Romney: 'Corporations Are People'

[Irishrainy]

Would you have commented on the picture if it was a man doing the biting?

[Irishrainy]

Actually, when Zero uses the term "infrastructure" in his speeches, he is referring to union jobs, since they were the ones targeted for the government-subsidized jobs that the stimulus was supposed to produce. Government doesn't produce anything, let alone jobs, so they should get the heck out of the way and let the private sector grow the jobs we desperately need.

If we don't blame Zero for the bailouts, even though he voted for them while he was still a senator, and he set up an office called Office of the President-Elect moments after the election, and he said he was ready to "hit the ground running" as soon as he was inaugurated....then he has to shoulder the blame for his subsequent screwups, such as the stimulus bill that wasn't. Keynesian economics hasn't worked so far, so maybe he should try something new, especially since he's almost tripled the debt in 3 short years (6 trillion when he took over, 14 trillion a few weeks ago, and who knows what now?).

[Logan]

Irishrainy, if it weren't for the bailouts we'd just have a different set of problems-maybe even worse. Did you know that the worst period for job creation since the great depression was from 2001 to 2007. Unemployment was good during this time but new jobs need to be created to keep up with the changing work environment and when the housing bubble stopped and people could no longer tap into their houses for cash the spending was cut and people were laid off. My company is doing the same thing they were 10 years ago with 30% less employees and those jobs will never return.
People in this country are saying they want less government yet they expect the government to create jobs. I find that a bit ironic.
Logan

[daylate]

I read an interesting article in Bloomberg Business Week yesterday that quoted a professor who said basically what I have thought all along-spending cuts are essentially as big a job killer as raising taxes. Either way there is less money being put in the hands of consumers. The only difference between is that in spending cuts, the people with less money are those who lose their job while raising taxes (especially if only on those with taxable incomes over 250k) means less savings for the rich. Now I know that people will say what about the guy making 300k with 4 kids to put through college? So the extra 3.5% tax will cost him about 2k more a year. Let the kids earn 500 a piece each year to offset it.

I agree with Logan-the alternative to letting the big banks fail (btw I think most of them have paid back all or at least most of what they borrowed) would have been financial Armageddon. Another way to look at it is to see how effective the bailouts have been in stimulating the economy(think sarcasm here) and think about how much worse it could have been.

I also agree that most lost jobs aren't coming back. Technology and the global economy have seen to that. Just read yesterday that Honda who (I believe) was the first Japanese company to build cars in the USA and has built several plants here is going to open a new factory -in Mexico. Also read that the UAW is gearing up to battle Ford, which didn't get the concessions from the union that GM and Chrysler did as part of the bailout. So Ford which is doing quite well thank you very much without the bailout is now going to have to fight off the union mentality that wants a return of cost of living raises and Xmas bonuses. So we now have a situation where unions still don't get it and are trying to reinstate things that helped cause overseas manufacturing in the first place and where Ford just awarded its CEO over 50 million in stock. WRF.

[tobee43]

Would you have commented on the picture if it was a man doing the biting?

of course I WOULD have...LOL!!! just a bit different comment though.

[banca rotta]

Would you have commented on the picture if it was a man doing the biting?

Oh you bet I would! I don't really identify them as men, woman, black, white. They are politicians and they are in a class by themselves. A much lower class then the rest of us.

[msm859]

Actually, when Zero uses the term "infrastructure" in his speeches, he is referring to union jobs, since they were the ones targeted for the government-subsidized jobs that the stimulus was supposed to produce. Government doesn't produce anything, let alone jobs, so they should get the heck out of the way and let the private sector grow the jobs we desperately need.

If we don't blame Zero for the bailouts, even though he voted for them while he was still a senator, and he set up an office called Office of the President-Elect moments after the election, and he said he was ready to "hit the ground running" as soon as he was inaugurated....then he has to shoulder the blame for his subsequent screwups, such as the stimulus bill that wasn't. Keynesian economics hasn't worked so far, so maybe he should try something new, especially since he's almost tripled the debt in 3 short years (6 trillion when he took over, 14 trillion a few weeks ago, and who knows what now?).

How do you know Keynesian economics hasn't worked? What would the economy have looked like today without them? -- probably a whole lot worse How many jobs were saved by bailing out GM and Chrysler? -- probably millions. How is the government in the way of the private sector "growing" jobs we need? They aren't. The private sector is not creating jobs (at least in this country) because there is no demand for their products or services because the real goose that laid the golden egg -- the strong and abundant middle class has been decimated by the last 30 years of Republican rule -- they have no money to spend. As to the debt when Bush took office we had a surplus which was expected to continue as far as we could see. Obama took over we had the largest economic meltdown since the great depression. The trajectory had been set by Bush. Obama did screw up by extending the Bush tax cuts and these unnecessary wars -- the biggest problem with Obama is he is virtually indistinguishable from a Republican -- at least from the 20th century when they were actually sane and cared about the country.

[banca rotta]

How do you know Keynesian economics hasn't worked? What would the economy have looked like today without them? -- probably a whole lot worse How many jobs were saved by bailing out GM and Chrysler? -- probably millions. How is the government in the way of the private sector "growing" jobs we need? They aren't. The private sector is not creating jobs (at least in this country) because there is no demand for their products or services because the real goose that laid the golden egg -- the strong and abundant middle class has been decimated by the last 30 years of Republican rule -- they have no money to spend. As to the debt when Bush took office we had a surplus which was expected to continue as far as we could see. Obama took over we had the largest economic meltdown since the great depression. The trajectory had been set by Bush. Obama did screw up by extending the Bush tax cuts and these unnecessary wars -- the biggest problem with Obama is he is virtually indistinguishable from a Republican -- at least from the 20th century when they were actually sane and cared about the country.

Agreed! The economy would by far be a lot worse for most with no government and Fed intervention.

I do feel however it would have been short lived. With true deflation those with little or no money would be able to afford to buy things since the free markets would automatically balance itself.

Most of us know the truth that most of the jobs that are being created are lower paying service sector jobs. Once these newly created min wage workers can afford to buy more things then we would hit the bottom and gradually head back up.

Instead the fed bought whatever assets the markets don't want to buy and Obama stimulated, so all they really did was provide some pain killer only it's now wearing off and the economy is contracting again.

Here's some info on the depression of 1920-1921 which was short lived due to the govt NOT getting involved as opposed to the 1930's and today.

http://www.thefreemanonline.org/featured/the-depression-youve-never-heard-of-1920-1921/

You be the judge.

[msm859]

Agreed! The economy would by far be a lot worse for most with no government and Fed intervention.

I do feel however it would have been short lived. With true deflation those with little or no money would be able to afford to buy things since the free markets would automatically balance itself.

Most of us know the truth that most of the jobs that are being created are lower paying service sector jobs. Once these newly created min wage workers can afford to buy more things then we would hit the bottom and gradually head back up.

Instead the fed bought whatever assets the markets don't want to buy and Obama stimulated, so all they really did was provide some pain killer only it's now wearing off and the economy is contracting again.

Here's some info on the depression of 1920-1921 which was short lived due to the govt NOT getting involved as opposed to the 1930's and today.

http://www.thefreemanonline.org/featured/the-depression-youve-never-heard-of-1920-1921/

You be the judge.

Interesting read. Would be worthy of a roundtable debate if we could have an intellectual discussion among those in charge -- not likely.

However, we should also be talking about a fundamental problem and that is the demise of the middle class. Greed has taken over this country. Look at the Verizon strike. Verizon made $6 Billion in profits last year, there top 5 executives were paid over $250 million in the last 4 years and the company wants to cut benefits for its workers (At least the remaining ones in the US that we were not able to send over seas) otherwise their profits might only be $5.7 billion!!! The disparity of income has been growing the last 30 + years. The top 400 families now have more wealth than the bottom 1/2 or 150 million people in this country. When will we have our own French Revolution - after they have more wealth than the lower 80%? 90% What is the number?

This needs to be turned around to have any long term sustainable growth.

[banca rotta]

Interesting read. Would be worthy of a roundtable debate if we could have an intellectual discussion among those in charge -- not likely.

However, we should also be talking about a fundamental problem and that is the demise of the middle class. Greed has taken over this country. Look at the Verizon strike. Verizon made $6 Billion in profits last year, there top 5 executives were paid over $250 million in the last 4 years and the company wants to cut benefits for its workers (At least the remaining ones in the US that we were not able to send over seas) otherwise their profits might only be $5.7 billion!!! The disparity of income has been growing the last 30 + years. The top 400 families now have more wealth than the bottom 1/2 or 150 million people in this country. When will we have our own French Revolution - after they have more wealth than the lower 80%? 90% What is the number?

This needs to be turned around to have any long term sustainable growth.

Again I agree! Part of this too at least recently goes back to the Keynesians. Just look at who profited the most with all of the bailouts and stimulas.


"An imbalance between rich and poor is the oldest and most fatal ailment of all republics."

-Plutarch

[banca rotta]

Lew Rockwell explains the failed keynesian policies here. He also went into when all these current problems started and it was under Nixon.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AWc_BNV1FMM&feature=player_embedded#at=60

[IamOld]

banca rotta, you know I hate to disagree with you - really - but what happened in 1920-21, was that the WWi was over, and the men from the military were "dumped" back into civilian society unlike after ww2, when the GI bill took millions of men, took them out of the job market, and sent them to college!

harding and the reps in 1920 cut taxes which created an asset bubble, pumped up the economy until it crashed famously in 1929.

[Irishrainy]

Irishrainy, if it weren't for the bailouts we'd just have a different set of problems-maybe even worse. Did you know that the worst period for job creation since the great depression was from 2001 to 2007. Unemployment was good during this time but new jobs need to be created to keep up with the changing work environment and when the housing bubble stopped and people could no longer tap into their houses for cash the spending was cut and people were laid off. My company is doing the same thing they were 10 years ago with 30% less employees and those jobs will never return.
People in this country are saying they want less government yet they expect the government to create jobs. I find that a bit ironic.
Logan

You've obviously drunk the Obama Kool-Aid and nothing I say or write will dissuade you. Your quotes are most likely from liberal web sites, and I'm sure I could find stats and graphs to support my conservative view. Although it seems like only yesterday that Obama said he was going to bring us all together, the reality is this country is more divided than ever.

It cracks me up to hear liberals claim "Sure it's bad now, but it could have been much worse if we didn't _______." How does anyone actually *know* that? And try using that argument with your boss when you oversleep and miss an important meeting: "You're lucky I even made it in at all. My friends wanted me to stay out until 4 a.m., but I went home at 2!" Sorry, it makes you look even more pathetic.

I can't remember liberals ever making those claims when Bush was in charge. His mistakes were immediately chalked up to greed, cronyism, or idiocy. But now that a liberal is in the White House, suddenly nothing is the president's fault. In fact, his supporters bend over backwards to make ridiculous excuses for his incompetence.

But it's all for naught. With a 39% approval rating, apparently Americans are waking up to the fact that they made a mistake in electing an inexperienced community organizer as POTUS. Hopefully, change is coming (again!) in 2012.

[Irishrainy]

How do you know Keynesian economics hasn't worked? What would the economy have looked like today without them? -- probably a whole lot worse How many jobs were saved by bailing out GM and Chrysler? -- probably millions. How is the government in the way of the private sector "growing" jobs we need? They aren't. The private sector is not creating jobs (at least in this country) because there is no demand for their products or services because the real goose that laid the golden egg -- the strong and abundant middle class has been decimated by the last 30 years of Republican rule -- they have no money to spend. As to the debt when Bush took office we had a surplus which was expected to continue as far as we could see. Obama took over we had the largest economic meltdown since the great depression. The trajectory had been set by Bush. Obama did screw up by extending the Bush tax cuts and these unnecessary wars -- the biggest problem with Obama is he is virtually indistinguishable from a Republican -- at least from the 20th century when they were actually sane and cared about the country.

Um, "30 years of Republican rule?" Seriously? Thirty years would be 1981 until 2011, starting with Reagan (8 years), Bush (4 years), Clinton (8 years), Bush (8 years), and Obama (almost 3 years), which equals Republicans with 20 years and Democrats with almost 11. During that time, we had a DEMOCRAT majority congress until 1994 (actually extending from the 1970s when Carter was president), then Republican until 2006, then back to Democrat until 2010, and now Republican in 2010, which equals 17 years of Democratic "rule" and 13 years with Republicans in charge. Since congress controls the purse strings, any "decimation of the middle class" has to be attributed to the Democrats.

And since government jobs are not innovative or entrepreneurial in nature, they produce nothing except bureaucrats....and lord knows we don't need more of them! Green jobs could qualify as govt. jobs I suppose, since they are heavily govt. subsidized in order to survive, but their success rate is pretty dismal currently and we need jobs *now.*

Small businesses employ 70% of Americans vs. the govt. with 8%, so they have had much more success creating jobs. They have been reluctant to hire recently because the banks, which are sitting on billions of dollars, aren't giving out loans to Main Street. Maybe Obama could convince his Wall St. and financial industry pals to stop being so greedy....or don't the liberals care about the "little people" who are suffering? Small businesses are also scared of the changes that Obamacare will bring to their bottom line so they're biding their time as far as hiring until 2014. IMO, the bailout and Obamacare are 2 examples of govt. getting in the way of job creation in this country.

[daylate]

Irishainy- So your Kool-Aid is different than Logan's. Big deal. That is the big problem. Too many people have become addicted to their brand of Kool Aid to even consider tasting the other brand. The correct answer isn't yours or Logan's. The answer is a compromise position. Lower spending but not arbitrarily and not just that which destroys the life of lower income people; higher taxes on those that can afford it; a gradual reduction to entitlement programs but with an elimination of those for some based on a means test., etc. Hard for Obama (who I believe is well intentioned but fairly ineffective as a leader) to bring the nation together when those on your brand of Kool-Aid automatically reject everything he says or suggests.