A freedom guaranteed to women by the Supreme Court? They’re women. It’s not like we’re talking about guns. Don’t touch guns. Abortion kills, gun proliferation doesn’t. *
The best part about this thread is that it completely ignores 2 years of Obama’s administration where people were also yelling JOBS!!! and he was off spending trillions of dollars on nonsense (which has to be paid off by tax dollars somehow). And the only thing that really pertained to jobs was a retention of the tax cuts and cap & tax… uh, hypocrisy anyone?
A point was made earlier, the government doesn’t create jobs. If it does, then it creates government jobs which have to be paid for by money from the private sector… which is the area that needs the jobs to begin with.
What the government CAN do is to try and create an atmosphere where in businesses will hire more employees. There are many aspects to doing that, whether it be taxes, benefits (healthcare) and/or confidence in the direction of government (among others). If those things are not occurring then job growth will be minimal to recessive.
Now who ever does the better job of correcting the problem, have at it. But if it’s logical and works… and works time and time again… then it should be the method of choice. Somehow, I don’t see increasing the cost and complexity of running a business while devaluing the currency and increasing the government work force as being beneficial… regardless of what party does it.
petergrt - how many of the past VPs and Supreme Court justices were actively corrupt or at least in conflict of interest?
Cheney: gave no-bid contracts to the company he ran and in which he owns stock
Agnew: need I even say?
Clarence Thomas: has lied about being in conflict of interest because of his wife’s work; refuses to recuse himself in the Citizens United case despite hanging out with the advocates.
Anthony Scalia: ditto on the Citizen’s United case, spends time supporting Tea Party congresspeople.
DJGuardian: Obama did the same thing your hero Bush did. He bailed out some companies that likely would have failed if not for the influx of cash. I’m thinking that your take is that bailing them out is a good thing when done by a Republican and a bad thing when done by a Democrat.
The stimulus program, so demonized by the right, was a jobs program, and it worked (except for the tax cuts part added to sweeten the deal for Republicans, which don’t create very many jobs).
Oh, and STFU, government does create jobs. Teachers, soldiers, policemen – it creates more jobs than ANY private business does. If you actually believe the right-wing con-artists who say it doesn’t, it pretty well shows your ignorance on even self-evident truths.
^^ Sorry to bust your bubble Dennis, but Bush has never been a hero of mine and never got my vote.
In terms of the bailouts, I was opposed to both. At least the first was more so a loan which has been paid back with interest though I had no prior knowledge or expectation that it would. I was wrong in part but am still against the idea… even if it were promoted by Sarah Palin. I wish I was wrong about the second one, too. But sadly I wasn’t.
I’m far less partisan that you imagine me to be Dennis. But thanks for caring. I prefer truth and goodness over partisanship. I hope you do as well.
^^^^^ As far as motivemagnus… props on the synopsis.
I have nothing to say except for the Scalia issue.
So if liberal judges hang out with liberal groups and Democrats then they should also be removed from everything political too? At that rate no judge will remain to judge anything. Everything will be a conflict of interests (whether right or left).
I’ll give you Clarence Thomas because that does sound like a proper conflict of interests, but the Scalia thing is quite poor.
^^^^ ARodney… you just proved my point. Read my first comment. Gov’t created jobs are a leech on actual money creating jobs. Some may be necessary (i.e., police, firemen, military, etc.), but many are excessive with bloated payrolls and benefits. Let’s not forget that there are now more public union employees than private and gov’t employees make more on avg than their private counterparts. Hence, leech.
I also use the “leech” for a second reason I was not going to explain before, but I now feel I must. A leech can be a good thing if used in small amounts. They have been used for years in effective medical care. But too much bloodsucking will kill the source. Hence, gov’t and gov’t employees are necessary but too much is destructive. I hope that was clear enough for you to understand over your “ignorance and self-evident truths.”
If I can’t get affordable healthcare insurance, then why should I bother with a JOB when I can sit back and let the taxpayers pay my medical bills through Medicaid every time I go to the emergency room with a stubbed toe?
And just which part of the simulus created jobs? Probably count them on one hand. Billions of $$ spent to create a handfull of jobs. I have not seen any change in unemployment lately, have you? The stimulus may have saved a few job’s… but at what cost per job?
There were NO tax cuts. There was an extension of the current tax plan and that went into effect, Hmmmm 25 days ago.
DJGuardian – just because you say that particular jobs are “leeches” doesn’t mean they aren’t jobs. Your argument has no basis in fact if you deny that being a soldier is not a job.
The stimulus paid for a huge number of teachers, policemen, and other workers who would have otherwise been laid off by broken states. Unfortunately, that’s going away because Republicans are going to cut government spending while we’re still in a recession, which is really short-sighted. We need to plan now for tax hikes about three years out when the economy recovers, but spend money to make that recovery happen right now.
The stimulus package also created tax cuts, so josefw, you’re wrong on that one. The stimulus package was about half tax cuts. I even got one. The 25 day ago extension of the Bush tax cuts was a completely different deal. The Obama tax cuts actually did me more good.
Here’s the first link that came up on google, three million jobs (and it’s an old article). Can you find ANY evidence (other than anecdotal rants from conservative talk show hosts, which doesn’t count) that the stimulus did not create jobs?
DJGuardian, allow me to be more specific:
“Common Cause last week wrote to Attorney General Holder that Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas appear to ‘have participated in political strategy sessions, perhaps while [Citizens United v. FEC] was pending, with corporate leaders whose political aims were advanced by the decision.’” That is an explicit violation of conflict of interest, when you are collaborating with one of the plaintiffs in the trial! You should at least recuse yourself - but neither Scalia nor Thomas seem to think that is necessary. It’s not just “hanging out” - it’s participating as an activist and then pretending to judicial impartiality to rule on the law.
http://tinyurl.com/6jlgmk8
“1) Bill Gates
2) Warren Buffet
3) Larry Ellison (Oracle CEO)
4) Christy Walton
5-6) Charles and David Koch (tie)
7-9) Jim, Alice, and S. Robson Walton (in that order)
10) Michael Bloomberg
The only possible Democrat on this list is Ellison.”
Surely you must jest, or you call Mars your home …
walruscarver2000 about 13 years ago
It’s a language barrier. We speak English, Republicans speak greed.
Jaedabee Premium Member about 13 years ago
A freedom guaranteed to women by the Supreme Court? They’re women. It’s not like we’re talking about guns. Don’t touch guns. Abortion kills, gun proliferation doesn’t. *
Charles Brobst Premium Member about 13 years ago
JOBS!!!
S_T_F_U about 13 years ago
The government doesn’t create jobs. The government also does not make money. It only takes from one group to give to another.
cdward about 13 years ago
^Which is what makes it of the people and for the people. Someone has to protect the rest of us from the leeches, bullies and thugs.
Simon_Jester about 13 years ago
^An abortion ban will remove a barrier to job creation?
A witch hunt …I-I mean investigating the Obama adminsitration will remove a barrier to job creation?
Uh-huh…and where was it you saw Elvis again?
petergrt about 13 years ago
How many of the top 5 American billionaires are active Republicans?
As opposed to the activist Democrat gazillionaires?
DjGuardian about 13 years ago
The best part about this thread is that it completely ignores 2 years of Obama’s administration where people were also yelling JOBS!!! and he was off spending trillions of dollars on nonsense (which has to be paid off by tax dollars somehow). And the only thing that really pertained to jobs was a retention of the tax cuts and cap & tax… uh, hypocrisy anyone?
A point was made earlier, the government doesn’t create jobs. If it does, then it creates government jobs which have to be paid for by money from the private sector… which is the area that needs the jobs to begin with.
What the government CAN do is to try and create an atmosphere where in businesses will hire more employees. There are many aspects to doing that, whether it be taxes, benefits (healthcare) and/or confidence in the direction of government (among others). If those things are not occurring then job growth will be minimal to recessive.
Now who ever does the better job of correcting the problem, have at it. But if it’s logical and works… and works time and time again… then it should be the method of choice. Somehow, I don’t see increasing the cost and complexity of running a business while devaluing the currency and increasing the government work force as being beneficial… regardless of what party does it.
josefw about 13 years ago
Ask a Gulf off shore oil rig worker about job creation from this admin. Then check in with the coal miners.
Motivemagus about 13 years ago
petergrt - how many of the past VPs and Supreme Court justices were actively corrupt or at least in conflict of interest? Cheney: gave no-bid contracts to the company he ran and in which he owns stock Agnew: need I even say? Clarence Thomas: has lied about being in conflict of interest because of his wife’s work; refuses to recuse himself in the Citizens United case despite hanging out with the advocates. Anthony Scalia: ditto on the Citizen’s United case, spends time supporting Tea Party congresspeople.
dennis03 about 13 years ago
DJGuardian: Obama did the same thing your hero Bush did. He bailed out some companies that likely would have failed if not for the influx of cash. I’m thinking that your take is that bailing them out is a good thing when done by a Republican and a bad thing when done by a Democrat.
Does that about cover it?
ARodney about 13 years ago
The stimulus program, so demonized by the right, was a jobs program, and it worked (except for the tax cuts part added to sweeten the deal for Republicans, which don’t create very many jobs).
Oh, and STFU, government does create jobs. Teachers, soldiers, policemen – it creates more jobs than ANY private business does. If you actually believe the right-wing con-artists who say it doesn’t, it pretty well shows your ignorance on even self-evident truths.
DjGuardian about 13 years ago
^^ Sorry to bust your bubble Dennis, but Bush has never been a hero of mine and never got my vote.
In terms of the bailouts, I was opposed to both. At least the first was more so a loan which has been paid back with interest though I had no prior knowledge or expectation that it would. I was wrong in part but am still against the idea… even if it were promoted by Sarah Palin. I wish I was wrong about the second one, too. But sadly I wasn’t.
I’m far less partisan that you imagine me to be Dennis. But thanks for caring. I prefer truth and goodness over partisanship. I hope you do as well.
DjGuardian about 13 years ago
^^^^^ As far as motivemagnus… props on the synopsis.
I have nothing to say except for the Scalia issue.
So if liberal judges hang out with liberal groups and Democrats then they should also be removed from everything political too? At that rate no judge will remain to judge anything. Everything will be a conflict of interests (whether right or left).
I’ll give you Clarence Thomas because that does sound like a proper conflict of interests, but the Scalia thing is quite poor.
DjGuardian about 13 years ago
^^^^ ARodney… you just proved my point. Read my first comment. Gov’t created jobs are a leech on actual money creating jobs. Some may be necessary (i.e., police, firemen, military, etc.), but many are excessive with bloated payrolls and benefits. Let’s not forget that there are now more public union employees than private and gov’t employees make more on avg than their private counterparts. Hence, leech.
I also use the “leech” for a second reason I was not going to explain before, but I now feel I must. A leech can be a good thing if used in small amounts. They have been used for years in effective medical care. But too much bloodsucking will kill the source. Hence, gov’t and gov’t employees are necessary but too much is destructive. I hope that was clear enough for you to understand over your “ignorance and self-evident truths.”
alcors3 about 13 years ago
More abortions = less jobs needed in the future. Lib logic
pirate227 about 13 years ago
Tone deaf.
Nebulous Premium Member about 13 years ago
If I can’t get affordable healthcare insurance, then why should I bother with a JOB when I can sit back and let the taxpayers pay my medical bills through Medicaid every time I go to the emergency room with a stubbed toe?
josefw about 13 years ago
@Arodney:
And just which part of the simulus created jobs? Probably count them on one hand. Billions of $$ spent to create a handfull of jobs. I have not seen any change in unemployment lately, have you? The stimulus may have saved a few job’s… but at what cost per job?
There were NO tax cuts. There was an extension of the current tax plan and that went into effect, Hmmmm 25 days ago.
Congratulations, you sir, are a Drone.
ARodney about 13 years ago
DJGuardian – just because you say that particular jobs are “leeches” doesn’t mean they aren’t jobs. Your argument has no basis in fact if you deny that being a soldier is not a job.
The stimulus paid for a huge number of teachers, policemen, and other workers who would have otherwise been laid off by broken states. Unfortunately, that’s going away because Republicans are going to cut government spending while we’re still in a recession, which is really short-sighted. We need to plan now for tax hikes about three years out when the economy recovers, but spend money to make that recovery happen right now.
The stimulus package also created tax cuts, so josefw, you’re wrong on that one. The stimulus package was about half tax cuts. I even got one. The 25 day ago extension of the Bush tax cuts was a completely different deal. The Obama tax cuts actually did me more good.
Here’s the first link that came up on google, three million jobs (and it’s an old article). Can you find ANY evidence (other than anecdotal rants from conservative talk show hosts, which doesn’t count) that the stimulus did not create jobs?
http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/2010-08-30-stimulus30_CV_N.htm
Motivemagus about 13 years ago
DJGuardian, allow me to be more specific: “Common Cause last week wrote to Attorney General Holder that Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas appear to ‘have participated in political strategy sessions, perhaps while [Citizens United v. FEC] was pending, with corporate leaders whose political aims were advanced by the decision.’” That is an explicit violation of conflict of interest, when you are collaborating with one of the plaintiffs in the trial! You should at least recuse yourself - but neither Scalia nor Thomas seem to think that is necessary. It’s not just “hanging out” - it’s participating as an activist and then pretending to judicial impartiality to rule on the law. http://tinyurl.com/6jlgmk8
petergrt about 13 years ago
“1) Bill Gates 2) Warren Buffet 3) Larry Ellison (Oracle CEO) 4) Christy Walton 5-6) Charles and David Koch (tie) 7-9) Jim, Alice, and S. Robson Walton (in that order) 10) Michael Bloomberg
The only possible Democrat on this list is Ellison.”
Surely you must jest, or you call Mars your home …