Romney: 'Corporations Are People'

[IamOld]

Irish - the Dems held Congress was mostly split under Reagan, and Bush the Elder, and mostly Rep under Clinton (from 1994-2007) http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0774721.html


Regarding job creation - worst was 2001-2002 and 2008-2009

http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES00..._view=net_1mth

The problem is that CLinton was NOT a traditional Dem - he believed in "free trade" as much as the Reps do, and thus NAFTA, etc., exported our jobs overseas. That is the bottom line...bottom of the problem.

Government is a MAJOR economic driver - unfortunately more and more of that investment is in the "military-industrial complex" and not other sectors. For example - the fed gov't is 20% of consumption - you take that out of the economy and it falters. In addition - new drugs - NIH and university research funded by fed gov't NOT drug co's; internet - fed govt (DARPA) and significant explicit and implicit subsidies through the 90's.

The other problem we as a society have is a revenue problem - please anyone explain to my while billionaires and corporations should not pay tax. The US has the lowest effective corporate tax rate on the planet, with 2/3 of the Fortune 500 NOT paying a dime in fed income taxes.

Fact - when the economy was booming - more or less post WW2 through first Reagan recession (and the following first "jobless" recovery), fed income taxes on the VERY RICH, had a marginal tax rate of 91% (under Eisenhower) to about 60% under Carter. Yet the economy was working very nicely thank you.

Until 1980, the US was a NET creditor nation to the world, with a relatively small deficit; the US was also a NET exporter. That has changed permanently during the 80's...

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.

[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.

Kind of funny since it was Bush who passed tarp and McCain suspended his presidential campaign to get it passed. I guess they're liberals?

[Logan]

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.

What did I say that was so liberal? That without the bailouts we'd have a different set of problems? That people want the government to fix the job problem? Perry is running on the fact that Texas has jobs. That he-the government-can fix it.
Bottom line, we need to raise taxes and cut spending!!!
Logan

[msm859]

Um, "30 years of Republican rule?" Seriously? Yes, Reagan was the first one to brew up some kool-aid called supply side economics- you know trickle down theory -lower taxes and the rich will sprinkle the middle class with benefitsThirty 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 11Except pretty much the only truly "Democratic" idea that has gone through was when Clinton and the Democrats raised taxes in 1993 which helped give the Republicans their land slide in 1994. 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. The middle class was returning to life under Clinton - remember those years balanced budget, strong growth - ALL squandered away by the Republicans with the Bush tax cuts and these unnecessary wars

And since government jobs are not innovative or entrepreneurial in nature, they produce nothing except bureaucratsNASA?....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 StreetNO, they are reluctant to hire because there is NO one with money to buy the goods or services they are selling - because the middle class has been decimated, unemployment is high, most of the income gains in the last 30 years have gone to the top few, . Maybe Obama could convince his Wall St. and financial industry pals to stop being so greedyNo, he can't-that is why he should have let all of the Bush tax cuts expire....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 2014Again NO, they are not hiring today because of DEMAND. If you had a small business - say a home builder and you had lines out your door with people wanting to sign contracts to have you build houses are you going to turn them down because you currently don't have enough employees and you are worried about hiring more because of potential health care costs in 2014 - NO.. IMO, the bailout and Obamacare are 2 examples of govt. getting in the way of job creation in this country.

How did the bailout get in the way of job creation? A substantial portion of it was tax cuts. Helping out the auto industry? Probably saved over a million jobs. Grants to the states to retain teachers, firefighters and police? Give me the critical analysis that leads to your opinion that either the bailout or "Obamacare" - a dusted off Republican plan, got in the way of job creation

[daylate]

IMHO, there is little that either party can do to create jobs. It is a market force that cannot be solved by just the USA. With the global economy, technology,outsourcing,the focus on quarterly financial results,too many houses, too many stores, too many of just about every service product and service,and probably too many people, WRF. Cut taxes and lower revenue will not bring about new jobs, nor will spending cuts which will negatively impact just about every aspect of the economy. While no new taxes is a great sound bite it is not practical. Even Warren Buffet says it is so. Interest rates are as low as they can be and have not resulted in more jobs.And for that matter, from an historical perspective, taxes are relatively low. I worry about the world we are leaving to my grandkids and others of their and future generations.

[msm859]

IMHO, there is little that either party can do to create jobs. It is a market force that cannot be solved by just the USA. With the global economy, technology,outsourcing,the focus on quarterly financial results,too many houses, too many stores, too many of just about every service product and service,and probably too many people, WRF. Cut taxes and lower revenue will not bring about new jobs, nor will spending cuts which will negatively impact just about every aspect of the economy. While no new taxes is a great sound bite it is not practical. Even Warren Buffet says it is so. Interest rates are as low as they can be and have not resulted in more jobs.And for that matter, from an historical perspective, taxes are relatively low. I worry about the world we are leaving to my grandkids and others of their and future generations.

Me too. My parents had 7 kids, easily 6 out of 7 of us did better then our parents. My parents have 18 grandkids, don't know if any of them will do better than their parents. The goose that laid the golden eggs for the U.S. from 1950-2000 was the increasingly educated and strong middle class. We peaked in 2000. We were the only military super power and we were the economic super power. We are no longer the economic super power and our military has become an albatross around our neck. Unless we reverse the concentration of wealth in the few our fate is set as were all of the empires before us.

[IamOld]

But you see my friend, this is what the banksters and the economic and political elite want us to do - to give up!

The US CAN survive on its own volition if it reinstates the tariffs that existed from the 1790's through Reagan, the tax rates that existed during the boom times of the 50's 60's and yes (compared to today) the 70's.

Let us NOT let THEM tell us there's nothing to be done!!

IMHO, there is little that either party can do to create jobs. It is a market force that cannot be solved by just the USA. With the global economy, technology,outsourcing,the focus on quarterly financial results,too many houses, too many stores, too many of just about every service product and service,and probably too many people, WRF. Cut taxes and lower revenue will not bring about new jobs, nor will spending cuts which will negatively impact just about every aspect of the economy. While no new taxes is a great sound bite it is not practical. Even Warren Buffet says it is so. Interest rates are as low as they can be and have not resulted in more jobs.And for that matter, from an historical perspective, taxes are relatively low. I worry about the world we are leaving to my grandkids and others of their and future generations.

[banca rotta]

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

Here's Rick Perry just to keep these books in balance.




What is it with these republicans??? Is this a subliminal message to China on how we will pay off our debts if they get elected???

Which candidate is next I wonder?

[daylate]

Actually I think it is a self imposed action to keep themselves from uttering stupid quotes"

Bachman wished Elvis Happy Birthday on the anniversary of his death

Perry suggested that Texans would treat Bernake roughly and called him carrying out his duties treacherous, oh wait treasonous-not to mention that a few weeks ago he referred to Twitter as Tweeter

Where have you gone George W Bush a party turns its lonely eyes to you (his malopropisms are in danger of being replaced as a source for late night talk show hosts)

[tobee43]

Here's Rick Perry just to keep these books in balance.




What is it with these republicans??? Is this a subliminal message to China on how we will pay off our debts if they get elected???

Which candidate is next I wonder?

seriously, you're so funny. nice you are giving equal time slots on the swallows for life photo shots!