"The government will have to either print excessive amount of money and make the salaries worthless, or the government will stop spending and the money to earn will cease to exist!

Entire economy is built on a borrowed money supply. Do not think all will be fine when the pay back time arrives. It will be worse than great depression."

We borrow money from China to pay our bills and buy oil from our enemies so that we can drive our SUVs.

Just ask any Republican. The answer to all of our economic problems, including unemployment, is to give more tax cuts from the rich.

Every Republican "knows" that tax cuts pay for themselves.

Unfortunately, and according to reputable economists, the truth lies elsewhere.

Puddle,

This isn't a party issue...both political parties are at fault for this mess. Putting all of the blame on one party just makes it easier for the other party to steal our money. We need to focus on what to do to make the country succeed and not which party a candidate or an idea came from.

Actually, Puddleduck, the tax cuts DO bring in greater revenues -- that has been shown to be true repeatedly over the past 50 years. The problem is that Congress, like a bunch of drunken sailors, then goes out and spends the increased revenues, and more, rather than pay their bills.

Thought experiment: If you were to start, right now, spending three dollars for every one dollar of net income, how long would your bank account last? How long could you sustain that kind of profligacy before your bank account reached zero? And if you want to sustain that level of spending, what do you do then? Your only recourse is to borrow money -- but you have to repay that someday, with interest! Oh, no, what to do?

Yet that is what Congress has been doing since the Kennedy administration. So how do they keep going? They borrow money -- and then pay the bills by inflation -- that's why the dollar you have in your pocket today doesn't go as far as it did when you were a child. I'm old enough to remember when penny candy actually cost a penny -- one dollar would buy me, for instance, one hundred fireballs. How many can you get for your dollar today? Four! The fireball is exactly the same piece of candy it was forty or fifty years ago, and the ingredients required to produce it haven't changed, so why does a fireball cost a quarter now? Inflation!

If I take out a loan for a trillion dollars in 2000 at an interest rate of 5%, and the bill comes due in total in 2020, how much do I have to repay? If the interest is simple compound interest, I owe the lender 1.63 billion dollars -- so how do I repay that and remain solvent? Simple -- I inflate the money supply so that each dollar in 2010 is worth only 50 cents. Then I use those inflated dollars to repay the loan, while only using the purchasing power of $815 billion year 2000 dollars -- wow, I've made a profit! Which I can then spend on something else that will buy me votes!

That's what Obama and the Dems are doing now -- spending ridiculous amounts of money, anticipating that the ensuing hyper-inflation will enable them to pay off the bills when they come due with cheaper dollars. For a prime example of how bad that will be for the United States, refer to the post World War I hyper-inflation in Weimar Germany. See the following links for more info:

http://usagold.com/germannightmare.html

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/commandingheights/shared/minitext/ess_germanhyperinflation.html

That is what is in store for the United States, courtesy of the Obama/Reid/Pelosi triumvirate. We, the American people, are seriously screwed.

Ron, why even try to talk to someone so closed minded as "puddleduck". He thinks that every republican is super wealthy and evil. Its hard to get through to people who can't think for themselves. He has to refer to CNN to think for him.

Typical closed minded leftist.

If tax cuts are the key to growing an economy why did we end up where we are today with all the tax cuts that George Bush gave out to his friends. we should have never failed into a resession by the way you explain it. the key is not tax cuts but to stop borrowing money that we dont have. learn as you i would if you dont have it you dont need it.

Government=ineffeciency. They cant balance a budget, live within a budget & their solution is to borrow more money. It's like giving an alcoholic w/ several DUI's a lifetime supply of alcohol & cars. & to futher the problem, we have unions & lobbyists screaming in their ear to drink more. Absolute insanity. If I ran my business like this government, I would be broke & on the streets. It's time to throw these bums out & make them go to work for a living like most Americans. We need to elect people who have actually run successful businesses in the private sector who understand how to operate a business. We keep voting in career lobbyists, politicians, "community activists," and litigation lawyers. They may know how to rub elbows & smooth talk money out of peoples pockets, but they dont know the first thing about budgets & business, which the government is on a grand scale. Throw these bums & hucksters out.

Ron you are so right. These parties wont work together. They are so afraid the side in power will get the credit.

It's fun to see the left sweat out the dismantling of its nanny state and big government. If you can't afford the nanny, do the work yourself.

"Even if Republicans take control of the House and Senate, they'll face pressure for more aid from state governments controlled by both parties."

How about cutting the benefit packages of state and local workers who now get compensated at 160% of comparable private sector jobs? Then they wouldn't have to make ANY cuts in their employees.

By the way - Only 35% of public employees are "teachers, police or firemen", so when politicians complain about cutting public jobs, they never tell you that 65% of them are bureaucrats in their cubicles, counting down the days before they can retire - some as young as age 48, with huge pensions and free health care for life.

Let's get some sanity back into public pay scales instead of constantly giving in to public employee unions just because they give huge contributions to Democratic politicians.

After a brief uptick this year from the hiring of temporary Census workers, government payrolls at all levels are down by about 230,000 from a year ago.

Overall, combined federal, state and local payrolls shrank by 121,000; most of the jobs lost were temporary Census workers. State governments cut 14,000 jobs for the month

This math is fuzzy. For the 3rd month in a row they have used the census worker layoffs as part of their monthly figures in accounting for which jobs were lost. It's obvious they're using different sources/measurements too because you can't lose 230K in a year and say it shrank 121K.

Either bad reporting or bad wording.

During the early 2000's I watch my friends and others buy bigger houses, bigger cars, take vacations to disney and drop
4 grand. It was all done with Credit! We lost our way and demanded more of everything. everywhere you looked moms were driving 40 thousand dollar suburbans, Everybody had high limit credit cards and disposable income.

That has ended. Reality has nestled in and it will take years to correct itself.

Meanwhile in the background our countries industries were moving offshore making things cheaper with what amounts to Slave labor and selling it to us with 500 percent markups making millions. While we were to consumed with our entitlement of the good life.

Government is broken without question but we did our part.

While we slept a lot of jobs left forever. Even the airlines were lobbying for foreign pilots who would fly for peanuts.

Maybe some of you should go back to October, November, and December of 2008, Read the Wall Street Journal, the Financial Times, and go on c-span, and read and listen to the economist from all persuasions, NONE said jobs would return before 2012-2014, because the usual engine for recovery from recession (or in this case possible depression) is the manufacturing base, of which we no longer have in this nation.

When the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy took effect we proceeded to lose 7 million manufacturing jobs over the next four years, and those massive tax cuts produced no jobs. The last four presidents have followed a failed economic policy, that has outsourced jobs, delivered one sided trade agreements, redistributed 85% of the wealth created in this nation since 1980 to 2% of the population, and followed in business and government a Wall Street model of economics that rewards corporations for short term profits over long term economic security.

The government has given corporate America and the top 10% of the financial institutions bailouts (for their incompetence or fraud or economic treason, how ever you see it) and massive tax cuts to be able to recover, lend, invest and hire, What have they done ? invest in China and the Asian countries, invest in the dark derivatives market, and reward themselves in massive bonus's. they have done NOTHING to invest, hire, or play their part in helping the nation recover from this crisis,

In general one should never challenge another persons patriotism, but in this case it should be noted that the top 10% of banking and financials, and corporate America in general (not mid size and small business) have ask for and received privileged treatment and financial help, and are continuing to receive free fed and treasury loans, then turning around and laying off Americans, investing outside this nation, while asking for continued tax cuts that are financed by foreign borrowing, I call this traitorous behavior.

While many of you are seeking villains in illegals, inciting racism, blaming social programs, nonsensical babble about socialism and communism, and turning against each other, I chose to focus on the true welfare state in this nation....wall street and its financial institutions, $37 trillion+ since 2000 alone has been bailed out for fraud, embezzlement, incompetence, and possibly economic treason.

"...buy oil from our enemies..."

Like Canada or Mexico?

Nearly 80% of fossil fuels used/consumed in this country are either domestically produced or come from one of those two countries...

"Unfortunately...the truth lies elsewhere."

Indeed!

DCS-318822

Actually, Puddleduck, the tax cuts DO bring in greater revenues -- that has been shown to be true repeatedly over the past 50 years.

"In 2004, CBO estimates that federal revenues will fall to their lowest level as a share of GDP — 15.8 percent — since 1950."

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=1811

So no... tax cuts dont always equate to greater revenue.

Ok. This all horrible for everyone out there.

I am unemployed in the architectural field. There are no jobs anywhere. This recession is impacting this whole sector - architects, engineers, builders, material We get our jobs from our contractors who had been able to get financing from the banks before 2009.

Banks are requiring too many restrictions to get loans.

My observation is - Obama has been totally incompetent in resolving this issue, Tim Geitner is in the bank's back pocket. And I will probably be unemployed for a long time unless something changes - or I do something else.

- Not too happy but thank god for the unemployment check..

DCS-318822 "Actually, Puddleduck, the tax cuts DO bring in greater revenues"

Good point. Total Federal Revenues for the 3 years before the Bush tax cuts increased only 6%, but Federal Revenues in the 3 years AFTER the tax cuts increased by 44%. Those tax cuts stimulated the economy so much that they resulted in far more net Federal Revenues, in spite of the lower tax RATES.

This is a FACT that "tax & spend" liberals conveniently overlook.

dizzy DCS You're entitled to your opinions, but not your facts. Tax Cuts have never, ever brought in greater revenue--especially tax cuts to the rich. Trickle down economics is just a code for piss on you. Take off your tin hat and do the math, and if that's too complicated read some basic, non-partisan economics. Where do you tea partiers come up with this crap--oh yeh, Dick Armey, I forgot!

Why did they delete xgoodguy-1? They won't even allow free speech anymore.

Concerned Citizen-2008495

Government=ineffeciency. They cant balance a budget, live within a budget & their solution is to borrow more money. It's like giving an alcoholic w/ several DUI's a lifetime supply of alcohol & cars. & to futher the problem, we have unions & lobbyists screaming in their ear to drink more. Absolute insanity. If I ran my business like this government, I would be broke & on the streets. It's time to throw these bums out & make them go to work for a living like most Americans

You pretty much described most of Americans today. Most Americans (poor, middle, rich) can't manage a simple budget. Lived way beyond their means, used their house as ATM and lived on credit cards. Can't criticize the government while doing the exact same thing.

palco.........i agree with you..........

but illegals , racism, socialism, social programs are all related and just as big of an issue as NYC scam artist are. and our govt is by far the largest problem of all

the less govt we have the better

McConnell: 'No evidence whatsoever that the Bush tax cuts actually diminished revenue'

There are fiscal theories that I disagree with, and that I think are cruel, and that make me upset. But very few actually make me sad. Sen. Mitch McConnell, however, hit my sore spot today. "There's no evidence whatsoever that the Bush tax cuts actually diminished revenue," he told Brian Beutler of TPMDC. "They increased revenue because of the vibrancy of these tax cuts in the economy. So I think what Senator Kyl was expressing was the view of virtually every Republican on that subject." In other words, this is why Republicans don't think tax cuts need to be paid for. They pay for themselves.

Why does this make me sad? Because it's hard to see the country prospering when one of its two major political parties is this economically illiterate. McConnell isn't some backbencher. He's Senate minority leader. And he thinks there's "no evidence whatsoever that the Bush tax cuts actually diminished revenue."

There's an ontological question here about what, exactly, McConnell considers to be "evidence." But how about the Congressional Budget Office's estimations? "The new CBO data show that changes in law enacted since January 2001 increased the deficit by $539 billion in 2005. In the absence of such legislation, the nation would have a surplus this year. Tax cuts account for almost half — 48 percent — of this $539 billion in increased costs." How about the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget? Their budget calculator shows that the tax cuts will cost $3.28 trillion between 2011 and 2018. How about George W. Bush's CEA chair, Greg Mankiw, who used the term "charlatans and cranks" for people who believed that "broad-based income tax cuts would have such large supply-side effects that the tax cuts would raise tax revenue." He continued: "I did not find such a claim credible, based on the available evidence. I never have, and I still don't."

There is some stimulative affect from tax cuts. They increase economic activity somewhat, and that means there's somewhat more taxable revenue for the government to pick up. But not much. Not nearly enough to cancel out the cost of a tax cut. It's important to remember that the Laffer Curve is actually a curve. You can no more drop taxes to 1 percent and make up the difference in revenue than you could increases taxes to 100 percent and sustain enough economic activity to fund the government. You'll recall that the last time we saw budget surpluses was under Clinton -- and higher taxes.

Further, if tax cuts don't need to be paid for because they generate so much taxable economic activity that they pay for themselves, then neither do unemployment checks. After all, the two work very similarly: A tax cut puts more money in your pocket. Unemployment insurance puts more money in an unemployed person's pocket. The difference is that the unemployed person is likelier to spend that money, which will generate more taxable economic activity than if that money is saved. That's why Mark Zandi, an adviser to John McCain's presidential campaign, estimated (pdf) that a dollar spent extending the Bush tax cuts would generate .32 cents of taxable economic activity, while a dollar spent on unemployment benefits would generate $1.61 of taxable economic activity.

In other words, using the theory under which tax cuts pay for themselves, unemployment benefits are a lot likelier to pay for themselves. But John Cornyn, another member of the GOP's Senate leadership, hasn't run the numbers. "I think the urgency of deficit-neutral extension of unemployment insurance has increased because of the size of the deficit and the size of the debt," he said. It's enough to make you very, very sad.

By Ezra Klein | July 13, 2010; 6:28 PM ET

Ah, the Summer of Recovery, with unemployment growing to 9.6%. It is about time States consider the cost-cutting measures that the public sector has had to do. But will the private sector labor unions allow the states to make those cuts? Here in CA, the land of the labor unions, the unions are constantly in court to block measures to lower cost.

The taxpayers can only afford to subsidize unions for just so long.

Safecracker- Unions blocking actual progress? That's unthinkable-

I hear the new head of the UAW is going to turn the clock back too and rape the Car Companies for all they can get- and most likely derail any progress they've made toward financial viability in the process.

Personally when I was involved in a family wholesale business we had two delivery truck drivers who were functional alcoholics- drank on the job every day. We could NOTHING to get them to quit or address their addictions as they hid behind the teamster's union. If they had injured or killed someone while using our equipment it would have been our company on the hook for lawsuits and damages NOT them.

You have the right to have them drug/alcohol tested if you have a "reasonable suspicion" (slurred speech, alcohol smell) and they would be suspended or have their licenses taken away. Try doing your job instead of just blaming someone else for not taking care of your problem. You would have to take a class to be a qualified to make them submit to the test. Refusal to take the test is the same as failing. How long have you sat on your ass waiting for the union to take care of this? Stop whining and take control of your own crap.

So Alaska shouldnt get back 6 dollars for every 1 they send to the Fed??? They should also not get checks from the oil companies...thats SOCIALISM!!!

"their' own messes

Some good post from Tony and Fransesco,DCS

The bottom line here.

Unions- Corporations being held hostage by Unions ( city and states also ) into giving unrealistic and un-payable pensions, and retirement Benefits. Who couldn't see that mess coming? Anythink the unions give a crap? No, show them the money.

Bottom line is Cities and States HAVE to live within their means. California, yes, they put themselves in this mess, continue to play the same game, so you know what? Let them fall. When people with money ( aka Job creators) are leaving in droves, to Oregon or utah . that should be a wake up call to unions, Legislature, and the unions and City/state workers that the ride is over.

The wealthy ( a small business owner who has a business at 250K is consider wealthy by this Administration ) are the ones who create the jobs. Most MAJOR corporations are sitting there, with TONS of cash, which is the only reason the stock market isn't at 1,000 or less. The only reason.

With this regulation, how the heck can the hire anyone? What is the non-healthcare, healthcare bill going to cost? How about Cap and Trade? They say it is dead, but oh no, they are going to use the EPA to Highly tax electric power plants in oct. That would be the kiss of death.

Cutting the corporate, captiol gains tax, , and keeping the bush tax cuts, and just plain telling Us what the rules are, would go a long way toward kicking this economy. Remember the more value of a house, the more property tax revenue. The more income and mployment, the more consumer spending. etc etc.

I am all in favor in letting the unions crash. If any teacher had an epectation of a million dollar a year check from their retirement program, get real.

This administration, by the day, begins to look like the Keystone cops. Timmy G MUST go , ad should Summers. Goldmansachs got their payoff, so they did their job, now lets get someone who knows Economics. Someone who has a clue what a Job actually is.

From many standpoints, but especially Economically , this has got to be the most Inept one in our history. Totally incompetent as to economics. They have been to busy stealing money.

Zero tax to business across the board for 2 years. Clear up, and stop the STUPID social , employer funded social programs, and let them dowhat we do. Watch unemployment fall like mad, and ignite the economy.

More jobs-more state and local revenue . Feds can go on a diet for a while. We are running out of time. Unless of course, it is this president and comgress's intention, to collapse the economy. If that is the case, and could quite possibly be ( just listen to Pelosi statements if you have any doubt og her Upotia)

Then the only thing to do is make this vote count in Nov. This election is the mst important one in our history. besides the vote the made us to be

"Unions- Corporations being held hostage by Unions ( city and states also ) into giving unrealistic and un-payable pensions, and retirement Benefits. Who couldn't see that mess coming? Anythink the unions give a crap? No, show them the money."

Darn those unions and their ability to provide spending power to a broader consumer base! Those unrealistic parachutes that give 20 mill to family members not even employed by the company need those funds! And where would we be without those tax cuts generating "revenues" that the 1% needs to stockpile? There's only so much $ one person can spend in a year... lifetime... as an estate.

You expect someone in the physical labor field without a union set salary to save up for future medical expenses that their current job will ensure they have thanks to the physical toll it takes over time? In addition when the costs of those medical needs are unknown 20 years down the line, even if they did get over $15/hr non-union, what kind of saving would they need to do now to afford that? With a family? Without an "unrealsitic" retirement package? Give me a break! Get yourself out on the side of the road installing powerlines and figure out how much you are worth and how puny your single voice is to the company you work for.

BOBBY--------You may well be correct, this may well be the tipping point election.

I own a small business and am part of a group, that had 46 small businesses on 12/1 2008.

6 are out of business, 4 are in Mexico and 4 are in Costa Rica..

I just saw an internakl survey, that says 8 more have their plans made and their destination selected, if we don't remove enough of Obama;s accomplices to render him powerless.

This group, may be an abberation, but if they are represenative, this may well be the one, we will not be able to recover from seeing that many companies leave the states .

Exactly. Alaska and others receive almost twice what they pay in federal taxes. Odd how many Tea Party states are living off the Federal Government.

ohh....good one, I never thought of that. On one hand I appreciate the independent spirt of AK folks, that is what attracted them to the state and I like the diversity of thinking and actions in the US (in spite of their lack of tolerance to opposing view points....been there, worked there, have friends there).

But yeah...here they are whinning about to much gov't and they are slackards and haven't even been carrying their fair share....bunch of sallies :)

The "independent" Alaskans are living off my tax dollars. Sarah Palin is the real welfare queen.

TONT-------- Well jeez sunshine tell Obama to quit sending it, it's okay with us.

Odd how many Tea Party states are living off the Federal Government.

There's no such thing as a "Tea Party state". It's like calling California an eco-terrorist state. Don Young does not have the backing of the Tea Party in Alaska.

Sarah Palin is the real welfare queen.

The "Bridge to Nowhere" passed in 2005 (Don Young). Palin endorsed Parnell to unseat him in 2006. She also publically challenged Ted Steven on his financial dealings & it led to an indictment. In 2007 she used vetos to cut $237 million in state project fundings in the budget. In 2008 she cut another $286 million. January 17, 2008, Palin declared that the people of Alaska "can and must continue to develop our economy, because we cannot and must not rely so heavily on federal government [funding]."

Welfare queen? She resigned because of all the morons both parties elected pushing against her for doing things like this. Why do you think they bad mouth her? Could it be because they don't want you listening to someone telling you that you don't need gov't handouts at private or state lvl at the expense of the taxpayers?

When you say they take more than they put in, you are referring to federal income taxes put in. Please look at oil revenues for Alaska, Louisiana, Texas, etc. Oil revenues bring in billions of dollars for the federal government each year. In Louisiana the federal governments share is more than the states share and that's a whole lot of money that benefits the rest of the country. These states have put up with oil exploration for decades and the rest of the country reaps the benefits.

Odd how many Tea Party states are living off the Federal Government.

"Democratic" states pay more taxes and support the "Republican" states across the board. Fact.

Koch Industries, which started and funded most of the "grassroots" organizations against health reform just applied for and received money under the same healthcare laws they oppose.

Republican politicians all around the country who claim the stimulus didn't create a single job, stand in front of a factory that is expanding jobs with stimulus money, often with a fake 3x5 foot check with their name on it, like they got them the money.

Political BS plain and simple. a bunch of crap to feed the dumb voters and get elected, nothing else.

'Socialist' Alaska where the Oil/Mining Industry shares its wealth with the “Alaska Permanent Fund” which in turn pays a dividend to qualifying residents just before the November Election. The qualifying state residents could have under the right circumstances, since 1982 could have received as much as $32,110.41 in total payments.

Profit benefits the economy. Participants in the economy take profits and apply them to expenses, ongoing operations and new investment.

Suppose a resource rich state like Alaska applied a State charge paid by Corporations whenever resources like oil, minerals, lumber as they left the state. State gets money from corporations. That money heads to the State which chooses to invest and/or redistribute the wealth. The state gets a fee from corporations who have financed and invested huge sums in extracting oil and minerals and lumber from the state and pays the state for the inconvenience of having its natural wealth exported.

This is an unusual business model for a State in a capitalist country.

If instead those companies paid high wages workers who then spent those earnings, for expenses, going operations and (savings) new investment, the business model would look normal with rest of the country. Everyone could benefit from such system, but, Companies are used to reducing high wages and demand for employment rises, all quite normal.

The Alaska Permanent Fund, is what it is, a political solution to the normal consequences of having extractive industries invest their own capital, make profits, lower wages and leaving the State out of the picture. Yet the political situation, via States Constitutional amendment, allows the State to bypass the legislature’s power to tax and reward, and keep the money coming.

Normal consequences: When the payment is reduced, not meeting expectations of those entitled to the reward, the State may assess a higher fee on the Corporations, or change the investment/dividend ratio, or reduce the payout, or subsidize or just about anything to avoid the normal political consequences.

Since it unarguable that the whole program is an experiment, a variation on the idea of social security, The States windfall could be invested in lucrative investments anywhere in the world, carefully managed and always would produce a dividend to provide the political support. Would not common sense prevail, and the program be seen as "social security for the state of Alaska".

Profits benefits the economy, those lucrative investments could well occur abroad, but that does not make them secure. The investment could be made available to borrowers for investment within the state. The investments could just be passed to the citizens, and they could decide and take the losses.

The only clear benefit is that some of the fund money goes to the citizens of Alaska, which could only change by State Constitutional revision and lots hot politics or be change by consequence of some disaster. Like the bear in deep hibernation having gorged it self on natural abundance, a long winter later, then the bear emerges and it’s hungry. The bear like Alaska depends on protection from the outside world, the corporation producing the wealth could be majority owned by distant investors. Like the bear, Alaska is protected by being part of the United States and receives additional funding from Congress and a Senate held hostage by like minded small states.

The potential for corruption is unrelenting and unbearable.

The election of another empty suit to Washington, will exercise power, power which not determined by the fresh air from Alaska, but by what is poured into that empty suit by the powers in Washington, corporate lobbies having the interest of Alaska at heart.

Google: The Alaska Permanent Fund, Mattie Gregor '10 or http://www.swarthmore.edu/x11892.xml

Google: The Alaska Permanent Fund Dividend: An Experiment in Wealth Distribution or http://www.ilo.org/public/english/protection/ses/download/docs/gold.pdf

How much of this is on paper only. How can we believe the numbers the government puts out. How many times have they put numbers out in a "feel good story" only to come back and change them to the negative side. I do not trust this admin to tell the truth on anything any more. They keep saying unemployment is 9.6% but just what are they counting, just the people who are collecting unemployment well that is not the whole story now is it. Just because some one stops collecting unemployment does not mean they got a job and how about those who don't even apply or those who quit looking for work, where are the numbers for those people. The government jobs lost well how about the census workers of course those are government jobs lost and how many were people who retired. The government plays with numbers. Another good example are the polls. You can make polls come out the way you want them to by the way you ask the questions. Come on take off the blinders and see what is going on. As always just my opinion.

hey rickeroo..short term memory loss? sorry. you do remember that all this krp was in place when the dems came into office, don't you...? or does this make you feel better when you can't think of any other reason to rant against that blk guy in the wht house?

Check on how the unemployment rates are calculated. There is a poll taken, monthly, that has nothing to do with people on unemployment. I will agree, definitely, that it doesn't take into account people that may be 'underemployed', but I can accept the unemployment number. If you're looking for work but are unable to find it, those are the people that are deemed 'unemployed', not just people that are not working. In fact, people such as students and retirees are removed from the equation, supposedly, to make the number more realistic. You can never tell if the government is somehow getting their fingers in it, though...

Hans:

you can't think of any other reason to rant against that blk guy in the wht house

Not ranting at all. I'm merely suggesting to pass another stimulus to get America back on its feet. If $800 billion worked like a charm, perhaps a $2 trillion stimulus will work even better. Heck, go for $4 trillion.

Just as long as they pass it before November, so the people get a chance to see the results of their benevolent government and get to vote accordingly.

States don't forward "all" their residents' money to DC.

The residents pay their federal taxes individually.

Alaska gets back over $20k per capita from the Feds and pays in $7k. Good deal if you are an Alaska resident. You betcha!

"If the States were able to keep their residents' money instead of having it all forwarded to DC...then DC couldn't act like the great messiah that they want to look like."

Really? Ask the citizens of Alaska if this sounds like a good deal for them.

If Alaska is where all the money is going, why don'y you shut up and move there?

I hope everyone understands the problem with a progessive or socialist economy. Some day, you stop running out of others people's money to spend.

I wonder if 118 rounds of golf this year helped his handicap.

Sharky, not sure what your comment ahs to do with anything.

Edward, it does seem odd that the right wing is hoping that things don't improve until they hold the WH again, and doing everything they can to make it so.

Still all the republicans fault Ed...... Havent you liberal idiots beat that drum enough? I guess that tells us all what we need to know.. No point in refuting Ed or Sharky's statement guys. Neither one is smart enough to understand...

You two boners have a nice day. I'm sure the democrats are proud to have such fine intelligent supporters such as yourselves. Hang on for another couple of days guys. Its the fist of the month. The checks are in the mail.... Morons...

He's talking about Boehner

Steve-267218

Besides personal insults, is there anything you want to say about what we posted? Or do you have anything to say at all really?

is there anything you want to say about what we posted?

Since you asked:

The Republicans have trash talked the stimulus and the economy,

You think the economy is looking good and the largest stimulous ever spent in history is working?

blocked tax cuts for business and extended unemployment

Republicans blocked tax cuts for business? Seriously? Anyone can take 1 line from a bill and focus on that for political trash talk. For all you know there's a subsection on killing kittens. Thats like a tiny fraction of this massive spending bill being proposed. Obama gets on TV or radio and trash talks Republicans like this, won't reach across the aisle, makes false accusations about not having ideas (like the famous "We used those ideas. Over 120 of them in the health care bill." - then proceeds to restate they had no ideas) then seems astonished when they don't like him. Obama is obstructing any possibility of Washington working together for a common solution and pitting the entire country against each other. There may be parts of the bill that some may need, but Obama already wasted all of the $$ we had to help these poor people on his pet projects. This is NO TIME for partisan politics. Democrats in office have this holier than thou attitude and think everyone else is stupid. Who do they think they are? Paris Hilton?

The bill is going to cost $30 billion. That's $30,000,000,000. The population of the US is 310 million. You're talking about $100 for every man, woman, and child in the country.

From a liberal article about the trash talk:

his administration had proposed eliminating capital gains taxes on their investments and establishing a fund for small lenders to help small businesses.

You're in favor of giving those "evil rich people" tax breaks and pushing lenders to make bad loans again?

Democrats have been in control of the $$ for almost 4 full years now and it's not working. Until Brown took a seat in Senate, you had supermajority and chose to make 100% of the decisions behind closed doors on your own. Within 3 yrs they brougth the GDP from $160B to $3.1 TRILLION. Within 2 yrs they doubled all of the $$ borrowed by the US during other presidential terms since George Washington COMBINED. Say NO to more spending! What's wrong with these people????

Republicans blocked tax cuts for business? Seriously?

Put "Tax Cuts for Small Business blocked by Republicans" into Google and see for yourself, don't trust me.

Beyond tax cuts, there is this:

WASHINGTON, July 29 (Reuters) - U.S. Senate Republicans blocked a $30-billion plan to help community banks boost lending to small businesses, dealing a blow to President Barack Obama's election-year battle to reduce unemployment.

and it goes on and on.

Come on, the Republican election strategy is based the country being in bad shape, convincing people like you it is and it is the Democrats failure. Say this isn't true. Say the Republicans have had plans and taken actions to help and haven't just bitched and moaned and trash talked to remove confidence in the economy, one of the main things needed for a recovery.

"Anyone can take 1 line from a bill and focus on that for political trash talk. For all you know there's a subsection on killing kittens."

And doesn't everyone know it! When an item WRITTEN BY either end of the spectrum for the sole purpose of making the other side drop their bill entirely or face the consequences (THANK YOU FOR THE GREAT EXAMPLE, NRA!) even those in the seats who were the "lesser of evils" to be representatives for many of their constituents are picking between the "lesser of evils" in legislation. Well, what we wind up with is... more evil.

Maybe if politicians actually consulted with their constituents and conscience instead of their party and campaign financiers- Maybe if they weren't quite so busy making mine fields out of bills during the drafting to sabotage their political opponents the purpose of gaining ground in an election that is more than 2 years away- Maybe we'd actually see some forward momentum in this country and the people working for us would actually DO their job of moving us ahead as a democracy not just trying to keep others from doing it for them the next round.

I know both sides have their issues with this behavior. I also lean heavily toward those who try to do the most good for the most people, which is all I can really ask for currently. Where I am those most likely to win overall are based on a letter next to their name. So I register under that letter and vote during primaries with the hope that who ever gets on the ballot with the correct letter for the passive population is the best person of the choices for that position.

It annoys me when people say "Oh I am independent because I don't like either group" Well, news flash! No one fully agrees with either group if they actually pay attention. So while you are complaining about the choices you get in the general and the fact that most of your state goes one direction consistently- why not play a part of the process?

If you don't like the group, and if you can't stand the individual who wins the primaries for the main group, thats fine. At least you held your nose and tried to pick the best among the people jockeying for the ballot position. No one said you have to vote with the group in the general election just because you voted with the group in the primaries. There are ways to better the chances of making sure the "Duh, what are primaries? I am gonna trust whoever is the (__) candidate anyway so I don't have to think" crowd can't *completely* screw the pooch. Just a suggestion for an easy way to get active.

It is well known that posts full of CAPITOL LETTERS to show how IMPORTANT WHAT I AM SAYING IS are done by a trolls and you don't need to read them, they are always worthless.

Just to let you know.

You read it......

No I didn't. One glance was all that was needed.

CAPITOL letters or not Ed, its still the TRUTH!! Can you define truth for me sir??

Country boy...not commenting on his opinions (some are mine)...but those are called opinions.

I more equate truth with facts, and actually facts take a lot of work to find. Because unemployment goes up, that does not mean that jobs were not created, or saved (and I don't believe many were)...but that is an opinion. And a govt job created does not mean a private sector job is lost...I get the point about who pays for the govt job( you and me)....but the equality he expressed is an opinion.

Truth is an oft used word...most often by those expressing opinions derived from their view of a fact.

I'm not happy with the way things are going either...but I am less happy about all the contempt and division in people I see now. To think that people believe our situation is caused by the current administration or reps and dems are anymore than political equivalents of football teams complete with tailgate parties, bar fights over scores, funny hats and painted faces is, well...we do love our team sports don't we.

Edward Bruce Williams,

Your comments are indicative of the economic illiterates that surround our President. Even our pathetic, union controlled education system has produced some people with the intelligence to know that the path our government is on, regardless of the party in charge, is a one way street down. Rather than bash the messengers, pull your head out and take an honest look at global history.

Want some economics? Want to know what is really happening with our economy?

Here we go.

The combination of the pill and easily available abortions caused the birth rate to fall off the cliff in developed countries. Even the average Catholic family in Italy today has less than 2 children on average.

So there is an aging population and lack of young workers. In Japan, they don't allow immigrations and even with more robots than assembly line workers, their economy has been stagnant for the last 15 years. Europe, faced with the same facts, has been forced to allow massive, mostly Muslim immigration. Basic demographics and economics have demanded this for quite a while.

These young, hardworking immigrants with their high birth rate are the only thing keeping us going now and the only way for Social Security to have enough young workers paying in to pay for the baby boomers. I would MUCH rather have our hardworking Mexican immigrants than the often angry, lazy, welfare gouging, committed to an alien culture Muslims in Europe.

There has been a successful effort to shift expenses of workers off on the public. A Walmart grew, a large number of it's workers were on Food Stamps. When union workers with benefits are replaced by low wage immigrants, the public makes up for the cost.

Those illegal immigrants are the main workforce for things like billion dollar NYSE listed "agribusiness". Seems like getting a few companies to stop hiring 60,000 illegals makes more sense than chasing down 60,000 people at the border. The illegals are here because corporate America made a decision to take advantage of a cheaper and much more docile workforce. And they are not going to give them up.

But are these companies ever called "illegal" and asked to obey the law? Hardly. There are a few show raids on a few locations every once in a while and nothing else while they employ millions of illegals.

As an example, Foster Farms blankets Mexico with posters telling of the the job, wages and where you have to show up in the US. They have buses moving illegals from Texas to their chicken slaughter operations in the Southeast. you have 100 million illegals, it is not a problem of guys cutting grass or walking around with leaf blowers.

We need the workers, but extremity low wage workers are not the foundation for a solid domestic economy, as China is learning.

Today one out of five Americans believe Obama is a Muslim and that goes up to 31% among Republicans. We have a propaganda operations going on in this country that would have Hitler dancing in joy and demagogue politicians that would make Huey Long blush

Thanks for the tangental response. Absolutely irrelevant to this thread, but leave it to a lib to argue the innane. Immigration is an issue in and of itself. While I am a capitlist, I don't adhere to the repub party line on many issues, immigration among them. I agree with everything you said. However, a porous border is not the answer, nor is exporting a valuable labor force. And how does free healthcare pencil with an open border? But like I said, that's not the issue here. While I do think the motives of both parties are dubious with their primary objective to be power, to state the Repub attitude towards the stimulus is purely motivated by regaining control ignores the falacy and repeated historical failures of government run economies. If you want to enlighten me from your pedastal, then explain how stifling my ability to grow my company and invest in innovation by forcing me to send an ever increasing amount of my capital to my beloved State is good for us all? Is it because Obama is going to create a green industry that will carry us through the next century? Really? And what makes DC better at picking winners and losers than the marketplace? It's ambitious and idealistic, but impractical. True, he does have Immelt and GE to funnel all that cash to, and with NBC in their coffers, it helps to pollute the message to us all. I know, Cheney/Halliburton. Only a fools believes there's a white horse in DC

It is well known that posts full of CAPITOL LETTERS to show how IMPORTANT WHAT I AM SAYING IS are done by a trolls

If you cant' debate with provable data, attack the messenger. This includes stooping low enough to discredit based on capitalization and grammar rather than content.

If you cant' debate with provable data, attack the messenger. This includes stooping low enough to discredit based on capitalization and grammar rather than content.

You are right and I am wrong. But illiterate posts really do a disservice to their content. Many people, including myself, do judge them poorly because of the wording, but they shouldn't.

Ed, you seem to be very confused. I agree with you that a big part of our mess (and Europe's and Japan's and soon to be China's) is demographic but you failed to see that the demographic trend is in part caused by the welfare state and other government policies (from abortion on demand to forced abortions like in China).

It used to be the children who supported their parents in old age in exchange for the support they got from their parents before and some help from them in raising their own children. That was the incentive to have enough children although of course not as many now as when infant mortality was sky-high and productivity very low. Birth rates could have fallen but could still be at a sustainable level.

Enter the welfare state with its promise that it will take care of you regardless. It severs the direct relationship between generations. Now children are more of a liability and expense at the individual level therefore less children or no children. Yet the welfare state cannot repeal the laws of economics, it just makes then murky, it just interferes with the signaling mechanism (the same way price controls do) until it is too late to avoid the very unpleasant consequences and then it tries hard to postpone the day of reckoning making the downfall even harder when it finally arrives.

An then while you at least see this demographic reality and the need for immigration in order to ameliorate it, next thing you do is to rant against immigration and companies hiring and advertising immigrants. You are very confused indeed. Again, if the welfare state wouldn't be sending those checks perhaps we would have more people willing to work in the farms and the hospitality industries. If the welfare state wouldn't have mandated benefits and wages perhaps companies will hire more marginal workers now unemployed rather than invest in robots or moving out.

And don't start arguing for protectionism. First, free trade is my right as a consumer to enter into voluntary transactions with anyone whether in California or Germany or India. And as a producer and human being I would rather give the poor, here and elsewhere, the right to compete with me and improve their lot through work than hide behind union contracts and tariffs and then send them a small check out of guilt with a big chunk of it eaten by unproductive bureaucracies or corrupt rulers.

rafter94

Thanks for your thoughtful reply. My post was confusing in parts. What I tried to do was explain the demographic basis for our economic situation, show this is a problem most developing countries face today. Your comment about low birth rates and welfare is interesting, but I am not quite ready to buy it yet. Education levels, higher incomes and working mothers putting off having families seem more important. World wide, throughout history, higher income alone has produced lower birth rates. It seems to be a part of the rise and fall of civilizations.

Now back to my confused post. My "rant" against immigration and the companies that employ them after showing it was a necessity was confusing. What I was trying to say is a county that is based on low wage labor has a problem with domestic demand and it's economy is fundamentally weak, as China is finding out - they can't keep up the rate of export growth and are facing real problems ahead as are we. You pay people nothing, they buy nothing. that is the problem with corporations switching from middle class jobs to low wage immigrant labor.

Ed, I also think there are other factors at work, not just the welfare state and all those you mentioned are important too. I also agree that it seems to be a part of the rise and fall of civilizations, affluence many times makes people forget about what sustains their wealth, how bad it was before and the tradeoffs we always have to make. It could easily lead to the "I can have the cake and eat it too" mentality. The welfare state is part of it as it is made possible by earlier wealth creation and the resulting affluence but if it is not kept under control it will destroy the incentives that make it possible.

As for the low wage issue, increase in wages follows increase in productivity. You cannot pay somebody more that what he or she is worth. So, as industrialization proceeds and more capital are invested enhancing productivity as well as the reserves of underemployed people (think of peasants working on subsistence agriculture) disappear, wages goes up. The process is already underway in China as it happens before in South Korea and Taiwan and even before in Japan, Europe and North America. In the U.S. we are in a third wave. First most people worked in farms, then in manufacturing and now in the service sector and all this while agricultural output and manufacturing output continues to increase (although we no longer produce certain lower value manufactured goods, just like without subsidies we will probably not produce much of certain agricultural goods like sugar).

I think low wage immigrant labor is more of a threat for the dysfunctional people that don't want to learn any skills or take advantage of the educational opportunities we have in this country and want to leave either on the taxpayers' dime or earn more than what they are really worth because of artificially reduced competition in the labor market, either by tariffs or restrictions on immigration. None of this will work as companies will find ways to substitute labor with capital or move out. Use enough political coercion and the result will be slow growth and decline. I am not rich, I am a middle class professional in my 50's and I don't fear competition. As I say above if competing with a guy in India makes my wages be lower than they otherwise would be, be it. It makes me feel good I am giving others the opportunity to improve their lot and I am sure I will benefit in other ways too as better efficiency leads to a better live for all.

I agree with almost everything you said. Our hard working immigrants are a real threat to lazy Americans everywhere.

We have had increased productivity and increasing wages for a long time. But now something has changed. We have increased productivity and lowering wages. This is highly profitable in the short run, positivity in the "my bonus" time frame, but a cause of a drop in demand and growth in the very near term. That is where we are at.

Lack of growth is deadly for a capitalist nation. Put simply, you invest or loan $100 dollars, you want to see $110 back and that extra $10 has to come from growth somewhere. Stop the growth and capitalism stops working. In fact, it turns lack of growth into a disaster, because economic activity is based on profit and profit is based on growth.

Wages are rising in places like China and India, but this is because of exports, not because their economy is growing. Our new low wage workforce will not provide a new market for these exports, which has been fueled in the 2000's been based on America going into debt.

The choice is between paying middle class wages or more debt. We need growth to keep the whole thing from falling apart and the growth in demand has to come from somewhere.

Growth is necessary because human beings want to survive and improve their lot. In primitive economies it is necesarry to keep up with the population growth, if it doesn't happen and if a plague doesn't take care of the issue then famine or war woud make the adjustment. In a modern economy it is necessary to keep improving standards of living because people demand it.

Theoretically you can continue to improve living standards with little or no growth if the population starts falling, the real problem is when this change in paradigm happens too fast and you have a huge bulge of aging people (baby boomers) followed by a suddenly smaller work force because of a catastrophic drop in birth rates compounded by a retirement system design under a totally different dynamic which is now exposed as a Ponzi scheme and a massive debt both government and private.

If you are in debt, indeed you need growth to dig yourself out unless you make drastic reductions in your standard of living. I think that we still have a chance to dig ourselves out but we need to face reality and make the adjustments. I beg to differ with you with respect to China and India, yes exports have driven the growth but increasing wages and internal consumption is happening too. It is not happening fast enough just like the necessary adjustments in developed countries are not happening fast enough but as long as we don't derail the process with ill thought policies as protectionism it will happen eventually.

It would not be painless though and the most important thing right now here is to let the deleveraging process run its course, let housing prices achieve the much lower market clearance level and get the fiscal policy in order by cutting expenses not by taking more money out of the private sector which knows better where to invest it productively (the example of the old Soviet Union should have put to rest all claims that central government planning do better and if you think that example is too extreme then think about the mess the Fed does from time to time trying to manage money supply as a proxy for managing the economy).

Another important thing is to stop experimenting and legislating. We need some clarity about the future, if you keep stirring things with ever changing laws and regulations people will sit and wait in fear. Stop regime uncertainty even if it means some delay in taking care of a few long term issues like entitlement reform and most important, don't keep adding more long term obligations to the government finances when the ones it already had are actuarially bankrupt.

Any link to those "Studies" or are you just making that up?

Glenn Beck told him. How much more credible a source does anyone need? God himself speaks through Glenn, or so Beck says.

tinman- your statement is so wrong it hardly merits a response. As a former government air traffic controller, we put our 40+ hours in each week. Cut half of us and see where you land on your next trip. Happy landings!

"We could cut 50% of all government jobs and never notice it. Government employees are the least productive employees on the planet. Studies have shown you are lucky to get 14 hours of real work from a regular 40 hour week for most of these gold bricks."

It sure is a good thing that government jobs lost don't show up in any unemployment numbers, huh?

I realize that it is a proven fact that all government employees (at least the ones you have dealt with) are lazy, but just for @!$%#s and grins, which of those studies proves this? Please exclude any studies that were done by Fox News, as they may be a tad biased.

I guess government employees were a lot more productive, under GWB, as I don't remember this call to get rid of all government employees.

I am astounded that all government employees could have gotten so lazy since Obama took office, less than 2 years ago.

Oops, looks like everyone else has already asked for the evidence of these "studies" -- well, let me pile on since I already submitted the comment and can't seem to delete it. :)

Over the past nine years roughly two million workers have been added to the payrolls of federal, state and local governments.

It's about time those 2 millions jobs were cut. The problem is the left will continue to grow the government because for every government job they create they basically gain a vote. Not many have the humility to vote for some one who will likely cut their job even if it is for the benefit of the whole.

I realize that it is a proven fact that all government employees (at least the ones you have dealt with) are lazy, but just for @!$%#s and grins, which of those studies proves this? Please exclude any studies that were done by Fox News, as they may be a tad biased.

I guess government employees were a lot more productive, under GWB, as I don't remember this call to get rid of all government employees.

I am astounded that all government employees could have gotten so lazy since Obama took office, less than 2 years ago.

My independent study of Cal Trans and the CA DMV. It's not that government workers are more worthless under Obama than Bush but that there are more worthless government workers under Obama than Bush. Neither party has been very adept at shrinking the size of government but the left has been the most eager to bloat it.

1. You do know that those are state, not federal, workers, don't you?

2. You do know that pretty much any work in transportation is horribly stressful and thankless, due in large part to those segments of the government being terribly underfunded, and that you make use of the things they do EVERY SINGLE DAY, don't you?

3. You do know that two relatively small departments of the California state government do not make a viable sample of government employees as a whole, don't you?

4. In other words, you do know that your post makes you come off as someone who doesn't have any idea what they're talking about, don't you?

Glenn Beck told him. How much more credible a source does anyone need?

Please cite your source. As for hours worked, ever notice how many vacations presidents and Congressmen take? How about the term "bankers hours". That ring a bell? The number of holidays? Here's a direct link to government employee benefits straigth from their employment web site: http://www.usajobs.gov/ei/benefits.asp

10 paid holidays
13 sick days
13-26 vacation days
-------
49 days off / 261 weekdays = 18.77% of the year off = just over 4 days/week worked (32 1/2 hrs).

I know several people with gov't jobs and they say on average you're busy around half of the work week. If you've ever gone through runarounds on phone or in person at one of their offices, you see first hand that it's mostly paper pushing and pushing work back to another pile to wait for the proper paperwork to be complete. So about 16 1/4 hours worked. He said 14 so he's not far off.

Sounds to me like you should be unionizing and demanding that kind of vacation and sick time for yourself!

That doesn't sound excessive. That sounds SANE. People need rest, and we horribly overwork people in this country - public and private sectors!

Spell Check and grammatical sentences would make what you say seem more credible than throwing around random capitalization.

This comment is to encourage effective free speech and education, don't take it wrong, both are good things.

Very good comment and I agree with most of that although pay cuts and specified work loads for government employees should be manditory maybe even apptitude tests like the military has!

amen i agree with american dude 61

Ed, is it really necessary to be such an ass?

Eddie - I have read your posts and don't see anything yet that resembles "education"

Sorry guys. Not being able to write a grammatical sentence doesn't impress me with the education and ability to think of the person posting. Call me old-fashioned, call me an ass, whatever.

But, ok, maybe I was a little picky.

1) This would just encourage more corrupting financial influence of the political process. You'd have wide open no-incumbent races all the time, and those are the ones where the most money and favors get thrown around.

2) Flat taxes are a ridiculous idea that don't hold up to more then 5 minutes of critical thought. For one, a flat tax as low as you propose would barely fund the military. The few countries in the world with a working flat tax system (chiefly Lithuania and Estonia) are at about 24%. For another thing, I'll support a flat tax system when you support adjusting the cost of living based on what a person gets paid. Losing a set chunk of their income hurts someone at or near the poverty line a lot more than it hurts someone wealthy. Somebody getting minimum wage (which you'd probably also do away with) making $15k per year is going to have a lot harder time surviving on $12,000 than somebody making $250,000 would have surviving on $200,000. Flat tax schemes are an idea of the rich to further exploit the poor while pocketing more money. Tell ya what, I'll back a flat tax when you back a hefty Value Added Tax for any consumer goods not necessary for survival.

3) There's no way the states will be able to handle your amorphous "entitlements" and "give aways" with just a 5% tax rate. Plus, this would put wealthy states at a significant and insurmountable advantage over poorer states.

It's amazing how much term limits sounds like a good idea and what a disaster they are when put into practice.

We tried them in my state and the result was an endless stream of clueless elected officials who were led around by the nose by the permanent political structure, the professional staffers, the lobbyist, the think tanks, the political consultants. Exactly the opposite of what we wanted with term limit - more influence by the permanent unelected insiders.

The government deals with complicated and important issues and being new and clueless is not a job qualification. They may want to do the right thing, but they don't know what it really is or how to do it and it doesn't get done. Electing people who come from an industry and do know something about that industry always ends up with elected lobbyist for that industry, not people who work for the public.

Really there is no magic change to the system that will remove the need for voters to elect honest, competent officials. That is not easy, but it is the only way.

Term limits for Congress are a terrible idea. Just seeing one issue through to its conclusion in Congress can take decades, and eliminating people from consideration for being competent enough to get elected repeatedly is a bad idea.

This comment is to encourage effective free speech and education, don't take it wrong, both are good things.

Isn't this supposed to be 2 or 3 sentences?

Isn't this supposed to be 2 or 3 sentences?

:-)

Ok, you got me. I have apologized in other places. Will saying I hadn't had my coffee yet get me off?

I work 80 hours a week for under $1200 a month in compensation.

At a government job.

Fact check, please.

Ouch!

Yeah, Bush from the party of smaller government increased federal payrolls every year. At least Obama is cutting worthless jobs.

How in the world can you blame OBAMA for what he inherited. Do your homework before you begin to criticize OBAMA..

This economy was headed before disaster long before he came into office. No one was complaining when the Bush Administration spent trillions on the IRAQI war, TARP spending and silence when jobs were being exported abroad.

You are the first to complain when OBAMA tries to put this money back into the hands of the American people.

I hope OBAMA does not run again so you ignorant hypocrites can continue to bend over and get F'd by another Republican administration

Don't believe everything you hear and pull your head outa their.

At least Obama is cutting worthless jobs.

So Obama is now supposed to get credit for cutting the same worthless (temporary) jobs that he touted he had created only a few months ago?

wow Leonardo, you need to learn some critical thinking skills and stop regurgitating party line BS. Obama inherited a mess created by both parties, but the housing crisis was spearheaded by Barney and crew. That's not an opinion - cheap money with limited credit criteria, all underwritten by Fannie and Freddie - a recipe for disaster. Beyond that, Obama stepped in took an economy headed towards the wall and stomped on the accelerator. Bailing our failed institutions (GWB also) and failed state govts is simply taking money from producers and pouring down a gopher hole. State and federal unions need to be outlawed. They've crippled CA and Obama is replicating that failed model nationally. When a cop can retire at 50 years old with a six figure income for the rest of their life, that's insanity and unsustainable. The people currently in charge created this mess, but both sides have contributed. We need drastic change or we'll just have to wait for Chinia to tell us to grow up and cut off the spoiled little children our govt behaves like.

The anti-union sentiment that's risen in this country baffles me. Unions are the primary - for many people, the only - way of consolidating the power of workers and countering the fact that the job market has, for decades now, favored the employer over the employee.

In a nation where real wages drop rather than rising, we shouldn't be attacking unions. We should be unionizing EVERYTHING.

Unions have destroyed our education system and CA. Their compensation and lack of individual accountability is crippling. With low unemployment unions are unecessary. Unhappy at your current job, get another one. With our current job market, it's tougher to do, but part of the reason the economy in CA stinks is because companies like mine are looking to move to Nevada where I can save a few hundred thousand in taxes every year. SOme of that cash will go to my pocket, but most if it will go into growing my company and investment in research and development. I also differentiate between private and public sector unions. Public sector unions need to be banned. Please take a close look at CA and tell me it's fair. I'll need to have a few million in the bank to retire with a compensation commensurate with an executive in state government. Do the math, I am not exaggerating. Tout your union collective bargaining benefits all you want and I'll continue to export tech and labor off shore. Stop me, or tax me, and my company goes there next instead of Nevada. Do you get it, Trailfoot?

I'm in a public sector union. I work 80 hours a week for less than $1200 a month. Is it fair? No.

My union needs to be stronger.

No one was complaining when the Bush Administration spent trillions on the IRAQI war, TARP spending and silence when jobs were being exported abroad.

I'm not sure which news media sources you were watching, but I'm betting it was none of them and only getting biased info 2nd hand. You really think noone was complaining about the Iraq war, TARP, NAFTA and China Free Trade?

Trailfoot, i'm not a bright guy, but 1,200 divided by 160 is $7.50 an hour, in CA that's below minimum wage. Additionally, at 80 hours a week, federal employment law mandates overtime at time and half. or 11.25 per hour. It seems you are being severly underpaid to the degree that a good employment lawyer would be thrilled to speak with you. Let me know if you would like me to refer an attorney that specializes in employee representation and then enjoy your retirement in your beach front home in Hawaii.

I always thought a Tea Party was a little girl and her imaginary friends.

Now it is a bunch of old, scared white people and their imaginary solutions to all our problems.

It is going to take many years for us to recover from the failed policies of the previous administration

How young are you? I have news for you. Things have been screwed up ALOT longer than 10 yrs. Even the 9/11 hijackers were training in the US for 7 yrs before they flew the planes into the buildings. Did you think that was Clinton's fault since they were fed up enough to train to kill themselves to get a blow at our country under his reign? Anyone telling you it's one parties fault is lying to get the vote from gullible people or we'd see balanced budgets, etc every time one of the parties gets control of all 3 houses.

Vote with your mind, not your anger. Vote on issues, not party lines. That's what got us into this mess in 2006 and 2008. The poll numbers all show this to be a correct statement. Neither party should EVER have supermajority.

Allen-968499

Wow.

It is so rare to hear from someone nowadays who thinks for themselves and doesn't just repeat political slogans.

The intent behind NAFTA was to get govenment out of restricting trade. It was a free-market initiative, designed to get government out of the way, which you apparently espouse.

But you are right in that it sent jobs elsewhere.

Governments do not create products, sellable items or services. Since jobs depend on these things, how can a jobs bill produce long lasting employment for anyone?

Uh, by stimulating demand to keep businesses from going under, providing access to capitol and lowering taxes? By keeping public schools from firing teachers, since "long lasting employment" requires education. By preventing bonus mad CEO's from cheating the public with financial reform. Since our companies have a very expensive burden of providing healthcare companies in other countries don't that makes us noncompetitive, passing Healthcare Reform. Since this last one didn't provide the single payer companies in other countries have to take the burden off them, it is a question mark.

No, nothing has or can be done by Washington.

"The Government should take a step back and follow the Constitution and stay out of private industry."

Oh, no!! When did the Government start violating the Constitution and getting involved with private industry?

Did this happen since Obama was elected?

Maybe we need to create some sort of court to decide what the Government can do and not do, under the Constitution. This court, if set up, would be supreme to all of the other courts. It could review all actions, taken by the Government, since this country's founding and decide which actions are or are not Constitutional.

We also need to get rid of all of those pesky amendments to the Constitution. If they should have been there, then the founding fathers would have included them.

What do you think?

Governments do not create products, sellable items or services.

Uh, yeah they do. Just looking around central Ohio here,

Roads

air traffic control

teaching

public schools

state schools

national defense

wildlife management

and the list goes on and on. If you mean the government does not make TVs, well, yeah, this isn't Soviet Russia. But there is a long list of things that the government does provide, in product, services, and even sellable items.

They are making cars now. The Volt will be a dismal failure for GM. TVs will be next so they can have greater content control.

Jabbausaf,
The government doesn't really create those things because it's dependent on the people to supply the funds for all of them. Therefore the tax payer really creates those items while the government is just an horrendously inefficient vessel of facilitation. The government is in capable of turning a profit, you need just look as far as the US Postal Service.

This morning I was awoken by my alarm clock powered by electricity generated by the public power monopoly regulated by the U.S. Department of Energy.

I then took a shower in the clean water provided by a municipal water utility.

After that, I turned on the TV to one of the FCC-regulated channels to see what the National Weather Service of the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration determined the weather was going to be like, using satellites designed, built, and launched by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

I watched this while eating my breakfast of U.S. Department of Agriculture-inspected food and taking the drugs which have been determined as safe by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

At the appropriate time, as regulated by the U.S. Congress and kept accurate by the National Institute of Standards and Technology and the U.S. Naval Observatory, I get into my National Highway Traffic Safety Administration-approved automobile and set out to work on the roads build by the local, state, and federal Departments of Transportation, possibly stopping to purchase additional fuel of a quality level determined by the Environmental Protection Agency, using legal tender issued by the Federal Reserve Bank.

On the way out the door I deposit any mail I have to be sent out via the U.S. Postal Service and drop the kids off at the public school.

After spending another day not being maimed or killed at work thanks to the workplace regulations imposed by the Department of Labor and the Occupational Safety and Health administration, enjoying another two meals which again do not kill me because of the USDA, I drive my NHTSA car back home on the DOT roads, to my house which has not burned down in my absence because of the state and local building codes and Fire Marshal's inspection, and which has not been plundered of all its valuables thanks to the local police department.

And then I log on to the internet -- which was developed by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Administration -- and post on Freerepublic.com and Fox News forums about how SOCIALISM in medicine is BAD because the government can't do anything right.
This morning I was awoken by my alarm clock powered by electricity generated by the public power monopoly regulated by the U.S. Department of Energy.

I then took a shower in the clean water provided by a municipal water utility.

After that, I turned on the TV to one of the FCC-regulated channels to see what the National Weather Service of the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration determined the weather was going to be like, using satellites designed, built, and launched by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

I watched this while eating my breakfast of U.S. Department of Agriculture-inspected food and taking the drugs which have been determined as safe by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

At the appropriate time, as regulated by the U.S. Congress and kept accurate by the National Institute of Standards and Technology and the U.S. Naval Observatory, I get into my National Highway Traffic Safety Administration-approved automobile and set out to work on the roads build by the local, state, and federal Departments of Transportation, possibly stopping to purchase additional fuel of a quality level determined by the Environmental Protection Agency, using legal tender issued by the Federal Reserve Bank.

On the way out the door I deposit any mail I have to be sent out via the U.S. Postal Service and drop the kids off at the public school.

After spending another day not being maimed or killed at work thanks to the workplace regulations imposed by the Department of Labor and the Occupational Safety and Health administration, enjoying another two meals which again do not kill me because of the USDA, I drive my NHTSA car back home on the DOT roads, to my house which has not burned down in my absence because of the state and local building codes and Fire Marshal's inspection, and which has not been plundered of all its valuables thanks to the local police department.

And then I log on to the internet -- which was developed by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Administration -- and post on Freerepublic.com and Fox News forums about how SOCIALISM in medicine is BAD because the government can't do anything right.

nafta gives americans access to canadian energy for the same price as canadians.if you don`t like nafta perhaps you would like high gasoline prices.i pay a dollar and ten cents a litre for gas,i think there is five litres in a gallon.of course much of the price i pay is taxs,but i`m not worried or fighting about health care.

Trailfoot at 14.8 : Are you still at work or at home while on the internet?

Roads, air traffic control, teaching, wildlife management, etc aren't things that could only be done by a government. They COULD be done in the private sector, but nobody could compete against an entity that grabbed control and doesn't even have to turn a profit to stay afloat. Some of them do need to stay at a state level though (such as roads). Nobody would want to have to stop & go on the way to work to pay tolls to Roads, Inc.

According to the founding fathers, they are obliged to provide national defense. The rest you mentioned are state level funded. Some are even done at local levels such as voting on a tax bond to build a new road.

That being said, you're missing the point. Government is trying to get it's hands into MORE of the private sector. You can't tell me that we are completely dependant on the gov't to have cars built & sold or see a Dr and pay the bill there. Those are sellable goods. The fact that they're mentioning things like fire dept's, 911 service, etc to CONVINCE you that taking over sellable goods markets is right should raise red flags.

At home, I use it for self-edification and pleasure. At work, I use it for business. The government built the Internet, and it makes America stronger and more productive.

I then took a shower in the clean water provided by a municipal water utility.

Did you know there is NO testing required of bottled water? Independent labs say the carcinogens leached from the plastic bottle alone are dangerous? But let's just have faith in "private enterprise" to do the right thing.

My municipal water service test the water over 50,000 times and places a year as required by law to make sure it is safe and doesn't get contaminated before it gets to ANY faucet? In our polluted world there are a lot of chemicals around you don't want in the water.

Oh, sorry, I forgot we don't need government.

They are making cars now. The Volt will be a dismal failure for GM. TVs will be next so they can have greater content control.

You must be a Republican.

I can tell when you start to gloat and get all excited with the idea of American failing at anything.

Roads, air traffic control, teaching, wildlife management, etc aren't things that could only be done by a government. They COULD be done in the private sector, but nobody could compete against an entity that grabbed control and doesn't even have to turn a profit to stay afloat

Privatizing, like term limits sounds great, but is a disaster when put into practice.

The idea is companies competing to provide services at the lowest cost to the taxpayers. Unfortunately those companies don't care about the taxpayers, the care about making as much money as possible. They want to charge the taxpayers the most, not the least. The way they "compete" is not on low cost or better service, what really happens is they compete on who can buy the most politicians to get most taxpayer money possible.

Nice idea, disaster in practice. What you get is a way for business to milk the public like the unions do.

Exactly like the public workers unions do.

we import 10 times more then we export

"That includes a lot of senators and congressmen! They should also cut the fat pensions and high salaries."

Sorry to have to break it to you, but if you get rid of some or all of the congressmen (includes representatives and senators), they will, merely, be replaced by other congressmen with high salaries and fat pensions.

Who is going to cut the salaries of the congressmen? They set their own salaries, although I don't know how their pensions are set up.

I also know that they have better health insurance than most Americans and that it is paid for by us taxpayers.

Don't you think that it is ironic that it is OK for congress to have great health insurance, at our expense, but millions of hard-working Americans have to go without health insurance, because they can't afford it?

Actually, this Congress sets the NEXT Congress's salaries.

Who is going to cut the salaries of the congressmen? They set their own salaries, although I don't know how their pensions are set up.

5 years (just being elected a 2nd term basically) is all they need for pension. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_pension

Members of Congress voted to extend pension benefits to the legislative branch under the CSRS (formerly limited to the executive branch) in January 1942 under a provision of P.L. 77-411. Congress repealed their pension two months later, due to public outcry in the early months of America's involvement in World War II. It was not until after the war, in 1946, that Congress would be covered under the CSRS with the passage of P.L. 79-601. The justification this time was that a pension would "bring into the legislative service a larger number of younger members with fresh energy and new viewpoints" by encouraging older Members to retire.

Yeah it encouraged them to retire all right. We have a bunch of 80 yr olds seated til they die. Both parties have been full of crap for decades.. Remember the 5 yr pension thing in November. Any incumbent vying for his 2nd term is going to be vested and draw taxpayer funds til he dies if you vote him in again so he BETTER BE GOOD. It must be nice to be able to work 5 yrs and retire.

"One set of government jobs that should disappear totally is the agency that delivers farm subsidy checks. Eliminate the evil socialistic farm subsidies and I am sure the tea party will be delighted, along with the red state republicans. It must be a terrible hardship for them to accept billions in free money."

Another group of government employees, that we could eliminate, is the one that hands out the subsidy checks to the oil companies.

Of course, I'm sure that the Republicans posting here would argue that those oil companies deserve those subsidy checks for the risks that they take every day, exploring for oil. Without those subsidy checks, the oil companies couldn't pay out as much in dividends to their shareholders and that would be just sad.

That group of employment will never go away Puddle, because all those dividend checks go to our elected representatives.

without farm subsidies half the mexicans could find work at home,i think they would like that.apparently growing food doesn`t pay well enough for an american standard of living,let the mexicans have this and les of them will cross the border.of course i know that cutting them slack would be as useful as aid to africa,just more babies that they can`t feed.

A somewhat smaller version of GOP mischief occured during the 'Reagan/Bush 1' years when they gave us the S&L debacle.

The Tax Reform Act of 1986 was passed with Republican control of Senate (53/47 seats) and Democrat control of House of Representatives(58.2% vote). It was designed to get rid of tax shelters for "those evil rich people". The S&L debacle ended with a bailout. Overall, quite simply, they killed an industry that was contributing to higher interest rates to investors in the name of getting rid of tax shelters for the rich and ended up killing interest rates to you & I and ultimately sending our tax $$ to the very guys they tried to get more taxes from to keep them afloat. All I see is history repeating itself under the current administration. Only this time the price tag is exponentially larger.

Thanks for using facts and not political slogans

The Tax Reform Act of 1986 was passed with Republican control of Senate (53/47 seats) and Democrat control of House of Representatives(58.2% vote). It was designed to get rid of tax shelters for "those evil rich people". The S&L debacle ended with a bailout

You left out all the greed and stupidity and corruption of the S&L industry contributing to the "The S&L debacle"

Sorta like what we just saw here again and again there was a bailout of the influential despite their being proven idiots with other peoples money as long as they made bundles themselves.

But a change in the tax law did not make them idiots. It just made it harder for them to hide their bad business decisions.

You are a 'ray of darkness' everywhere

The Demoncrats continue to display their hatred for America

Yes, and President Obama hates white people, too. Glenn Beck told you and God himself speaks through Beck.

You know who hates America? John Boehner for one. He shuts down Congress from doing anything, gives a speech on how much America sucks every day and then hits the bars every night. All this is because he hopes if there is enough unemployment and the country is suffering enough, his Republicans can take Congress back.

Now that man loves himself and hates America.

"This article is the typical main stream media prelude - paving the way for the pre-election Demoncrat strategy of proposing another trillion dollar stimulus because the first one has worked so well in keeping unemployment from getting worse. Republicans will of course resist - and be labeled as hostile to the little guy."

Why do Republicans keep saying the stimulus is a trillion dollars, when it was less than 800 billion?

Why don't the Republicans mention that half of the stimulus was TAX CUTS, mostly for small businesses?

By the way, since the stimulus was passed, the worst months for unemployment, under Obama, were still better than some of the best months, under Bush.

We are digging our way out of a hole, created by Bush and his Republicans, and the Republicans are trying to throw the dirt back into the hole as fast as it is coming out.

The Republican plan to save the country? According to Boehner, stay tuned until after the election, for their great plan. If the plan is so great, and will help the country, why isn't he proposing it now? Oh, yeah, he is afraid that the "Demoncrats" will try to take credit for it, if the economy improves.

really. PuddleDuck? half of the stimulus was for small businesses? I'm a small business owner, when do I get my cuts? Have you looked at the NARROW window we need to fit into to qualify for anything? Tax cuts for small business in the stimulus was a red herring so they could say they did something to shut up the repubs, believe me, the small biz community got little or nothing. Instead, the only thing we know for certain is our costs are going up, as is our regulation. Obama and crew have added an excessive amount of additional NEW agencies I have to now deal with, and pay for. And you want me to hire more people? And you wonder why I send jobs oversees? Wake up.

Greg S ..... Sweet!!

jammit, that's an unfortunate truth.

Neither side hates America. Both sides have honest idealists, pragmatists, and bad apples. Obama's in the second group - he's left of center, but he's a pragmatist and shoots for what he thinks he can get. The health care bill was a Republican creation of the Clinton era.

I'm tired of people accusing the other side of the aisle of hating America. It's not true and it's damaging to our ability to actually govern the country - you can't compromise with someone you accuse of treason, nor can you allow them to govern when they hold a majority. There are honest philosophical differences between the parties on the best way to move America into the future, on the best way to strengthen the nation.

I'm a liberal. I find a great deal of what the Republicans do to be horribly dishonest, but with the tenor of political discussion in this country I can understand why they would do so - it's the most effective way for them to regain power and have a chance to do what they honestly believe is best for the country. But we need to step back from attacking the patriotism of those who are willing to accept relatively small salaries compared with what they could get working in law or medicine or whatever they earned their very expensive degrees in to instead serve in government, and start to actually discuss their philosophies of government in honest, open terms.

No more accusations of treason, from either side.

Why do Republicans keep saying the stimulus is a trillion dollars, when it was less than 800 billion?

2008: $152 Billion - House of Reps (D) and Senate (D) passed TARP
2009: $787 Billion - House of Reps (D)(zero Republican votes) passed $150B higher version, Senate (D) only 3 Republican votes & only after the -150B change.

$152 + $787 = $939 Billion (much higher than the "less than 800" you quoted). Pretty dark close to a trillion considering how that word is thrown around so loosely the last couple of years.

Why don't the Republicans mention that half of the stimulus was TAX CUTS, mostly for small businesses?

Tax cuts, yes. You hear Republicans say that all the time. But it wasn't for small businesses.

Total: $51 billion

• $15 billion: Allowing companies to use current losses to offset profits made in the previous five years, instead of two, making them eligible for tax refunds.
• $13 billion: to extend tax credits for renewable energy production (until 2014).
• $11 billion: Government contractors: Repeal a law that takes effect in 2012, requiring government agencies to withhold three percent of payments to contractors to help ensure they pay their tax bills. Repealing the law would cost $11 billion over 10 years, in part because the government could not earn interest by holding the money throughout the year.
• $7 billion: Repeal bank credit: Repeal a Treasury provision that allowed firms that buy money-losing banks to use more of the losses as tax credits to offset the profits of the merged banks for tax purposes. The change would increase taxes on the merged banks by $7 billion over 10 years.
• $5 billion: Bonus depreciation which extends a provision allowing businesses buying equipment such as computers to speed up its depreciation through 2009.

$15 + 5 = $20B. Not even close to "half".

By the way, since the stimulus was passed, the worst months for unemployment, under Obama, were still better than some of the best months, under Bush.

Y2K layoffs, housing bubble burst before he took office, .com bubble burst before he took office, and many other issues were in effect when he took office. The difference is he didn't just blame Clinton. He took control of the issues and took action. 9/11 coming right after he got settled in didn't help. The only months better under Obama were when he hired census workers. Any president who happens to be in office during a census year takes credit for this little spike.

We are digging our way out of a hole, created by Bush and his Republicans, and the Republicans are trying to throw the dirt back into the hole as fast as it is coming out.

You guys give Bush and Palin way too much credit. Neither one of them have the power to do any such thing. We have this little thing called "balance of power". There's this other thing called a "global economy" that was also going down the tubes.

For a Republican to "throw dirt back into the hole", they would have to be passing bills they wrote. There's this other little thing called "majority" and you have all 3 houses. Poop or get off the pot. Somebody needs to fix this mess.

Allen - you are way too smart to get sucked into this.

Why do Republicans keep saying the stimulus is a trillion dollars, when it was less than 800 billion?

That whole thing is BS for the public.

The real deal was the Fed handing out tens of trillions and buying every bad investment Wall St and the Banks wanted to sell at a price way above market value. That is where the real money was given out, the "stimulus" was chump change to distract the public.

It's still working, I see.

i`ll agree that government jobs do stabilize the economy,now if everyb household could just get one.last time i filled out an application it said white guys need not apply.then i see the person hired was a black girl with no to support but herself living at home with two school teacher parents.if anyone needed a job it was not her,she didn`t stay long however,she was bilingual with a university degree.but this slap in the face has stayed with me for many years,i think i`m a good citizen and deserve fair treatment.

I pray that the republicans will help eliminate FARM SUBSIDIES, but don't hear peep out of them on that subject.

I pray that the republicans will help eliminate FARM SUBSIDIES, but don't hear peep out of them on that subject.

They shouldn't be called "Farm Subsidy". They should be called Corporate Agribusiness subsidies because that is what they are. Trying to invoke helping the "Family Farm" is pure political BS.

It takes more than 8 years to put our economy in the toilet, I blame both sides, Dems were not the minority during bush, so I blame our elected officials. The current administration promised, remember "promised" the economy was number one issue along with immigration reform, they lied about both. I blame both.

I agree that capitalism is a problem when the rich get richer and the poor gets poorer. Remember to, that small business and large make the money and create jobs. Socialism like you seem to prefer or support, leads to a nation of useless individuals just wanting a free ride. There is a problem with welfare when welfare offers more benefits than working for a living.

As a personally experience with one child in school, Her goal in life was to live off welfare, just like her mother. I feel welfare has its place, but since the state is paying someone to sit on their duff, they should make them work, e.g, clean parks, etc.

How do you feel about this? A free ride for life or a program to help those in need until they can get back on their feet. There should be more personnal involvement in welfare receipants to ensure they need the program and not just living on welfare.

Born late but not too late,

So what you are saying is that social support systems is what makes a country strong and that the investors, managers, factory workers and support staff of capitalism are not important.

Maybe the give me attitude people of the entitlement/socialism dem's needs to get off their asses and make things happen for themselves.

Funny thing is the Republicans have grown the government and increased the debt more than the Democrats. That is on the public record, no question about it.

Another example of "facts are stubborn things".

But marketing, and politics is marketing, can always overcome facts. We see that all the time.

The fact is that this administration is pro-active in eliminating private sector jobs; again, in spite of its campaign promises of "green jobs". This administration is actively seeking the removal of import duties on "green products", thereby creating green jobs in China and laying off more American workers. The Office of the United States Trade Representative, at the behest of the White House, will soon be releasing its "study" regarding this White House proposal.

Yeah, just look at the current president in office. How else can you get a job with no experience?

Yeah, just look at the current president in office. How else can you get a job with no experience?

The same way every other politician does. Get's elected.

When they say "anyone can become President in America" it's the truth. we have proven it over and over. Tailors, drunk Generals, you name it, we have elected them.

You could make an interesting list of our past President's "qualifications" with little effort.

Actually if you paid legislators less, they'd just be more willing to take bribes and kickbacks from private corporate lobbyists.

Plus a lot of these people are independently wealthy before going into politics, they aren't getting any richer off the people and congressional pay raises are rare.

They vote on congressional pay raises every year. The only year I know of that the vote was not passed (approved) is 2009.

Maybe he realized that unions exist to protect the workers from the Owners.

The unions exist for themselves and to make money.

The unions exist for themselves and to make money.

And companies don't?

Oh, it's wonderful for companies to make money, but evil when workers do through unions?

Could you explain to me how this is so? There must be something basic I am missing.

I tried to join a union about 20 years ago. The union rep I spoke with was telling me how good I would fit in, and how many companies he could contact to get me working, "I would be on the bench for less than a week" he said. Once I paid the initial dues of $350, that was the last I heard from the guy.

Folks, if you want to fix your economic problems, then stop letting the banks create money out of thin air. Banks create money and they demand interest for it. You pay it back with your hard earned money for a life time. Stop being stupid. Educate yourselves on fractional reserve banking and the federal reserve.