2012 President?

[Guest Jules]

Well you might want to read it again. You said it was BS that "rich people pay all the taxes in this country". But, 1) those 4 million tax filers you reference do indeed pay most of the tax DOLLARS in this country. This is regardless of percentages and if a small part of those find a way to pay nothing (many do it through charitable donations), and 2) the article does nothing to say otherwise.

[ih8music]

The fact that some people don't understand such a simple concept is what we should really be worried about.

 

I agree Jules -- but who is intentionally misleading the American public here? Republican politicians and their media echo chamber is who.

 

People only believe this BS because they're being told that's how it works.

[Mr. Heartbreak]

You're right, it doesn't matter that a person who is making $40K a year pays 25% while Mitt Romney pays 14% because, after all, it's investment income. Since Mitt's 14% is so much more money. Wow, I really feel sorry for him and all his buddies now. It must really suck to have so much money that your tax bill is bigger than my annual salary.

 

Yes, I should read it again, so I understand your viewpoint. Maybe I'll read it ten more times. While I'm doing that, you might want to google "oligarchy."

[Guest Jules]

You seem to be arguing with yourself. You said it was BS that these "rich" people pay most of the taxes. I was just pointing out that is is not BS, percentages aside. And that your article did nothing to disprove this.

[Sparky speaks]

Militarism and Neoliberalism: Two Sides of the Same Coin

 

Obama was elected president largely based on the illusion his policies would not substantially overlap with the neo-con thrust of Bush's policies, but would constitute a fundamental repudiation of them. Instead, Obama's finally managed to "rationalise" Bush's policies - in both a managerial and a propaganda sense - far more effectively than Bush ever dreamed of. Yes, the term "global war on terror" is gone, but the concept lives on, more unquestionable than ever by virtue of not even being named. Torture is out, but assassination by drone is in. More dissenters than ever have been prosecuted, or are under investigation, with far less vigorous public dissent than Bush ever faced. War criminals walk free under the rubric of "looking forward, not back", while whistleblowers like Bradley Manning are prosecuted for aiding the terrorists. If Obama were still a state senator, he might even be morally outraged.

 

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=31199

[IRememberDBoon]

[ih8music]

Nate Silver finally has his 2012 election forecast/model out...

 

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/06/07/election-forecast-obama-begins-with-tenuous-advantage/

 

Guess what - it's gonna be a close race.

[KevinG]

Nate Silver finally has his 2012 election forecast/model out...

 

http://fivethirtyeig...uous-advantage/

 

Guess what - it's gonna be a close race.

 

It still is awfully early. The popular vote is close but the electoral votes are really that close. The one thing is that Obama has a larger range of options electorally than Romney. But it is early, we'll have the whole Euro thing to deal with this summer, Syria, and job numbers which will hurt Obama in the next couple of months.

[KevinG]

So the big "gaff" from Friday was Obama said that the private sector was doing just fine, and the governement needs to reinvest in teachers, police, and firefighters etc. The republicans immediatly responded that Obama was out of touch with what was wrong with the economy and how to fix it.

 

Here is the thing, if you look at it the private sector is doing fine. Corporate profits are the highest they have been since the 1950s. Corporations have more money on hand then ever before. So they are making and keeping their money. Isn't that the defintion of doing fine? The problem is they are not hiring (even though there have been tax breaks and incentives so they would). So workers wages are remaining low and unemployement remains high. People say it is within a company's right to maintain their workforce and wages to best fit the needs of the company, which I totally agree with.

 

There is a need for more teachers, firefighters, police, etc in our cities. Since the private sector does not need to hire and the governement does, what is the issue here. It seems to me that president looked at the economy saw where the greatest need was and is working to encourage local goverments to grow the economy and jobs.

 

We need to inject more money in to the economy, corporations are not willing (although most would argue able) to do so, is not the responsibility of the government to hire where is needed?

 

Thoughts?

[Atticus]

is not the responsibility of the government to hire where is needed?

 

My opinion is "no, not one bit."

[lost highway]

My opinion is "no, not one bit."

 

Then cut every public job and see what is left of our economy. I wouldn't have a job.

 

The government hires where needed because you need a person to pave a highway, an elementary school teacher to teach some kids and a firefighter to put a fire out. If you disagree with that than mayhaps you'd be happier in a less socialist country.

[LouieB]

Thoughts?

Cleary Romney believes there are plenty of teachers, firefighters and police. So let's elect him and have even less.

 

Meanwhile the "job creators" in the corporate world are more interested in keeping their money than hiring people, who might utimately buy more of their goods and services, so one more time, the folks at the top get what they want. People with jobs, buy shit, people without jobs don't. It is fairly simple economics, but it is lost on Romney. Frankly it is lost on alot of people including a whole bunch here. Teachers and other public sector employess buy shit, but they don't matter because they aren't making profits for anyone.

 

LouieB

[bleedorange]

I don't know that I would make the proclamation that the "private sector is doing fine." There might be small sections or certain industries that are enjoying nice profits, but for the most part, that's not the case. Since 2009, the company I work for has slashed management staff to the absolute minimum. And I'm hard-pressed to try to think of any friends, neighbors, or family members who have not suffered through layoffs, furloughs, pay cuts, etc. In fact, the ones that have sailed through relatively unscathed are the government workers.

[Atticus]

Then cut every public job and see what is left of our economy. I wouldn't have a job.

 

The government hires where needed because you need a person to pave a highway, an elementary school teacher to teach some kids and a firefighter to put a fire out. If you disagree with that than mayhaps you'd be happier in a less socialist country.

 

I did not suggest that government jobs should be cut. I stated that my opinion is that it's not the government's job to go out and start hiring people whenever the private sector is not.

[LouieB]

I don't know that I would make the proclamation that the "private sector is doing fine." There might be small sections or certain industries that are enjoying nice profits, but for the most part, that's not the case. Since 2009, the company I work for has slashed management staff to the absolute minimum. And I'm hard-pressed to try to think of any friends, neighbors, or family members who have not suffered through layoffs, furloughs, pay cuts, etc. In fact, the ones that have sailed through relatively unscathed are the government workers.

Clearly Obama wishes he had not said that, because clearly it is NOT true. Your statement about public workers is somewhat true, so long as you keep in the "somewhat". I know plenty of public workers and none (including myself) have been unscathed.

I did not suggest that government jobs should be cut. I stated that my opinion is that it's not the government's job to go out and start hiring people whenever the private sector is not.

Without the government having created jobs we may still be in the middle of the "great Depression". This is one of those ideological arguments that may never be fully decided I guess.

 

LouieB

[bleedorange]

Clearly Obama wishes he had not said that, because clearly it is NOT true. Your statement about public workers is somewhat true, so long as you keep in the "somewhat". I know plenty of public workers and none (including myself) have been unscathed.

 

LouieB

 

Of course...it's never wise nor helpful to talk about things as if they were absolute truths.

[LouieB]

Of course...it's never wise nor helpful to talk about things as if they were absolute truths.

We agree. It was a dumb thing to say, and Barack realized it pretty quickly. So far Romney has not felt badly about saying that we have too many teachers, police and firefighters.

 

I just find it pretty humorous that folks dis the government and government workers (which is a fairly large number of folks) along with government programs, because the private sector relies on public money ALL THE TIME. There are few businesses that can continue without some sort of subsidy or contracts provided by the government. Nearly every sector and individual that disses government workers and government programs benefits from both. As someone who works for the government I see it all the time. In fact the private sector is sometimes the worst offender when it comes to fraud and incorrect use of public dollars.

 

LouieB

[Sweet Papa Crimbo]

We agree. It was a dumb thing to say, and Barack realized it pretty quickly. So far Romney has not felt badly about saying that we have too many teachers, police and firefighters.

 

I just find it pretty humorous that folks dis the government and government workers (which is a fairly large number of folks) along with government programs, because the private sector relies on public money ALL THE TIME. There are few businesses that can continue without some sort of subsidy or contracts provided by the government. Nearly every sector and individual that disses government workers and government programs benefits from both. As someone who works for the government I see it all the time. In fact the private sector is sometimes the worst offender when it comes to fraud and incorrect use of public dollars.

 

LouieB

 

Fixed it for you

[ih8music]

There are few businesses that can continue without some sort of subsidy or contracts provided by the government. Nearly every sector and individual that disses government workers and government programs benefits from both.

 

For me, that's the type of government spending that should not be questioned during a recession or a time of economic stagnation. Not that there isn't a need for more teachers (because there obviously is a huge need in most areas of the country), but I can see how hiring more teachers and government workers could be seen as a political move in an election year since they generally tend to vote for Democrats.

 

But government contracts for building stuff -- infrastructure like roads, bridges & high speed rail, for improving public school facilities, for developing alternative energy technology, etc. -- would put the money into the hands of the private sector, who would then have to hire people and stimulate the economy from the bottom-up. That should not be a partisan issue. If you want the economy to recover, temporarily increase gov't spending by stimulating the private sector. And not by business tax cuts -- that doesn't get people hired; that money is almost always saved or distributed to investors. No, the government needs to "force" companies to hire people by issuing contracts for stuff -- stuff that needs manpower -- to be made.

[Guest Jules]

There are few businesses that can continue without some sort of subsidy or contracts provided by the government.

 

Really? I don't buy this at all. Sounds like a Hawkism.

[LouieB]

Fixed it for you

thanks. I was trying to be fair minded though.

For me, that's the type of government spending that should not be questioned during a recession or a time of economic stagnation. Not that there isn't a need for more teachers (because there obviously is a huge need in most areas of the country), but I can see how hiring more teachers and government workers could be seen as a political move in an election year since they generally tend to vote for Democrats.

 

But government contracts for building stuff -- infrastructure like roads, bridges & high speed rail, for improving public school facilities, for developing alternative energy technology, etc. -- would put the money into the hands of the private sector, who would then have to hire people and stimulate the economy from the bottom-up. That should not be a partisan issue. If you want the economy to recover, temporarily increase gov't spending by stimulating the private sector. And not by business tax cuts -- that doesn't get people hired; that money is almost always saved or distributed to investors. No, the government needs to "force" companies to hire people by issuing contracts for stuff -- stuff that needs manpower -- to be made.

Heck I don't disagree with this either, but most infrastructure improvement benefits the private sector by giving contracts to the private sector to do the work and the benefits of the work itself. Those bridges, roads, power grids, R&D, etc. don't get built by the government; they get contracted out to the private sector which takes it's cut.

Really? I don't buy this at all. Sounds like a Hawkism.

I think you really have no idea. See above. Just like with the affordable care act, and just about every other government program, the private sector nearly always makes out like bandits when the government has a program. So we can close down all government programs, grants, etc., but the private sector will be the first to get hurt, as will tons of private sector jobs created by the so called "job creators".

 

When it all comes down, the federal percent of soft money jobs such as teachers, firefighters, police officers, etc, are a drop in the bucket. And wait until someone gets killed, sick, or hurt because federal regulation isn't enforced by some bureaucrat like me. The public goes up in arms. In fact stuff like farm, military, and trade subsidies probably (just a guess here) far outweigh most of the money spent on the handful of teachers, fire or police that the feds pay for. Most of that is local tax money. Heck even the private sector makes out like crazy from such soft money programs as NCLB and PELL grants. I'd love to see the feds stop supporting so many private sector grants and projects but ultimately the lobbiests for those interests far outwieigh the public sector lobbiests and unions.

LouieB

[ih8music]

Heck I don't disagree with this either, but most infrastructure improvement benefits the private sector by giving contracts to the private sector to do the work and the benefits of the work itself. Those bridges, roads, power grids, R&D, etc. don't get built by the government; they get contracted out to the private sector which takes it's cut.

 

Right, and that's why it should make everyone happy. People get jobs while private companies make profits. Overall, the economic situation improves for people both at the bottom as well as at the top. It shouldn't be a debate -- both Republicans and Democrats should be in favor of this -- unless the truth is that you actually don't want the economy to improve for political purposes.

[Tweedling]

How much money does the federal government actually give for hiring teachers, police and firefighters? Are those not usually paid for by local governments? Am I missing something?

[KevinG]

I don't know that I would make the proclamation that the "private sector is doing fine." There might be small sections or certain industries that are enjoying nice profits, but for the most part, that's not the case. Since 2009, the company I work for has slashed management staff to the absolute minimum. And I'm hard-pressed to try to think of any friends, neighbors, or family members who have not suffered through layoffs, furloughs, pay cuts, etc. In fact, the ones that have sailed through relatively unscathed are the government workers.

 

I think you failed to get the point of the private sector is doing fine. You mention your company, who in the height of the recession slashed worked force. Then you go on to mention neighbors etc. who have been touched by this. My question to you is, have you looked recently at their profits? I would bet dollars to doughnuts that they are up.

 

Furthermore, there are businesses that are up and down but on average corporate profits are up, it is just that they are not hiring, for whatever reason.

 

I did not suggest that government jobs should be cut. I stated that my opinion is that it's not the government's job to go out and start hiring people whenever the private sector is not.

 

I am not saying that the government shoudl go hire willy nilly when the private sector is not, but there is a need for teachers, firefighters, etc. If there is a need hire, if not don't. The more people we get back to work, the better, it may cost more in the beginning but the long run it will be better.

 

How much money does the federal government actually give for hiring teachers, police and firefighters? Are those not usually paid for by local governments? Am I missing something?

 

That was MItt's point (but not made clearly). What Obama is sugguesting (I believe) is a stimulus of sorts to help local governement hire where necessary.

[gogo]

They are normally paid for by local and state governments. I believe Obama's point was that when local and state governments are hurting to the point where police, firefighters and teachers are being laid off, that's an area where the federal government could step in to help the middle class (or a small subset of the middle class, which would be those specific workers, and the businesses that they in turn patronize), and also not leave those communities in a position of being without those essential services.

 

What Obama is sugguesting (I believe) is a stimulus of sorts to help local governement hire where necessary.

Yeah, I think that's what I meant.