of the pool in order to deposit it at the other end. That doesn't raise the water level. It is actually a pretty decent image.

No. Remember the people telling you that are the politicians who perceive their power as dependent on the ability to spend. They want to spend. They live to spend. Spending will alway be the solution for them. Seriously, you need to think for yourself and not listen to politicians who don't have your best interests at heart. Imagine how taking money from an economy in order to put it back into the economy can make the economy bigger. Think it through. You'll see what I mean.

It isn't ignorance. It is disagreement. Government spending doesn't get jobs going. It never has, doesn't now and never will.

People in Republican states (whatever those are) are saving money to make Obama look bad? Don't try to sell that concept to your local banker.

It's hard for me to imagine where you got this information. 1/2 the personal income tax paid in the U.S. is paid by the top 2% of income earners. In other words, they pay more than their fair share. 40% of the population pays no taxes at all. They are the ones who don't pay their fair share. If you set a tax rate of 10% for everyone as you suggest, government revenues would decline rather than wipe out a defecit that is there on purpose to help the politicians maintain their power.

By the way, corporate taxes are the same as personal taxes. Taxes are a business expense and are calculated into the overall costs involved in running a business. So every service or product you buy is more expensive because of business taxes than it would be without them. Businesses are competitive. It is their job to reduce expenses as much as possible. If you increase their expenses you and I will pay for them ultimately because those expenses will show up in the products and services we buy. It may make you feel better to see ugly corporations paying more taxes but it doesn't help the economy at all. It hurts the economy because it gives those politicians more money to spend. The more money the government spends the less wealth we have as a country.

 

While I agree we need to simplify the tax code and lower rates. What is the billionaires "fair share" if they aren't paying it now?

We have a spending problem not a revenue problem.

 

We were due for a slowdown in the economy. After 52 months of growth and full employment at some point the economy is going to slowdown and regroup and over-expansion will contract and some businesses will contract. It's the normal business cycle and then a another growth cycle will occur. The problem starting in the mid 2000's was the over hyped real estate and construction markets got creamed when the Dem housing scheme collapsed. It made things a lot worse but not unmanageable. It's the policies since then that have exacerbated it and not allowed the markets to correct themselves.

Obama's policies made it worse, the Dem housing scheme made it worse. And they oppose the measures to allow the correction to occur. As you correctly stated, the government does not create jobs, it needs to get out of the way.

 

I've lived through a lot of recessions. Typically they last about 18 months, not 5 years or more. This recession is very different from the others. I hope you are right that it only reflects the normal business cycle. I doesn't feel like to me, however. It feels like we've passed some sort of point of no return.