You lefties bought into the environment scam, wanted to be like Europe killed the entire private sector with socialism and now we have people still blaming Bush. Where are all the jobs that Obama promised to create by spending one trillion dollars? lol

Hard to "create" jobs when the unemployment rate was 4.5%. Basically as low as it possibly can.

Try again

Steve - Again, throwing out a single number without context is useless, and usually comes from people that don't want to show the big picture. If you look here - http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000 you will see that unemployment was 4.2 when Bush took charge. So Clinton gets credit for that. Then the rate rises to over 6%. Bush then enacts several unfunded stimulus plans to lower the unemployment rate. These along with the housing bubble and other factors lower the rate to 4.4% in 2006~2007. Then the crash occurs and as Bush leaves office the rate is 8% and rising fast.
So try again Steve.

Since you're interested in the full context, then why are you ignoring the fact that the recession and job losses didn't start until after the Democrats gained control of both houses of Congress?

@FantasiaWHT...To answer your question, the slide had already begun. The voter recognized this in the off year election of 2006 and voted the Democrats in. However, by then it was too late and the slide was gaining momentum. By 2008 the financial bubble burst.

lol, they are there to slow Obama's destruction down until we can replace him. The dem senate won't even touch Obama's tax the only ones left with revenue bill.

Jobs plan by the president, lol made my morning with that one.

Be careful Anne. While Republicans don't agree with the Jobs Act in its entirety, it's the Democrats ala Harry Reid that have prevented a vote on the Act thus far. Let's get our FACTS straight, shall we?

The reality Anne is the senate currently controlled by democrats does not have the votes to pass Obama's plan. Pay attention!

@Dirk -- first of all, I don't. I would have preferred many other Dem candidates to him in 2008. But the one thing he had going for him then is that he was a better choice than the other guy, who intended to pile on more of the 'tax cuts for the producers' nonsense that already had us in free-fall. And next year he's going to most certainly be a more palatable choice than any one of the wing-nut lunatics the GOP has running.

Dems had full control for 2-1/2 years unchecked. They tried to ram as much socialism that you preach down the USA and look where we are. Unemployment is higher, trillions wasted to pay off political donors, dept sky high.

Yep, more of that is what we need. More hope and change

@Steve...See you're up to your old diatribe again. Where are you getting this 2-1/2 years unchecked stuff? Even though BHO entered office with Democrats in control of both chambers of Congress, he encountered a Senare that was being locked up with the threat of filabuster. Kennedy died in September of 2009 and with the election of Scott Brown the Democrats lost their 60 seat majority. The Republicans started off his term as obstuctionistic and Mitch McConnell came out shortly and stated they were going to make sure he was a one term president.

Obama is not a socialist in anyway, shape or form. First of all, without the 1st jobs bill we would have fallen off the cliff. For nearly two years economists have been waiting for us to hit bottom and we finally did. Now we need stimulus money to create demand so that business will start hiring to meet demand. Sweet and simple.

Yeah public universal healthcare is not socialist at all
Growing the government with more regulation and control on the private market has nothing to do with socialism.
Telling every producer they need to pay their fair share is not socialism
Controlling energy, hand picking who is regulated who gets to produce who gets the grid

The government is terrible at creating demand for products/services, the very thought of them even trying to do so is putting controls and playing games with the private market.

Solyndra is a prime example. Lets shove tons of cash into this company because it is "green" Oh crap no one wants their over priced product with no demand. Oh crap we lost all that money. Ah well, we can just blame republicans and call them the party of no. Kennedy died so the dems didn't really have control of anything for all that time.

@Steve...We don't have universal healthcare yet. What does Kenndy have anything to do with your argument? I only mentioned Kennedy because you made a fallacous statement and completly out of context. Seems like facts get you all riled up.

We didn't pass a healthcare bill that goes into full effect in 2014? Thank god that was really scaring me that we did something like that in this great free country.

You mentioned Kennedy because you think that excuses Obama from having a majority. It's fine though. Everyone caught on pretty quickly to the liberal socialism. Brown started off the victory party and it will continue from state to state and in the national area in 12.

@Steve...The new healthcare plan, even after it goes into effect, is not a universal helathcare plan. It still owned and operated by private enterprise. In reality it puts into force regulations to provide universal coverage. Elisbeth Warren is giving Brown a run for his money. I don't think I would start celebrating quite yet.

If you want to take over the White House then you better get a real credible candidate and not those wingnuts that are currently in the field. With that field, Obama will win by default.

Any conservative candidate to you is a wingnut so that won't be possible. Since Obama was a wingnut with no experience, should be even easier. Dems can't even win Weiner's seat as of late. It's like the never ending political superbowl.

@Lyle, you're forgetting the 5-6 month delay in seating Al Franken, so the Senate really only held that filibuster-proof majority between Franken's swearing in and Kennedy's death. Half a year, tops?

Lyle - Why does government have to provide the stimulus to get our economic engine going again? Banks and businesses are currently sitting on TRILLIONS, that if given the proper motivation, could be re-introduced to circulation much faster and with more efficiency than a bureaucratic government could. Even Obama laughing admitted that the first stimulus he did was rife with problems.

Certainly, I would think that TRILLIONS of stimulus from the private sector would provide more demand than the comparatively small $.5B that Obama is now proposing from the government. According the GOP, business leaders have told them what they need/want to release that capital - repeal Obamacare, freeze regulations and get rid of the crap ones like those that are bankrupting the USPS, and reform the tax code. Obama has the largest private businessman in his corner - Jeffrey Immelt of GE. And yet, Immelt appears so confident in Obama's plan that he's shipping GE's med-tech and aero-space divisions to China. What's wrong with this picture?

The math just isn't adding up for me. Or in Keynesian Economic theory, is $.5B from the government better than $TRILLIONS from the private sector??? And if so, why??? Or is the GOP lying about what business leaders told them??? Isn't it telling that Obama's own man, Immelt, has such little faith in him that he's moving two significant segments of his business to China??? If the plan was so awesome, I’d expect Immelt to help Obama out by publicly stating that if the jobs bill is passed, GE will stay here instead of going to China. I don’t see that happening though.

Nick Poulos - Where in the article/letter does the Senator do any name calling, as you've asserted? To the contrary, you seem to be the one doing the name calling by implying that the Republicans and the Tea Party are nothing more than "noise pollution." Also, it's funny how your solutions to our problem include taking away the First Amendment rights of select individuals that you appear to disagree with.

Ah yes, I can see that Stalin’s political tactics are still alive and well today. Appeasement be damned in trying to solve our problems through thoughtful public discourse! :-)

@James A Hoffa...I think it's smarter to hang tough and not fold to the demands of business. They are using the crisis that they created to leverage Obama into turning his back on the working and middle class. With business sitting on close to two trillion and not infusing it into the economy is effectively holding us hostage. If business won't do it then we will have to do through the jobs bill.

It is clearly a crisis engineered by the oligarchs for the plutocrats. As usual the game is they win, we lose. For someone who claims to be such an independent, you sure are willing to sell your soul.

Correction - $.5B should read $.5T. My bad!

Lyle - To the contrary, my soul is no one's but my own, nor is it for sale at any price. In fact, I just had a debate over on another board wherein I defended private sector unions against Brian Dey.

What about business demands are so controversial though? Dumping Obamacare gives us what we already have now until we can come up with something better. Freezing regulations doesn't mean that we don't get to keep enforcing the ones that we already have. And everyone wins with greater efficiency and stable predictability. Not to mention that the current tax code really is a mess and needs to change - I know there's bipartisan support for this. Hell, I'd even support a progressive income tax where the top rate is capped at 35% so long as everyone contributes at every level - no free passes to the super poor or super rich.

How do any of these objectives disadvantage the middle class or poor?

@Lyle: Please remove your tinfoil hat. What is keeping all the cash on the sidelines right now is uncertainty. Uncertainty about Obamacare, new taxes, old taxes, gridlock in Washington...If there were some clarity on where the govt and the economy were going businesses would begin spending that money and hiring people. That's not happening any time soon, not at least until the next election occurs and our current severely under-qualified president is back in his qualified role as community activist. The enemy of the middle class is not business but technology and lack of education. Technology will continue to obsolete many, many jobs(it also creates many, many jobs but jobs that require an education) and anyone unwilling to keep educated and ahead of the curve is going to get ground up. There is a disturbing line of thought that we ARE at full employment NOW and technology has simply made it possible for us to need far fewer workers. I know the left's solution to this problem is just to create more government jobs and entitlements. A more prudent solution is to have only the kids you can afford to feed and educate without handouts from others. But I guess that would require our people to exhibit guts and self control. Don't see that happening anytime soon.

@235301...My tinfoil hat fits so well and it increases my clarity of communication from the right wing ideologues.

So what you are saying is that all business wants is clarity. OK, Obama's healthcare
act is certain; tax increases are certain; tax reform is coming; but not yet, and OWC is going to continue to put pressure on. It is the right, encouraged by their libertarian backers who have shut the domestic economy down. If business won't get off the dime, then the government will forced to do so. The working class and middle class still has the voting majority.

I'm sure he's forgotten that. After all, he's getting on in years.

Wow - And I guess you are informed. But can I ask, what's the source of all of your propaganda, as you appear to have a lot of it! Your entire post is hypocritical and quite ironic to say the least. Try again!

@Rath13-- Before you demonize the Koch Bros. please tell me how much money George Soros has spent on the OWS nonsense. Don't forget that the brothers employ over 50,000 people, many of them high paying union jobs. That puts alot of roofs over people's heads and food on the table. When you look at the facts, school districts around the state are claiming to save hundreds and hundreds of thousands of dollars thanks to Governor Walkers reforms. ACT 10 is working. No doubt about it!

Keith, last I checked Soros has spent nothing on OWS. Do you have some proof to the contrary? And don't forget - the Koch Brothers employ over 50,000 people, many of them in Iran.

Nick:

You mentioned that 'Your side loves to point the finger and spout fear-based comments.'. How do you reconcile that with the comments made by the 'other' side concerning Walker's "draconian" budget cuts that have "gutted" public education, would double class sizes and cause massive teacher layoffs? What about the accusations that Ryan wants to "end" social security and medicare? It could be argued that Pasch's recent run for state senate was all about fear-based manipulation and lies.

If you really want to 'knock it off', perhaps you should be looking a bit closer at where it exists...

Thanks for covering this one CowDung!

I don't want to get you started--I'm actually hoping that you can move beyond the fear-based rhetoric and start having some real, and meaningful dialog...

Oh gawd don't get him started again...(love the link, though!)

Bob - I LOVE the part at the end - “Satisfaction is not guaranteed because… well you’ve already proven that you don’t make very good decisions!” Gets a laugh out of me every time :-)

Nick, your contribution to virtually any string you've been involved in can be summarized as follows:

1) Rag on Republicans and the Tea Party.

2) Call for an end to partisan divisiveness.

3) ,ngp

When you start producing something of significance, maybe your critique of the comments of others will carry some weight. Until then, you're fair game to be treated as just another member of the peanut gallery.

Bob, Nick's contribution to this thread is a lot better than yours so far. Just sayin'. Maybe you could use the gizmo to remove your old McCain/Palin sticker.

I'd say we're about even, Bill, and I've limited myself to about a 50th of the real estate he's consumed here.

You, on the other hand, have a bit of catching up to do.

Nick - You asked for it, so here's Hoffa's 8-step plan to American Prosperity:

Step 1: Audit not just the Federal Reserve, but the entire federal government. Go over the budget with a fine toothed comb, accounting for every penny spent, evaluating programs on their efficiencies and effectiveness, getting rid of all the waste, redundancies, price supports, subsidies, and just pure bullshit. Make sure that every penny spent adds real objective and substantive value to the American people. Prevent special interests by holding politicians personally accountable for poor decision making - in other words give the people a power to fire for poor performance.

Step 2: Clean up the so-called “entitlements” and “social safety nets” by getting rid of loop-holes within, preventing fraud and waste, and instilling some personal responsibility for those who legitimately qualify for such programs (no more illegal drug use, no more exorbitant unintended spending on luxuries, no more milking the system just because you can, no more rewarding unwanted pregnancies, etc.).

Step 3: Reform the federal tax code eliminating all special interest loopholes and implementing a fair across the board progressive/flat structure, capping the highest effective individual/corporate tax rate at 28% and lowering everyone’s taxes across the board. Everyone pays from super-poor to super rich – no exceptions, no deductions, no free rides. If additional revenues are still needed implement a nominal federal sales(consumption) tax, but only if needed and with a sunset provision at such point that our debt repayment becomes sustainable.

Step 4: Balance the budget and set-aside surplus revenues for a semi-aggressive debt repayment program so that instead of throwing money away on interest, we can re-invest those funds into programs that are actually effective and work for the American people.

Step 5: Reach out to other fair playing nations (such as Canada, the E.U., Australia, etc.) and form a global ‘fair trade’ alliance to equalize the exploitative economic competitive advantages of ‘unfair’ nations such as Mexico and China until such time that they are able to play fair and join into the alliance. Once everyone, or at the very least the major global players conform to a certain set of minimum standards on labor, environment, and currency policy, the trade system can then transition into a completely open/free market.

Step 6: Only if necessary, reform the so-called “entitlements” and “social safety nets.” If we do everything else first correctly, we should even be able to eventually increase the benefits of these programs by offering individual choice and opt outs in favor of something along the lines of the Chilean model.

Step 7: Implement a voluntary universal health care system in the form of a government sponsored enterprise (GSE) eventually spun-off into quasi-publicly traded companies and impose only common-sense regulation upon it with no initiative-based or special interest strangleholds.

Step 8: Keep the federal government out of stupid purely ideological issues such as marriage, abortion, etc. and leave those decisions up to the individual states or the courts.

BTW - I'm an INDEPENDENT, not a Republican/Tea Party card holder. Is this productive enough? Where's your PLAN??? As McBride has pointed out, all you really do is bash Republicans/Tea Party without offering any real solutions yourself other than trusting in your boy Obama.

Sorry, but I prefer my plan, which actually gets things done, as opposed to playing class warfare which is really all you and your party have been doing this past year – other than your boy taking extended vacations and ordering busses made in Canada while calling for more “made in the U.S.A.” How do you stand the ‘do as I say, but not as I do’ mentality? I prefer my leaders to lead by example, but that’s just me.

Explain how it was OK for Obama to take an ideological stand as a Senator in voting against the debt ceiling increases, but when Republicans/Tea Party members were actually in a position to prevent it from happening, it was all of a sudden considered an evil thing to do because Obama was the President then. Your side is rife with these kinds of hypocrisies and crony capitalism my friend. Honestly, how do you sleep at night knowing that you support this kind of nonsense???

@Double N-- Once again, it's the democrats in the senate that are "refusing to deal with the jobs bill. They do not have the votes. Let's not spew mis-information.

There is demand in a lot of industries and overall compaines are profatable. The largest problem I see is uncertanty. No one knows what the effects of the healthcare takeover will be. Is another recession coming? What new regulations will come and how much will it cost to expand? Producers are under attack form the president every day. Taxes are going up? Not? Staying the same?

No one wants to lay off workers again so we sit tight. And if you are global concentrate funds in the growing markets like China where they are not afraid to expand.

God, the "uncertainty" canard spouted by Steve and others is annoying. That is what you say when you want to cloud the issue. Do you need a crystal ball to go with your lower taxes = more revenue magic pony? Since no one can predict the future then there is always uncertainty. Regulations will come and go. Same with taxes. A good business is one that stays flexible and moves with the times. The problem now is that demand is low. Demand is low because many people have lost jobs, houses, pensions etc. The lack of demand prevents businesses from growing. They may be sitting on a lot of money, but businesses are also sitting on a lot of debt. Many of them had also invested in various funds that took a nose dive in the Great Recession. The only winners so far have been the bankers who caused the crash in the first place. Many economists feel Obama's jobs bill might help kickstart the economy. We probably will never know, because Republicans would rather destroy the economy in their attempt to regain power.

@Steve -- not to start a fight,but consumers are experiencing uncertainty too. For those of us in the working years it's, "Is my job going to disappear or my salary going to be cut? Do I dare spend money on *fill in the blank*? Or should I put it in the bank to save for retirement, because SS and Medicare are looking iffy?" For me, on the cusp of retirement with three years left to go until Social Security kicks in and living on IRA money now, I'd been looking forward to doing some of the deferred maintenance on my house that has been put off for the past five years. But will Social Security and Medicare disappear for me? Will they for my son and grandson? In which case, I had better stay as frugal as possible to leave as much as possible to them. Uncertainty affects both sides of the equation.

Nick - So let me get this straight - by exercising their right to freedom of speech you believe that the Kock Brothers are inflicting "tremendous damage ... to America's freedom of speech," and the way in which you would fix this would be to limit their right to freedom of speech.

Are you serious? That has to be one of the most illogical things I've ever heard! Last time I checked, the Koch Brothers are American citizens, and entitled to the same rights and privileges as you and I.

Demonizing people that worked hard to build a successful business and limiting their rights, cause that's what "our belief in republican democracy" is really all about. Again, you need to stop reading Stalin's "Trotskyism or Leninism?" (1924). It's really starting to have an effect on you!

Also, last I checked, all the political advertisements in the world don't amount to a single vote - only people can vote. The Koch brothers have two votes. The poor and middle class far outnumber the Koch's when it comes to voting power and our electoral system is largely premised upon the principle of majority rules. So why is it again that you "demonize" the Koch brothers so? Looks to me like they have the political/electoral disadvantage.

If you think they're buying off politicians, wouldn't it be better to "demonize" the politician for selling-out? Oh, that's right. Instead of believing in personal responsibility, your side believes in pointing the finger - it's always someone else's fault, right?

"Demonizing people that worked hard to build a successful business "

The Koch brothers got born. And then they, erm, managed to edge out their other two brothers to gain control of their father's vast fortune. And now they are backing politicians who will help them stack the deck so that it will be that much harder to go from rags to riches like their father did.

I think that they have every right to speak. Just go on television and say it to our faces, speaking as themselves, rather than hiding behind the Cato Institute or bankrolling politicians who will advance their agenda.

@James R Hoffa (JRH)...

C'mon JRH, your twisting the message. Of course the Koch's only have single votes as well as did JP Morgan, but they control much more than their individual votes. In today's world it's all about getting out your message. I worked in marketing the better part of three decades and well directed marketing controls the message and restricts the message in your favor. If marketing didn't work then business, including the Koch Brothers, wouldn't spend their money on it. Therefore, since marketing works so well, political campaigns now cost millions and in the case of the presidental election, billions.

To place sole responsibility on the politician for accepting money to fund their campaigns, when they are so expensive, and expect them to not give preference to the positions of their campaign contributors over the well being of the whole, is just unrealistic. Back in the day when I was doing volunteer lobbying at Congress, campaign money bought access. Access increased influence to get your special interests taken care of.

I disagree with the Supreme Courts ruling that corporations have the right to free speech. Individuals yes, corporations no. They have a vested interest in corrupting the politician. Your argument that we shouldn't hold conributors accountable is liken to holding only the illicit drug users responsible and not the producers and dealers, since the drug user has a choice whether to use or not. Politicians are addicted to money.

I don't see much difference between having corporations contributing to campaigns and having labor unions contributing to campaigns. If you don't like what the Koch brothers are doing, then you shouldn't like what Big Labor is doing...

@CowDung...Corporations and Big Labor both should be prohibited from making campaign contributions.

I'm not sure that I agree with that, but I will say that if one is allowed, then the other needs to be allowed.

Lyle - That's funny, I seem to recall Jesse Ventura getting elected in Minnesota while spending less than $300,000 during his campaign and being massively outspent by his opponents. Seems to go against your whole money=access theory. I also don't believe that we the people choose our political leaders the way in which we decide which fast food enterprise to patronize on a given night. And if they do, then isn't it the voter's fault for being ignorant, lazy, and gullible? Especially in our age of info?

As a nation, let's stop finger pointing and start taking personal responsibility once again.

So long as a demand for something profitable exists, whether it be drugs or corruption, there will always be someone willing to supply it by whatever means necessary. However, if you eliminate demand, then all the supply in the world is essentially worthless. Of course it makes more sense to tackle the demand side instead of the supply side. The decision to engage in political corruption is a choice made by the individual politician. It's time we started holding them accountable for the choices they make. For example - the whole recall Walker effort being pushed by the DPW - that's how it should be. The majority will decide and the minority will have a choice to make - it's that simple.

Your argument essentially gives politicians a free pass by excusing their behavior as being a mere part of the system. I don't buy it! Why go after the Kochs? Blame the politicians and the voter.

JRH...Ventura was an anomaly as well as Fiengold the first time he ran. As I said before, they wouldn't spend all that money if they didn't get a return on their investment.

Lyle - Were they really just an anomaly? Or maybe it's more along the lines of if you have a message that resonates with people, you'll gain their support without having to spend oodles of money to do so. Aren't these 'anomalies' proof that the electorate does in fact think for itself and isn't easily influenced by Koch brother money, or any other person's/group's spending? I think so!