Obama frustrated with lack of job growth

[manu1959]

The wealthy then turn around and excess money they don't want gets trickled down in the form of jobs.

What?

Of course...don't you understand our economic system? We have 10% of the people controlling 90% of the wealth. The only way the rest of us can obtain wealth is to give more money to the upper 10% and hope they trickle it down to us.

Giving money to the 90% of the population with 10% of the wealth is called socialism and we don't want that

how many people do you employ...

 

[Polk]

Right now businesse's are leaving California & New Jersey by wagon trains. These two states have the highest state tax rates in the country--while also showing the highest budget deficits. IOW-the more they tax the more they spend. They have been run by democrats for decades--regardless of one single Republican governor--their state legislatures have been all democrat big spending majorities.

It hasn't been "one single Republican governor". Both New Jersey and California have only recently shifted to the Democratic column.

From 1968 to 1988, the Republicans won New Jersey in every presidential election and it was one of the closest state in 1992. The Republicans have held the New Jersey governorship for most of the last quarter-century (14 years).

California had been even more strongly Republican. From 1952 to 1988, the Republican presidential candidate carried California in every election except 1966. The state has also favored Republicans for the governor's mansion. In the last 25 years, the Republicans have held the governorship for 21 for them.

and claifornia's legislature which creates and passes all the budgets and social programs has been in the firm contol of democrates for decades.....if you remeber davis was tossed for running the state into the ground with his dem legislature.....arnold has done nothing to alter that...

That's not accurate either. Neither party really has control of the state legislature, since it takes a two-thirds vote to pass anything budget related.

 

[Polk]

He was President of Harvard, and he's an economist.... so, basically, yea. He was responsible. The Buck's gotta stop somewhere. It's not like he wasn't warned by others of the incredibly risky nature of that type of investment. Get your facts before you make stupid statements.

Except that the investments weren't incredibly risky based on what as known at the time. Look at the decline in Harvard's endowment and compare it to other institutions. Virtually all university endowments have lost money during this recession.

Polk, I respectfully disagree with your philosophy. Corporations in this country pay app 35%of their profits to the government. We are the second highest tax rate in the world. That's alot of the reason they take their business and go to India with it. Yes, labor is cheaper and that's also a plus, but our high tax rate adds into that. In order for business to want to stay here and employ Americans government needs to get out of the way, tighten their own belts, and reduce taxes and regulations on them so that they can expand and grow.

It's not a matter of philosophy. The statutory tax rate doesn't matter. The effective rate does, and the article pointed out, our effective tax rate is lower than the OECD average. Also, to help you keep your argument straight, the US has the second highest (statutory) tax rate in the developed world. There are tons of developing nations with corporate income tax rates of 50%+.

 

[California Girl]

It's Larry Summers's fault that Harvard invested their endowment just like every other university does?

He was President of Harvard, and he's an economist.... so, basically, yea. He was responsible. The Buck's gotta stop somewhere. It's not like he wasn't warned by others of the incredibly risky nature of that type of investment. Get your facts before you make stupid statements.

Except that the investments weren't incredibly risky based on what as known at the time. Look at the decline in Harvard's endowment and compare it to other institutions. Virtually all university endowments have lost money during this recession.

Yes, they did. Mainly because they did not listen to the ECONOMISTS who were warning them about shit hitting fan. Summers is an economist.

 

[slackjawed]

Here in Arizona we have a republican gov, but she has only come in since Janet Napolotano (bovine party) left to work in DC. The niether janet, before she left, or the current gov hasn't been able to get a budget passed because there is a pesky balanced budget rule, and the money isn't there. The state has been shutting down various offices around the state for awhile now. I fail to see how the party affiliation of the governor or the state assembly is related to the state's lack of jobs. I also fail to see how the federal or state government is responsible or even able for creating jobs. At the same time I am incensed by the arrogance of our so-called leaders to take credit for jobs they 'created' in districts that do not exist.
The government needs to get the hell out of the way, That looks like the only way COMPANIES can create more jobs.

 

[Maple]

The wealthy then turn around and excess money they don't want gets trickled down in the form of jobs.

What?

Of course...don't you understand our economic system? We have 10% of the people controlling 90% of the wealth. The only way the rest of us can obtain wealth is to give more money to the upper 10% and hope they trickle it down to us.

Giving money to the 90% of the population with 10% of the wealth is called socialism and we don't want that

No we don't want that because it limits growth and opportunity. I know the left always has despised the theory of "trickle down," but the fact remains, it works. You tax the so-called wealthy, the job creators, and you kill job growth. Reagan introduced this trickle down theory after he was left with a horrible Jimmy Carter recession and he created 20 million new jobs that went on for decades.

Right now, we are going through a "Flood the Basement" theory, Kenesian economics that has never worked. Poor people don't create job growth, they are not in a position to open their own business's and hire others. Government does not create new private sector jobs either, they are parasites feeding off of the rest of us.

I know many of you think that a great deal of our budget goes to military expenditures when in fact it is a small portion compared to the entitlement spending that goes on every year. Below is an interesting chart on this.

United States federal budget - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[uscitizen]

Most of the economic growth so far in this recession has been from business increasing their efficiency by laying off workers and getting more work out of the ones that are left.
Thereby creating a cycle of problems with not as many people purchasing their products.

 

[Maple]

Here in Arizona we have a republican gov, but she has only come in since Janet Napolotano (bovine party) left to work in DC. The niether janet, before she left, or the current gov hasn't been able to get a budget passed because there is a pesky balanced budget rule, and the money isn't there. The state has been shutting down various offices around the state for awhile now. I fail to see how the party affiliation of the governor or the state assembly is related to the state's lack of jobs. I also fail to see how the federal or state government is responsible or even able for creating jobs. At the same time I am incensed by the arrogance of our so-called leaders to take credit for jobs they 'created' in districts that do not exist.
The government needs to get the hell out of the way, That looks like the only way COMPANIES can create more jobs.

I couldn't agree more with your post, especially about posting jobs created in congressional districts that don't exist. It feels good though to live in a state that requires a balanced budget. We lay off government workers out here to balance the budget. That's a good thing, that way we don't pile up mountains of debt like California, New Jersey and New York have done. We will survive this downturn, I am not certain that those states will.

 

[Polk]

Just saw John Boehner on television bitching about how "Obama and Pelosi have ran a business or held a job in the private sector", even though Pelosi does run a business (she and her husband own a vineyard) and before being elected to the Senate, Obama had never held a public sector jobs (he had worked Business International Corporation (a group that advises American firms looking to expand their operations abroad), Developing Communities Project (a religious charity), and as a professor at the University of Chicago. On the other hand, Boehner's preferred candidate in the last election has never collected a paycheck from anywhere other than the government.

 

[Maple]

It hasn't been "one single Republican governor". Both New Jersey and California have only recently shifted to the Democratic column.

From 1968 to 1988, the Republicans won New Jersey in every presidential election and it was one of the closest state in 1992. The Republicans have held the New Jersey governorship for most of the last quarter-century (14 years).

California had been even more strongly Republican. From 1952 to 1988, the Republican presidential candidate carried California in every election except 1966. The state has also favored Republicans for the governor's mansion. In the last 25 years, the Republicans have held the governorship for 21 for them.

and claifornia's legislature which creates and passes all the budgets and social programs has been in the firm contol of democrates for decades.....if you remeber davis was tossed for running the state into the ground with his dem legislature.....arnold has done nothing to alter that...

That's not accurate either. Neither party really has control of the state legislature, since it takes a two-thirds vote to pass anything budget related.

2/3 of those in the legislature are democrats, very few republicans, and they have been extremely irresponsible. I talked to one small business owner that moved here from there and she told me that 1/3 of the population in the county in California where she lived and operated her business were government employees. That means that for every 3 people out there, 2 of them are paying the salary for the 3rd person. That's insanity. That's also why she was forced to close her business out there and move to a state where she could make a living.

 

[manu1959]

It hasn't been "one single Republican governor". Both New Jersey and California have only recently shifted to the Democratic column.

From 1968 to 1988, the Republicans won New Jersey in every presidential election and it was one of the closest state in 1992. The Republicans have held the New Jersey governorship for most of the last quarter-century (14 years).

California had been even more strongly Republican. From 1952 to 1988, the Republican presidential candidate carried California in every election except 1966. The state has also favored Republicans for the governor's mansion. In the last 25 years, the Republicans have held the governorship for 21 for them.

and claifornia's legislature which creates and passes all the budgets and social programs has been in the firm contol of democrates for decades.....if you remeber davis was tossed for running the state into the ground with his dem legislature.....arnold has done nothing to alter that...

That's not accurate either. Neither party really has control of the state legislature, since it takes a two-thirds vote to pass anything budget related.

yet you can blame it on the single govenor but not hold the majority of the legislature responsible for the bulk of what is in the budget....we wll have seen how it works 50% of the politicians shame the remaining 16% into agreeing with them or the are called obstructionist.....

 

[Maple]

Just saw John Boehner on television bitching about how "Obama and Pelosi have ran a business or held a job in the private sector", even though Pelosi does run a business (she and her husband own a vineyard) and before being elected to the Senate, Obama had never held a public sector jobs (he had worked Business International Corporation (a group that advises American firms looking to expand their operations abroad), Developing Communities Project (a religious charity), and as a professor at the University of Chicago. On the other hand, Boehner's preferred candidate in the last election has never collected a paycheck from anywhere other than the government.

If you are referring to McCain, I could not agree more.

 

[Polk]

Here in Arizona we have a republican gov, but she has only come in since Janet Napolotano (bovine party) left to work in DC. The niether janet, before she left, or the current gov hasn't been able to get a budget passed because there is a pesky balanced budget rule, and the money isn't there. The state has been shutting down various offices around the state for awhile now. I fail to see how the party affiliation of the governor or the state assembly is related to the state's lack of jobs. I also fail to see how the federal or state government is responsible or even able for creating jobs. At the same time I am incensed by the arrogance of our so-called leaders to take credit for jobs they 'created' in districts that do not exist.
The government needs to get the hell out of the way, That looks like the only way COMPANIES can create more jobs.

In a dataset with thousands of items, there are going to be typos. Error is human. Also, for the numbers for territories, all the ones I've seen have shown them labeled as the 99th district. This would make sense if the software being used to catalog the data required a district number to be entered, as 99 is often used in data sets to signify an unknown entry.

 

[Polk]

and claifornia's legislature which creates and passes all the budgets and social programs has been in the firm contol of democrates for decades.....if you remeber davis was tossed for running the state into the ground with his dem legislature.....arnold has done nothing to alter that...

That's not accurate either. Neither party really has control of the state legislature, since it takes a two-thirds vote to pass anything budget related.

2/3 of those in the legislature are democrats, very few republicans, and they have been extremely irresponsible. I talked to one small business owner that moved here from there and she told me that 1/3 of the population in the county in California where she lived and operated her business were government employees. That means that for every 3 people out there, 2 of them are paying the salary for the 3rd person. That's insanity. That's also why she was forced to close her business out there and move to a state where she could make a living.

The legislature is not two-thirds Democratic. Currently, for example, the California State Assembly has a 50-28 Democratic majority (four seats fewer than two-thirds of the 80-seat chamber). The California State Senate has a 25-15 Democratic majority (two seats short of two-thirds).

 

[Maple]

Here in Arizona we have a republican gov, but she has only come in since Janet Napolotano (bovine party) left to work in DC. The niether janet, before she left, or the current gov hasn't been able to get a budget passed because there is a pesky balanced budget rule, and the money isn't there. The state has been shutting down various offices around the state for awhile now. I fail to see how the party affiliation of the governor or the state assembly is related to the state's lack of jobs. I also fail to see how the federal or state government is responsible or even able for creating jobs. At the same time I am incensed by the arrogance of our so-called leaders to take credit for jobs they 'created' in districts that do not exist.
The government needs to get the hell out of the way, That looks like the only way COMPANIES can create more jobs.

In a dataset with thousands of items, there are going to be typos. Error is human. Also, for the numbers for territories, all the ones I've seen have shown them labeled as the 99th district. This would make sense if the software being used to catalog the data required a district number to be entered, as 99 is often used in data sets to signify an unknown entry.

It's not only that Polk, they are showing jobs created in districts that recieved no stimulus money. The fact, that they spent 18 million dollars for this web site and the fact that they still have not corrected these miscalculations gives me very little confidence in their ability to handle anything. The whole report becomes suspect. I am sure there will be more that comes out of this, but it is my belief that a whole bunch of money is being used fraudulently and will end up missing.

 

[Polk]

and claifornia's legislature which creates and passes all the budgets and social programs has been in the firm contol of democrates for decades.....if you remeber davis was tossed for running the state into the ground with his dem legislature.....arnold has done nothing to alter that...

That's not accurate either. Neither party really has control of the state legislature, since it takes a two-thirds vote to pass anything budget related.

yet you can blame it on the single govenor but not hold the majority of the legislature responsible for the bulk of what is in the budget....we wll have seen how it works 50% of the politicians shame the remaining 16% into agreeing with them or the are called obstructionist.....

It's as accurate to blame the governor as to blame Democrats, even though they don't hold enough seats in the state legislature to move anything and even if they did, it would have been subject to a GOP veto most of the time.

If you want to know the truth of who I blame, it's California voters who have insisted on higher spending via referendums, but also used referendums to retard the ability of the state to pay for it.

 

[manu1959]

That's not accurate either. Neither party really has control of the state legislature, since it takes a two-thirds vote to pass anything budget related.

2/3 of those in the legislature are democrats, very few republicans, and they have been extremely irresponsible. I talked to one small business owner that moved here from there and she told me that 1/3 of the population in the county in California where she lived and operated her business were government employees. That means that for every 3 people out there, 2 of them are paying the salary for the 3rd person. That's insanity. That's also why she was forced to close her business out there and move to a state where she could make a living.

The legislature is not two-thirds Democratic. Currently, for example, the California State Assembly has a 50-28 Democratic majority (four seats fewer than two-thirds of the 80-seat chamber). The California State Senate has a 25-15 Democratic majority (two seats short of two-thirds).

yep and its all the republican's fault that califonia has more socail programs and regulations than any other state.....god damn social walfare, pro union pro environment republicans....

 

[Maple]

That's not accurate either. Neither party really has control of the state legislature, since it takes a two-thirds vote to pass anything budget related.

2/3 of those in the legislature are democrats, very few republicans, and they have been extremely irresponsible. I talked to one small business owner that moved here from there and she told me that 1/3 of the population in the county in California where she lived and operated her business were government employees. That means that for every 3 people out there, 2 of them are paying the salary for the 3rd person. That's insanity. That's also why she was forced to close her business out there and move to a state where she could make a living.

The legislature is not two-thirds Democratic. Currently, for example, the California State Assembly has a 50-28 Democratic majority (four seats fewer than two-thirds of the 80-seat chamber). The California State Senate has a 25-15 Democratic majority (two seats short of two-thirds).

Well then, they have alot of liberal republicans. In the end this is the fault of the California voters, they voted these people in there and now California is paying the price.

 

[uscitizen]

1/3 of all jobs right now are "government" jobs. Either directly or indirectly paid for with tax dollars/debt.
Most of the job increases during the bush administration were govt jobs.

We have been trying to pay our way on the credit card for around 30 years.

 

[logical4u]

The wealthy then turn around and excess money they don't want gets trickled down in the form of jobs.

What?

Of course...don't you understand our economic system? We have 10% of the people controlling 90% of the wealth. The only way the rest of us can obtain wealth is to give more money to the upper 10% and hope they trickle it down to us.

Giving money to the 90% of the population with 10% of the wealth is called socialism and we don't want that

Isn't that 'trickle up poverty'?