You are viewing this article in the archives. For the latest breaking news and updates in Ann Arbor and the surrounding area, see
Posted on Sun, Nov 27, 2011 : 9:47 a.m.

Job-killing Republicans only care about defeating President Obama

By Letters to the Editor

Why are Republicans working so hard to cut jobs and limit demand in our fragile economy?

Republicans complain that high taxes, threats of high taxes and regulations are killing the job-making enthusiasm of employers. But when business people are asked why they're not hiring, they insist that "limited demand" is their real problem.

Are Republicans doing anything to increase demand? Unfortunately, no. When they took over governorships or state legislatures, they promptly passed legislation that cut employment, reduced workers' salaries and pensions. Then they reduced the time laid-off workers could collect unemployment insurance. More people have less money to spend.

In Congress, Republicans insist that the federal government stay out of the job-creating business. No stimulus money for road repairs, hospitals, schools or new forms of energy, Just cut taxes and eliminate "job killing" regulations and the economy will be working again.

Republicans are certainly bright enough to know that state and federal funds do get people working and earning money. When people have money they spend it, increasing demand; employers hire more people; the economy moves in the right direction. But you wouldn't know it from their debate rhetoric and now their ads.

Just this week it was reported that more than 100,000 jobs were added in the private sector. Good, but not great. However, spearheaded by Republicans, 30,000 government jobs were lost during the same time. We can't afford this "job-killing" in the name of "deficit reduction." (Locally, government jobs have been cut by at least 20 percent over the past few years.)

So why are Republicans fighting to cut government employment? Doesn't this make them job-killers?

I know the Republicans promised to make Barack Obama a one-term president, but if that means the American economy and Americans of all ages, races, and levels of education are made to suffer as Republicans work to fulfill their promise, well that's too big a price to pay.

Beverly B. Chethik
Ann Arbor



Tue, Nov 29, 2011 : 12:44 a.m.

You take a government employee and put him behind a desk, he is a leech, the scum of the earth, a do-nothing know-nothing who is like an anchor on the economy. You take a government employee and put him behind the wheel of a Hum-Vee and he is a hero who can do no wrong. Which is it, Republicans?


Tue, Nov 29, 2011 : 4:51 a.m.

Can't remember all the details, will do more research, But you take a government employee, have him in union leadership. He actually works in the job he was hired onto for a couple of days before he retires with a pension that pays him over a couple hundred thousand a year (Chicago Water and Sewer or Transit - can't remember). You take a political appointee in an agency, sitting in that command structure as a government employee, knowingly setting policy outside the bounds of their authority to match his parties agenda. Then your guy in a MRAP, except he's a department of state civilian on a provisional reconstruction team in Afghanistan. Sure the right takes hits for the stereotype you imply. But when you have at least eight different federal programs to feed the hungry, you sometimes have to go for the whole herd until you cull out the defects. And while the left seems to set themselves up for it. Obama DOUBLES the budget of DoE in his first (and only) budget. Orders a crash program to fund what is rapidly turning out to be a misled, poorly administered program with potential legal entanglements and the taxpayer is to not place blame on the government and those who work there?


Mon, Nov 28, 2011 : 7:02 p.m.

A way off base article. Frankly I am surprised that AA.Com printed this headline. What the author does not understand is that bailouts do not create jobs. They sustain them until the money runs out, but that does not create jobs. It adds to debt which requires much hirer taxes, which the public just will not approve in many places.


Mon, Nov 28, 2011 : 4:38 p.m.

Shoot...I forgot to add my sources: <a href="" rel='nofollow'></a> <a href="" rel='nofollow'></a> <a href="" rel='nofollow'></a> Sorry...I guess its rubbing off on me :)


Mon, Nov 28, 2011 : 4:34 p.m.

I appreciate the courage it takes to write an opinion piece. However, I am tired of reading ill-informed, sensationalistic pieces that do nothing but charge, inflame and segregate readers. This does nothing but perpetuate the disregard for individuals, and deviates the true issue at hand: Our economy sucks, and No One has a solution...period. I would recommend for to consider reviewing pieces before publishing them. Ms. Chetnik uses no sources to back up her figured statements. Even if she provided sources that could be considered biased, it at least shows that research and thought were given before presenting it to the masses. It is fair to ask were her figures came from when she states, &quot;20% of local government jobs were lost.&quot; A quick search shows that the local government job (Michigan) loss between 2000 and 2009 was 7.7% compared to 50.1% job loss in manufacturing, and 44% job loss in construction. (Fig. 7, Scorsone, Zin, 2010). If her figure regarding 20% loss is correct, was it taken into consideration that Michigan has lost population (-.6% compared to +9.7% nationally ) and that Michigan relies on income and property takes for revenue? In 2011, measured that, &quot;1 out of 282 homes received foreclosure filing in Michigan.&quot; And that &quot;Over 800,000 jobs were lost in Michigan during the last decade&quot; (Scorsone, Zin, 2010). I understand that this piece is based on knarly finger pointing from one party to the other, and vice versa and my figures are only based on Michigan's position in relation to our crummy economy, but isn't time to stop playing in the political mud, and all of us brainstorm ideas to make things better? Isn't it the responsibility of to offer us something more than just an inflamed piece with nothing to form an opinion on other than, &quot;I agree or disagree with this piece?&quot;


Mon, Nov 28, 2011 : 8:26 p.m.

Ghost, It may be time to consider sending a few in. We need something with substance. I suspect your pieces may draw the &quot;usual&quot; comments, but at least you have the conscience and integrity to follow through with research and defending the opinion. I also suspect that a piece written on either the topic of economics or politics may draw a useful debate....possibly a petri dish for actual ideas? (Sorry I hope it doesn't sound like I am comparing your writing or opinion to a petri dish in a negative way...I'm thinking stem cell research :)). Anyways, I hope you consider it! Louhi

Edward R Murrow's Ghost

Mon, Nov 28, 2011 : 7:22 p.m.

Thanks for the kind words, louhi. Much appreciated! :-) When it was in print, the Ann Arbor News frequently had very thoughtful letter writers. I agree that the quality of the letters it publishes has dropped substantially. My guess is that this is because it is much easier and much quicker to &quot;publish&quot; one's thoughts in these discussions than it is to actually send in a letter. In this I am case-in-point: had numerous letter published in the paper but have not bothered sending one in since the electronic format came about. Thanks, again, for the kind words!! GN&amp;GL


Mon, Nov 28, 2011 : 7:04 p.m.

Ghost, I have always enjoyed reading your responses to articles on, even if I don't totally agree with your position. Always thoughtful :) You are absolutely right with the &quot;conundrum.&quot; It is very difficult to find the balance between effectivley providing services to citizens and funding them. My point was that it doesn't take much to find research to back up points for an opinion piece. You always manage to find research to back your position, why can't require this for opinion pieces? It's so frustrating! I'm not interested in debating what party is at fault, because I blame all of them :). I do feel that most people want the same thing, and that is a stable economy, and a government that serves us effectively. Through the years of reading comments, I sense that most of the individuals that do so may have good and some bad ideas. But they have ideas. My wish would be that the masses come together to devlop ideas and possibly plans that may offer something....instead of mud slinging and fingerpointing. Thanks for your always, well thought out Louhi

Edward R Murrow's Ghost

Mon, Nov 28, 2011 : 6:25 p.m.

Presuming your figures to be correct, does population loss mean that there must be parallel loss in government jobs? Detroit is case in point. It has several hundred thousand fewer residents than it did in the 1950s, yet it still sits on the same piece of land. It's citizenry and businesses are dispersed over the entire area. They all still require police and fire protection, garbage pickup, street and utility repair, bus service, etc. Yes, fewer students ought mean fewer teachers, and that is happening but, in other areas, fewer people does not necessarily mean fewer gov't employees. This is why Mayor Bing is trying (without much luck) to get people to move out of sparsely populated areas and into more densely populated ones. So be careful with you logic. It ain't necessarily so. But here's the kicker: if Detroit (to continue to use it as an example) wishes to attract people and businesses back to the city, it will not do so by further reducing police and fire protection, etc.... And therein lies the conundrum. Good Night and Good Luck


Mon, Nov 28, 2011 : 4:13 p.m.

Not my words. A quote from Pete D. Was this UAW needed once upon a time in America? Certainly, but that was long ago. In subsequent years the UAW became the purveyors of calculated entitlement, and this famously corrosive mentality has spread throughout local governments, to subsidiary industries supplying the auto companies, to the educational system, to basically every facet of life in this town and this region and this state, and it has absolutely devastated everything it has come in contact with.


Tue, Nov 29, 2011 : 12:08 a.m.

Especially with the current far right worship of birthright wealth, the UAW and unions like it are all that stands between the 99.9% and a brainless stroll back to feudalism.


Mon, Nov 28, 2011 : 3:07 p.m.

Per MSNBC news today, The first session of the 112th Congress has only a few legislative days before it adjourns sine die, and it will likely claim the prize as the least productive session in 60 years (when Congress started enumerating public laws). Congress has not made up for its lack of quantity with quality: of the 57 public laws Congress has enacted so far this year, 34 merely extended expiring laws (such as continuing appropriations or expiring tax or highway statutes).

Dog Guy

Mon, Nov 28, 2011 : 2:25 p.m.

Ann Arbor says, &quot;We won and Ohio State lost.&quot; I, however, was not playing and did not win. Belonging to neither the stupid party nor the evil party, I am most concerned about the traffic jam football makes in Ann Arbor and the current national economic jam increased by partisanship. Media, money, political parties, and popular entertainers are manufacturing a great big tailgate party known as anarchy. When the president from either party seizes dictatorial power, we will all be slaves and not allowed any dissenting opinions. Such an enforced civil peace might be an improvement over 100 comments of puerile partisan bickering. Unfortunately, my government checks then will be essentially worthless.


Mon, Nov 28, 2011 : 2:19 p.m.

I fail to understand how you would pay those government workers who lost their jobs. In many cases, such as police and fire, I don't like it at all, but everyone has to make sacrifices for art. That was something of a cheap shot but it does demonstrate some of the waste that goes on in government. The fact is that there is no money to pay these people or provide their benefits and that is the bottom line. Are you aware that the Senate has not presented a budget in three years? The Ryan plan, like it or not, was at least set out there for discussion. Simpson-Bowles, you know the committee appointed by Mr. Obama, came up with a consensus plan, and Mr. Obama rejected it. He had a chance to do something and he choked and now we're still in a mess and it's getting worse. A pox on both parties.

Peter Jameson

Mon, Nov 28, 2011 : 7:16 a.m.

unfortunately money doesnt grow on trees. it takes businesses to grow the money supply. the government is only there because businesses fund it.

the thing is...

Mon, Nov 28, 2011 : 4:49 p.m.

And it takes demand (customers) to grow a business.


Mon, Nov 28, 2011 : 2:28 p.m.

I thought citizens fund their government. My bad.


Mon, Nov 28, 2011 : 4:59 a.m.

Here's a list of the President's accomplishments, while many of you sit back and support the Do Nothing Republican Congress and the Bush Wars, started under false pretenses, responsible for $4-5 trillion of the national debt and counting and thousands of American lives: <a href="" rel='nofollow'></a>


Tue, Nov 29, 2011 : 4:13 a.m.

Interesting link. List compiled by 100 &quot;volunteers&quot; not further identified and combined with a list provided by Milt Shook a liberal novelist and commentator (prefers to be called a progressive - uses liberal as a derogatory term for those not considered progressive enough). Milt's list of notable accomplishments included the &quot;ordering the closure of Gitmo&quot;. Now in all fairness, this accomplishment disappeared when combined with the volunteer list. But the volunteers did manage to add another accomplishment, this was the &quot;ordering the removal of fast food establishments at Afghan bases. Funny, I was just there in July, and the pizza and burgers I purchased on the &quot;boardwalk&quot; at Kandahar air base were great. For an objective analysis, use the &quot;Obameter&quot; on Politifact: <a href="" rel='nofollow'></a>


Mon, Nov 28, 2011 : 4:44 a.m.

So, if the people speak and vote Obama out of office in 2012, what will all of you Democrats say then? Oh, that's right, the rest of the American people are just not as smart and enlightened as you are.

Stuart Brown

Mon, Nov 28, 2011 : 3:01 a.m.

A lot of misinformed people are claiming that government services do not add value; hogwash! Here is one example of how far off the mark these wing-nuts are: the Ryan plan to &quot;privatize&quot; (privatize profit, socialize cost) Medicare/Medicaid will add something like $1.5 trillion to the cost of US healthcare over the next decade (according to the CBO) if passed. The existence of the current form of Medicare/Medicaid does a tremendous job of putting downward pressure on healthcare costs; increased costs consumers of healthcare will be subject to if the Ryan plan ever succeeds. The current crop of Republican clowns is intended to make Obama look good by comparison; I expect the O'bummer to be re-elected in a close election. The only thing the Republicans are good at is making blame-the-victim arguments.


Mon, Nov 28, 2011 : 2:55 a.m.

Beverly, I agree completely. Senator Mitch McConnell came right and said, shortly after President Obama was elected, that his number one priority is to see that President Obama is a one-term President. And it seems that most Republicans have that as their number one priority - not the good of the country, but the failure of President Obama. Republicans 2012: Keeping millions out of work to put one man out of a job. <a href="" rel='nofollow'></a>


Mon, Nov 28, 2011 : 2:35 a.m.

Now let's hear the Republican opinion. Hmmmm, Ann Arbor News.


Mon, Nov 28, 2011 : 4:36 a.m.

Nicole, scroll back to 11/13 for an opposing editorial. You'll see some of the same commenters walking their dogma there as well.


Mon, Nov 28, 2011 : 2:16 a.m.

So Lord Obama is the answer to our economic prayers. What is his business or economic background? How about his legal background? He taught law school? How many contributions did he make to ANY law review? (the answer is zero). He was a &quot;community organizer&quot;. He helped non producing people collect welfare and other government handouts. What else has he done other than make everyone feel all warm and fuzzy about &quot;Hope&quot; and &quot;Change&quot;? He had his chance. It was called &quot;the stimulas&quot;. The jobs created were minimal at best. Is it any wonder the Republicans won the local elections in 2010?


Sun, Nov 27, 2011 : 11:49 p.m.

First off, I am a Democrat. I also run my own business and have obtained 25% to 30% percent growth per year over the last six years straight. I make more money. I pay more taxes. It's not rocket science. What I believe has happened is that a lot of business owners realized it's easier to run tighter businesses hiring less people doing whatever work and the end result is higher profits in a lot of cases. This is another reason there is little job growth. It is something that came out of this downturn. Just like people are not going to overspend on housing anymore. So, republican or democrat, I am making money hand over fist and you can too. :)


Mon, Nov 28, 2011 : 2:18 a.m.

Wow, a member of the 1%. Do not let the OWS find out where you live. Thjey will leave Liberty Square and camp in your front yard.


Mon, Nov 28, 2011 : 12:38 a.m.

Tesla, Excellent. Please share more of your insights with your democratic brethren - if they will listen without calling you a DINO or worse.


Sun, Nov 27, 2011 : 11:50 p.m.

Edit to add: While you all argue about something you can not change.


Sun, Nov 27, 2011 : 11:26 p.m.

Beverly, The Democrats are ones stopping Boeing from creating jobs. No mention of the Keystone pipeline either, Obama himself stopping that. The recent example of Solyndra not considered worthy of a passing thought? No mention of the Democratic controlled Senate not bothering with a budget for years. Yet you only blame Republicans. It is your(and others) level of delusion that I find disappointing.

Hot Sam

Tue, Nov 29, 2011 : 11:35 a.m.

Going &quot;overseas&quot; to South Carolina is definitely taking the long way...


Tue, Nov 29, 2011 : 1:09 a.m.

Jay79, Boeing is attempting to punish the union for fighting for fair wages by moving production to a ridiculously named &quot;right to work&quot; state. The fact that the NLRB is enforcing the law in a small miracle in these times of Faux Noise stoked union bashing. I'm sure a republicon executive branch would have made certain that ownership prevailed and the workers of Boeing were screwed.


Mon, Nov 28, 2011 : 4:01 a.m.

Ray, Boeing is trying to send jobs to South Carolina, the Democrats that control the NLRB are stopping them. If prevented from building there, ya maybe overseas. As for the Keystone pipeline, your wisdom assures us that their is no scenario or benefit for anyone but the Chinese and the wealthy. I am not so sure. Solyndra's solar panels &quot;critical&quot; new technology? Solar panels are a necessary investment? What is your prediction for solar panels? The problems with the Senate are the Republicans filibustering? Come on. Last November's election was the people sending Republicans to say NO to the direction the Democrats were taking U.S.


Mon, Nov 28, 2011 : 2:30 a.m.

Your perception of delusion has obviously been heavily warped by Faux News. Boeing's unpatriotic and greedy owners are the ones sending jobs overseas. The Keystone pipeline would only be good for the Chinese in the short term, no one else except a very few wealthy refinery and pipeline owners. Solyndra was the government supporting the development of a critical new technology by underwriting the risk of new technology development. New technology is always a risky proposition and the public's portion of the cost of Solyndra's failure was a necessary investment. The Chinese wouldn't have batted an eye at this kind of loss. Of course the oil industry beholden republicon party sees otherwise. Unfortunately Democratic control of the senate has not been filibuster proof from the republicon party of NO. Yes I blame the republicons, their super wealthy constituency, and their Rupert Murdoch mouthpieces.


Sun, Nov 27, 2011 : 11:25 p.m.

Good lord the socialist mentality will never get it. Darn tootin the Republican governors eliminated waste and duplication and the associated jobs no longer needed. You bet they cut the Cadillac bennies and associated salaries. They should be hailed for bringing the beginning of dismantling bloated governments. Just look at Italy, Spain, and Greece and just perhaps you will begin to understand how they are saving us from disaster.


Tue, Nov 29, 2011 : 6:07 p.m.

Ray, I am simply stating facts as I understand them. I am not assessing their political correctness. Anybody can be a parasite - it is a socioeconomic phenomenon that government frequently encourages. People who are disconnected from the society at large tend to be more susceptible to it, regardless of ethnicity. Thus, it can apply to both rural whites in the U.S. or immigrants in urban ghettoes in Europe, as well as a thousand other groups that I'm not going to itemize. I am not a &quot;republicon&quot; either. You are perpetuating the worst stereotypes of the left by reacting with accusations of racism whenever faced with an opinion different from your own.


Tue, Nov 29, 2011 : 3 a.m.

Ray, China is a very bad example. The 1% is the party apparatus and the military in the truest possible sense of a real definition of what OWS thinks they are against (at least in the last 20 minutes or so). Seeing the collapse next door in the USSR, and realizing the lack of their own progress, this &quot;1%&quot; launched into a hybrid of party dominated capitalism without the protection for workers (wages and safety), the environment, trade restrictions, and piracy. Too many administrations have let them get away with it, at first in the hope that the capitalist exposure would reduce the party influence and later, while still holding on to that hope, encouraging corporations in search of new and larger markets to join this hybrid. They are &quot;eating our lunch&quot; because they don't play by the rules, thus gaining an unfair advantage. The really sad part - we owe them a bunch of money.


Tue, Nov 29, 2011 : 12:14 a.m.

dirg77, Are you saying that only caucasion populations avoid parasitic lives? I think you are perpetuating the racist label associated with republicons. You'd also be very wrong. Rural white populations have a large percentage of what you so arrogantly and wrongly call &quot;parasites&quot;. I mention China because it is a blend of government intervention, and the free market. This combination, despite republicon self serving propoganda to the contrary, is highly successful.


Mon, Nov 28, 2011 : 6:28 p.m.

Sweden, Finland and Norway do have high individual taxes and extensive social welfare programs. However, their business environment is generally free market and corporate taxes are in some cases lower than in the U.S. All three of those countries also have small, highly homogenous populations who share ethnic and cultural bonds going back at least a thousand years (and they have heavy restrictions on immigration). They share a common work ethic, and most of the social welfare actually flows back to the original taxpayers (i.e., there are fewer &quot;parasites&quot; who are simply living off the system). I know Sweden has actually been moving gradually away from government control to keep its economy vibrant - I'm not sure about the other countries. Introduce the kind of diversity and constant influx of new peoples that we have in the U.S. and you would likely see those countries struggle to maintain their current systems. Oh yeah, and those countries have avoided wars since World War II and don't maintain worldwide empires. While the wars of the past decade tend to get blamed entirely on Bush/Cheney, there was bipartisan support in all cases and Obama has done nothing to reduce our military footprint on the world, he has merely shuffled some thing s around. And to mention China is ridiculous. China's hard-line communist centrally planned economy kept them impoverished for generations. It wasn't until they opened up to the west and adopted market reforms that their economy began to flourish. If central planning itself led to strong economies, Zimbabwe and North Korea would own the world.


Mon, Nov 28, 2011 : 2:20 a.m.

Strange you don't mention Sweden, Finland or Norway? And why not the largest centrally planned economy on the planet, China? The standard of living in the first three exceeds ours and the Chinese are eating our lunch in the global marketplace. The greed of the people in power, the richest 0.1% is to blame for our economic mess.


Sun, Nov 27, 2011 : 11:13 p.m.

I agree with the article. The producers ( Democrats ) have been invaded by malignant tumors (Republicans). Any sign of a middle class and the cancer attacks. Obama's stimulus was just the chemo to try to keep hard working America alive. The tumors won't be happy until all the middle class is gone.


Sun, Nov 27, 2011 : 10:08 p.m.

Obama's stimulus money went to teachers and local government employees. It did not stimulate the production of goods and services that add value to the economy. It was merely a cynical ploy to transfer money from producers (republicans) to parasites (democrats).

LA Wines

Sun, Nov 27, 2011 : 9:59 p.m.

I am a former A2er who now lives in FL in the middle of high unemployment, high rate of foreclosures, an economy that shows no signs of recovery and fear about the impact of Obamacare on Medicare. The vote for Obama was high here based on &quot;HOPE&quot; and &quot;CHANGE&quot;. Now, the hope is gone because there was no change and it is likely he will not carry FL and its 29 electoral college votes. He has spent so much money on useless projects, increased the number of government employees, failed to provide transparency in government and has yet to accept the blame for what is happening. He and the democrats have had several years to show us what should be done and they didn't do it. So why blame the only the Republican in congress? The Democrats need to shoulder their part of the blame. In addition, government doesn't create private sector jobs, businesses do, so that is where the help should be concentrated. theLAW76


Sun, Nov 27, 2011 : 8:55 p.m.

Beverly, Keep in mind the Republican Party is the party of &quot;Wall Street&quot; and &quot;Whacko's&quot;. The primary objective of the Republican party is to serve the 1% richest elite in America. They believe in a class system of owners and workers and want to keep it this way. Once you understand this, you will have no problem understanding why they strive very hard to press outrageous policies that cut taxes for the wealthy and promote incentives and subsidies for corporate America. You will also not be surprised when they attack the middle and lower classes in America to prevent them from rising the ladder of prosperity. Republicans understand that without access to good jobs, affordable education, health care and a secure retirement, American workers will remain desperate and exploitable. Who else would work for $6/hr flipping burgers all day? With wealth and security, Americans would exert political power and demand fairness and change to the status quo, which is what &quot;Wall Street&quot; fears the most. As far as the &quot;whacko&quot; element of the party, well let's just say they would like to transform American into Christian Theocracy. Nuff said. The &quot;Wall Streeters&quot; are more than happy to tolerate the &quot;whacko's&quot; if it helps them maintain power.


Sun, Nov 27, 2011 : 10:45 p.m.

You should read articles that are not democratic talking points. Obama is a big reciever of Wall Street $.<a href="" rel='nofollow'></a> The party of the working man is represented by millionares, John Kerry, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid. Republicans believe in the constitution which says in the first admendment, &quot; &quot;Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ....&quot;, In 2001 Obama said&quot; The Warren court, he said, failed to &quot;break free from the essential constraints&quot; in the U.S. Constitution and launch a major redistribution of wealth. Read more: Obama rips U.S. Constitution <a href="" rel='nofollow'></a> So who has the radical beliefs?


Sun, Nov 27, 2011 : 7:31 p.m.

The odd thing is that many people seem to think that if someone is a public employee that paying them is throwing money away, but forget that they are paying them for a service. Less public employees equals less services, private employees doing public work equals less pay for worker and more pay for administrators but no less cost to the public.


Tue, Nov 29, 2011 : 2:45 p.m.

All about the kicker Ghost, and the right half. We can agree to disagree on the halves.

Edward R Murrow's Ghost

Tue, Nov 29, 2011 : 1:25 p.m.

I guess I expect more out of my politicians and out of political commentators than you. But if one accepts that political commentators traffic in half-truths, one wonders why anyone who believes this to be true would use a political commentator to buttress their argument. GN&amp;GL


Tue, Nov 29, 2011 : 2:26 a.m.

Ghost, an honorable creed. One would also hope that they mentioned that politics, and especially political commentary, are all half truths. The kicker is picking the right half. I see Ray got around to reading it, hope the blood pressure meds work. USA 1979-1982.

Edward R Murrow's Ghost

Mon, Nov 28, 2011 : 9:43 p.m.

arbor: &quot;You are entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts.&quot; --Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan But if you're comfortable with Krauthammer's twisting of facts and the convenient omission of others, well, so be it. My undergraduate institution, the United States Military Academy, called that what Krauthammer did in that column a &quot;half-truth&quot;, and a cadet suspected of a half-truth was just as subject to the sanctions of the Cadet Honor Code as someone who told a full-blown whopper. GN&amp;GL


Mon, Nov 28, 2011 : 8:58 p.m.

ghost, one person's contortion is another's massage chair. ;-) Ray mentioned the spin de jour re: Norquist in this thread also.

Edward R Murrow's Ghost

Mon, Nov 28, 2011 : 7:52 p.m.

Still on that Krauthammer piece that contorts the facts beyond recognition, arbor? GN&amp;GL


Mon, Nov 28, 2011 : 2:49 a.m.

Ray, anyone can submit a bill regardless of the prognosis of passage or a filibuster. If the democrats truly wanted to demonstrate that the republicans were the party of &quot;no&quot;, what better way to do so by submitting a bill? What you have is the dems not even trying (pitiful), and worse, playing the &quot;fast and loose&quot; because they know what they would submit would expose just how out of touch they are with the American public (shades of 2010 all over again). Also, check out this post, and get back to us on the Norquist soul train thing: <a href="" rel='nofollow'></a>


Mon, Nov 28, 2011 : 2:40 a.m.

Arborcomment, You are playing fast and loose with the facts. Bills don't get submitted when there is a certainty that they will be fillibustered. They get held onto until there is some hope of passing. The party of NO has pledged its soul to the far right by placing their names in Grover Norquist's book. As they have said publicly, they don't care what happens to this country so long as their 0.1% constituency continues to receive their transfer of wealth from the shrinking middle class and the poor. They only want to place their own puppet in the White House so the super rich will have to spend less on buying each and every theft from the American people.


Mon, Nov 28, 2011 : 2:07 a.m.

Rob, in order to have a filibuster, there has to be a bill submitted to filibuster. Since the senate democratic leadership refuses to even offer a bill (see 973 plus days without a senate budget submission), you can't filibuster something that doesn't exist.


Sun, Nov 27, 2011 : 8:33 p.m.

How about being held hostage by a tea party, party of NO, party refusing to compromise, party filibustering more than any in the history of the US?


Sun, Nov 27, 2011 : 8:29 p.m.

The services cost 4 times as much as they would if I asked a private sector employee to provide and I would not be held hostage bya public union.


Sun, Nov 27, 2011 : 7:35 p.m.

No, people have said that paying a public worker doesn't create jobs. You have it confused, most republicans will deny the need for some public workers, but when 1 in 3 employees in this country is on the government's dime, you have to ask, who's paying them?


Sun, Nov 27, 2011 : 7:09 p.m.

No party whose orthodoxy now includes : -climate change denial, -lifting environmental safeguards on industry ( esp in the wake of events like the Gulf oil spill) -demonization of the gay relatives even they have ( right newt??) -promotion of extinction through overpopulation and gutting of family planning even when it stops well short of the abortion issue) -and a general contempt for evidence -based science that doesnt jibe with their mandatory , non-evidence based faith can possibly come up with any sensible sustainable answers on jobs or anything else ( and if by some quirk an idea of theirs worked ,it'd be pure coincidence, sort of like the proverbial / apocryphal 10;000 monkeys with 10,00 typewriters eventually producing a Shakespeare play in 10,000 years. Romney had a chance to remake that Republican image, but he caved and ran away from his own decent gubernatorial record. Thus: Obama in 2012 ( with all of his unfulfilled promises/hopes).


Sun, Nov 27, 2011 : 10:26 p.m.

Thanks mike.. you are right. the republicans ARE in favor of short-term job increases at the expense of health, human/ planetary survival , decency and fact-based thinking. You said it-- and i hope you keep blahblah ing the presidential teaparty clownshow does , to Obamas ever improving chances. ( not that he's been what alot of us hoped...but at least a 3-digit i.q. is there) .


Sun, Nov 27, 2011 : 10:05 p.m.

climate change denial increases job environmental safeguards decrease jobs insurance benefits for gay partners increase the cost of jobs so you see republicans are fighting for jobs. then you go on with this non-sequitor.. overpopulation causes extinction. what? blah blah blah..your tripe goes on and on.


Sun, Nov 27, 2011 : 6:24 p.m.

TO THE PARTY OF NO.... Thank You. You're preventing Obama and the liberals to spending us into debt and death. You're preventing wasteful spending on more government jobs, which do nothing for the economy. You're stopping tax increases when you know that they will not balance the deficit without decreases in spending. Thank You.


Mon, Nov 28, 2011 : 8:55 p.m.

Ghost, one person's contortion is another's massage chair. ;-) Ray mentioned the spin de jour re: Norquist in this thread also.


Mon, Nov 28, 2011 : 4:27 a.m.

If the Senate filibusters as the have one more Han any other session in history, it doesn't matter who has the majority in the Senate because nothing will pass. Got it?


Mon, Nov 28, 2011 : 3:41 a.m.

Rob? Check your facts again. Obama and the liberals had SUPER MAJORITIES IN THE HOUSE, SENATE AND PRESIDENCY FOR 2 YEARS, AND a majority in two of those for another year. How in the world is this the republicans fault? They couldn't stop you even if they tried. Nice try. The blame lies directly on liberals for everything you mentioned.


Sun, Nov 27, 2011 : 8:31 p.m.

You were successful in downgrading our credit rating, you were successful in extending our high unemployment, you were successful in blocking every proposal the president has made, you were successful in blocking the Super Congressional Committee .... so thank you ???

Macabre Sunset

Sun, Nov 27, 2011 : 6:10 p.m.

Basic economics should tell us that a public-sector job is worth much, much less than a private sector job because the people are paying for it. No wealth is being created. Obama is running up the debt, which makes our dollar worth far less in a global economy. So our companies are worth less, hence they can hire less. We need to make Obama a one-term president solely for economic reasons. He's so bad at running an economy that I'm willing to face four years of the religious crud the Republicans spew to get him out of office. Obama is spending your grandchildren's future, and you Democrats don't seem to care. Raising taxes on whomever you deem to be &quot;rich&quot; will not actually raise the revenue you think it will.


Sun, Nov 27, 2011 : 4:37 p.m.

$15,000,000,000,000 is a real number, many people can not comprehend the magnitude of this debt. This has turned into a national crisis and we must turn off the politican's unlimited credit card. Besides its not the goverments responsibility to create jobs. Their responsibility is to help create positive conditions so that he private sector strive.


Sun, Nov 27, 2011 : 4:22 p.m.

I can not believe that republicons can say with a straight face that they are for deficit reduction. Until President Obama took office they were all about spending like drunken sailors. They still refuse to repeal the W tax cuts because they especially benefit their real and only constituency, the richest 0.1%. They refuse to acknowledge the illegality and cost of an unprovoked invasion of a soverign country, Iraq. They are all about protecting sacred cow defense programs that bring federal government handouts to the richest constituents of their states. It should be obvious to everyone that republicon interest in deficit reduction is just a cover for their attacks on programs that benefit those who are not in the top 0.1%. Republicon attacks on social security, medicare, job training, etc. are their true agenda.


Tue, Nov 29, 2011 : 12:25 a.m.

Arborcomment, Just read the load of ridiculous hogwash you led me to. I again regret wasting my time on reading a republicon posted link. Anyone who offers up such perversely warped descriptions of the actions of 3 senators as proof of their whole party's intent to raise tax revenue is obviously feeding you a bill of goods. The actions of the 3 out of 47 senators he mentions had other very aggressive, attacks on the middle class included that were correctly unpalatable to the 51 Democratic senators. They were nothing more than red herrings.

Edward R Murrow's Ghost

Mon, Nov 28, 2011 : 2:21 p.m.

Yup, Obama jettisoned S-B. Big mistake on his part--but a political mistake more than an an economic one. It was NOT an economic mistake because there was no way that S-B was going to get through the House of Representatives. It was a political mistake because, having defeated S-B, House Republicans would have revealed themselves to be the hypocritical ideologues that they are. GN&amp;GL


Mon, Nov 28, 2011 : 1:23 p.m.

And Simpson-Bowles?

Edward R Murrow's Ghost

Mon, Nov 28, 2011 : 12:51 p.m.

No problem with closing loophole to raise revenue. But Krauthammer wildly misrepresents the truth of Grover Norquist's power and of what happened in the discussions this summer. I'm always in favor of something that resembles the truth. Krauthammer doesn't know how to spell the word. GN&amp;GL


Mon, Nov 28, 2011 : 4:17 a.m.

Ghost, You spoil all the fun. Wanted to see if Ray even knew who Krauthammer was. Still, you have an issue with closing loopholes to raise revenue (all those tax breaks and tricky accounting rich folks use)? Or how about bringing Simpson-Bowles to the floor? It's the Presidents own commission that produced the recommendation which he totally ignored three weeks later in his state of the union address.

Edward R Murrow's Ghost

Mon, Nov 28, 2011 : 3:09 a.m.

But, having said all of that, the link is to a Charles Krauthammer column. He cites 3 Republicans who were willing to raises tax revenue (not rates) as evidence that Republicans don't take Norquist seriously. Yeah, right. Of course, he fails to mention that Speaker Boehner backed out of his proposed deal due to a revolt in his teaparty wing, all signatories of &quot;the pledge&quot; because they would not accept a deal with new revenues whether or not rates went up. Bottom Line: Krauthammer twists the facts until they look like a pretzel. GN&amp;GL

Edward R Murrow's Ghost

Mon, Nov 28, 2011 : 3:03 a.m.

@Ray, Love your posts most of the time. But here you are confusing the W Times (owned by Moon, the print version of Faux Noise, prints every rumor short of ET in Roswell it finds) with the W Post. GN&amp;GL


Mon, Nov 28, 2011 : 2:48 a.m.

Arborcomment, Maybe its because I am so tired of taking the time to read posts from republicons only to find they have no basis in fact (your usual faux noise drivvel) , or maybe because its late in the day, but I am going to forgo reading your Washington Post aricle for now. You do know that the Washington Post was W's favorite rag? You can see by the damage W did to this country that this paper doesn't have a lot of credibility. It is also owned by the &quot;reverend&quot; Moon who I am not particularly enamored of.


Mon, Nov 28, 2011 : 2:34 a.m.

Ray, read this, <a href="" rel='nofollow'></a> Then get back to us on the soul train thing.

Edward R Murrow's Ghost

Mon, Nov 28, 2011 : 1:21 a.m.

&quot;Yes I am giving credit to Newt. He worked well with Pres. Clinton.&quot; Then you would be giving credit to the wrong people. I suggest you look-up: Budget Enforcement Act of 1990 Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990 Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 These three acts deserve most of the credit for closing of the budget deficit by the late Clinton administration because: 1) They cut spending 2) They raised taxes 3) And by doing so, they settled down the bond market (not a problem with today's very low interest rates), thus making it cheaper for businesses to borrow, thus leading to economic expansion, thus leading to increased revenue. These three laws were passed by a Congress (both houses) controlled by the Democratic Party. Newt Gingrich had a good working relationship with Clinton? Not hardly. Other than that, a fact-filled post. Good Night and Good Luck


Mon, Nov 28, 2011 : 1:05 a.m.

Diagenes, I need only mention the Grover Norquist chest of pledged republicon souls to prove that the republicons refuse to compromise on anything.


Sun, Nov 27, 2011 : 10:02 p.m.

Yes I am giving credit to Newt. He worked well with Pres. Clinton. The GOP lead House balanced budgets. Together they worked out a comprmise. Todays Dem only think bipartisianship is when you agree with them. Skip the norquist and limbaugh talking points. I could say as much for Trumpka and the SEIU. The GOP should say no to bad ideas.


Sun, Nov 27, 2011 : 8:28 p.m.

Like someone trying to recover from GW Bush's mistakes and pay for his two unjustified Wars.


Sun, Nov 27, 2011 : 8:06 p.m.

Diagenes, Who were the republicons compromising with? They are and have been the party of NO when it comes to anything Democratic. They are and have been the party of YES when it comes to anything Grover Norquist, the extreme right, Rush Limbaugh, and especially the top 0.1%. The word compromise is not in the republicon dictionary. I also find it interesting that you are both trying to give Gingrich credit for balanced budgets during President Clinton's term by saying that all spending bills originate in the House, and blaming President Obama for the deficit.


Sun, Nov 27, 2011 : 7:37 p.m.

Republicans have not always exhibited the fiscal restraint that they talk about. Some times they compromised on issues they should not have. Dumocrats (see Ray I too can use a pajoritive when refering to another political party) have taken the spending to a whole new level. Furthermore there only response to our debt crisis is to tax the rich. You could tax all, 100% of income over $1 million per year and you would still be short of balancing the budget at current levels. P.S. House Speaker N. Gingrich R of GA. passed four balanced budgets. Remember that all spending bills originate n the House. Did N. Pelosi D of CA. ever pass a balanced budget?


Sun, Nov 27, 2011 : 6:40 p.m.

If Republicans spend like drunken sailors, and Obama has spent them under the table, what does Obama spend like?


Sun, Nov 27, 2011 : 4:18 p.m.

&quot;He who robs Peter to pay Paul will always have the support of Paul.&quot;


Sun, Nov 27, 2011 : 8:09 p.m.

That is why the wealthiest 0.1%, who have benefited so grossly from republicon efforts to direct handouts in their direction while cutting benefits for the remainder of Americans, are so generously grateful to the republicon party.

zip the cat

Sun, Nov 27, 2011 : 4:10 p.m.

Your/our sons and daughters for eons to come will be paying for his (obamas) screw ups,out of control spending,on and on and on. This countries infrastructure is in a shambles and getting worse everyday and he,(obama) continues to shell out or better yet give away gazillions of taxpayer dollars to REBUILD Iraq,Afghanistan and just about any other country that wants a free handout,while his own country rots to the core. What this country needs is not another term in office from Mr, flush with our cash obama. I don't see anybody stepping up to the plate and addressing THIS countries problems,they just like to bicker amongest themselves. I see a taxpayer revolt comming down the pike ,and the sooner the better. We seem to take care of anyone else that needs it while we wither away.


Sun, Nov 27, 2011 : 8:27 p.m.

Bush's two unjustified wars have added more than $4 trillion dollars of that debt to our country, whether on his watch or on Obama's. Obama is ending Iraq this year and has a firm timetable to bring home troops from Afghanistan by the end of 2014, despite fierce republican opposition. If anyone is responsible for the deficit it is GW Bush and the republicans.


Sun, Nov 27, 2011 : 3:56 p.m.

Minor problem with your theory- Republicans have only been in control of congress for less than a year. Obama and the Democrats have been in charge of the houses (senate, congress, and White) the previous 3 years and the legislative houses longer than that. Laying the blame for a stagnant economy on Republicans is not possible since they were just put in charge of the congress 10 months ago. Obama and the Democrats for the last 3 years blamed the previous administration (George W) now blame the Republican congress which hasn't been running the congress for a year. This is a basic problem with your theory there just isn't enough room to write or discuss some of the mistakes made; NAFTA, Clintons housing policies, TARP, energy commodity trading, ..... you certainly picked hot a topic


Mon, Nov 28, 2011 : 4:10 p.m.

Thank you for your &quot;research&quot; involving time travel. An Obama budget submitted in February and defeated by his own party was &quot;replaced&quot; by one in April. Interesting how that little time warp thing works. Except it wasn't a budget, it was a speech, not even scored by the CBO (because they don't score speeches). If both Obama and his party in the senate were serious, his speech would have been followed by a budget submission. You can waive Miranda at any time. I'd be happy to do research, pick your favorite McConnell obstructionism, surely you must one or two have especially goading. Using a democratic lobbyist as a source? I suggest you plea bargain.


Mon, Nov 28, 2011 : 3:09 p.m.

Per Democratic congressional lobbyist Billy Moore, the first session of the 112th Congress has only a few legislative days before it adjourns sine die, and it will likely claim the prize as the least productive session in 60 years (when Congress started enumerating public laws). Congress has not made up for its lack of quantity with quality: of the 57 public laws Congress has enacted so far this year, 34 merely extended expiring laws (such as continuing appropriations or expiring tax or highway statutes).


Mon, Nov 28, 2011 : 2:24 p.m.

Answered your ? About the budget above. You have to keep up. In terms of filibusters, keep trying. It's the McConnell filibusters that you will not get around no matter how you try to spin it. I'm not going to do your research endlessly for you as I did above on the budget. You got busted.


Mon, Nov 28, 2011 : 1:20 p.m.

rob, I did the math, and a little history. Sadly, it's not adding up. The &quot;record&quot; for filibusters was surpassed eleven months into the 111th Congress, not the current 112th. The 111th is the one you quote as the &quot;most successful in history&quot;. So, enlighten us as to the effectiveness of the filibusters during such a &quot;successful&quot; congress. While your at it, cite some Obama or Reid bills so hung up by a filibuster in the 111th or 112th. And finally, we still await your comments regarding the Obama budget submission of February of this year (the one slammed by a vote of 97-0 in the Senate). Bottom line your, filibuster argument is a filibuster.


Mon, Nov 28, 2011 : 4:21 a.m.

There is no inconsistency. The Senate sworn in Nov 2010 has had more filibusters than any Senate in the history of the USA. Obama became President in January 2009. Do the math. More legislation was passed between Jan 2009 and Nov 2010 than in the majority of Sessions of congress. In the current session, less than 1/3 of the average legislation passed has been accomplished making it one of the least successful in history. Got it?


Sun, Nov 27, 2011 : 10:49 p.m.

Rob, in your comments on 11/13 on another related topic, you quoted the &quot;House Parlimentarian&quot; that the last Congress (prior to November 2010) as the &quot;most successful in history in terms of legislation actually made into law&quot;. Now, if you still consider this true, this means that the dem majority in the Senate was actually able to surpass the filibuster excuse you are now using (see Obamacare as example). So what was it? The most successful in history or blocked by the republican minority - you can't have it both ways. And all the while, the Dem controlled Senate did not even TRY to submit a budget for 2.5 years. I'm actually in more agreement with your 11/13 post. The previous Congress was very successful. Successful in passing items that so upset the majority of Americans, they were handed their hat in November 10.


Sun, Nov 27, 2011 : 8:26 p.m.

Obama has been in Office less than 3 years, so the math is off. The Senate is subject to the rule of filibuster as anyone who knows our form of government knows, so the minority has filibustered more than at any time in our history.


Sun, Nov 27, 2011 : 3:47 p.m.

If government spending, regulation, and cradle to grave promises worked, Greece and Europe would be the economic engine of the world. Thanks goodness 70% of the people in this country agree we are headed in the wrong direction, can't wait until next November.


Sun, Nov 27, 2011 : 3:45 p.m.

&quot;So why are Republicans fighting to cut government employment? Doesn't this make them job-killers?&quot; Government jobs do not create wealth or profits which pay the taxes in this country. Government jobs consume wealth and profits from the taxpayers. You need look no further Bev than the U.S. Postal Service which is poised to lose 10 BILLION dollars this year. With opinion pieces like this , it is no wonder this land is called the &quot;People's Republic of Ann Arbor&quot;. Good Day


Tue, Nov 29, 2011 : 6:28 p.m.

Yet another proof when you get the government involved (example United States Postal Service: USPS) it messes things up.

Edward R Murrow's Ghost

Mon, Nov 28, 2011 : 3:30 a.m.

The USPS also loses money because it has been required by Congress to prepay its pension funds to the tune of $5 billion per year. Minus that unprecedented requirement, the USPS is solvent. But, beyond that, Congress meddles with the USPS in ways it cannot meddle with its competition (UPS and FedEx) (e.g., setting rates, determining whether unprofitable offices can remain open). Other than that, a typically fact-filled post, snoop! GN&amp;GL


Mon, Nov 28, 2011 : 3:12 a.m.

The USPS loses money because it delivers mail to rural places. Which tend to be republican strongholds. Perhaps you'd like to get rid of it and disenfranchise your brethren from mail service?


Sun, Nov 27, 2011 : 10:12 p.m.

RayA2 - And too much investment in equipment and labor can bankrupt a company too. Overhead is overhead, whether private or public. Enough overhead is required to make the organization run as an organization (public or private) too much and you kill the organization. Right now in many areas the Goverment is too big. The Department of Defense has far more civilian employees than uniformed employees. The Navy has as many Admirals as they did when they had 600 ships. Both need to be right sized. The same goes for most other government departments. Question for you RayA2 - why do we need more than 200 programs to help the poor run 8 plus cabinet departments? Would be not be better off with a few well coordinated programs? Cleaning up the mess that is Washington is something we need to do. Both the Republicans and the Democrats made this mess. I doubt either will actually clean it up.


Sun, Nov 27, 2011 : 4:38 p.m.

dog, saying government spending &quot;consumes wealth and profits from the taxpayers&quot; is like saying that the equipment and labor in a factory are unnecessary costs. Government provides the tools and protections for a civilized society to function. It is a necessary investment. Too little investment results in a reduction in the productive output of society. Republicons are not about eliminating spending. Weapons expenditures and oil company subsidies are proof of that. They are only about elimination of spending for everyone except the top 0.1%.

Basic Bob

Sun, Nov 27, 2011 : 3:42 p.m.

The job-killing was all caused by excessive spending on foreign cars, cheap Chinese TVs and DVD players that we don't need, and a real estate bubble caused entirely by a government policy that caused an unsustainable demand for single family homes. We have all suffered, all except the &quot;union professionals&quot; working for our government. They think it is unfair that they might have to give up raises based on just showing up, unlimited free access to health care, and benefits for life. Someday soon I will be &quot;retired&quot; and destitute, living off the generosity of the government. I hope they keep printing money when that happens.


Mon, Nov 28, 2011 : 7:21 p.m.

Spending on foreign cars is due to quality. American companies are trying to catch up. TVs and DVDs built in China or almost any country sell for affordable prices. Build them here and only a few will be purchases due to most people not being able to afford them. In re go housing, the fed push to get people into homes was partially responsible, but our homes kept getting bigger and bigger with very expensive floors, counter tops, appliances, etc. I think the thinking of Americans to live in bigger homes with expensive add ons was also part of the problem. Not just homes, look at how autos have changed too. Not just a conveyance to get you from one place to another but real luxury too. I am not quite retired but have been around long enough to notice this.


Sun, Nov 27, 2011 : 11:35 p.m.

If I worked for Ford, I could have afforded a Ford....


Sun, Nov 27, 2011 : 3:36 p.m.

&quot;Why are Republicans working so hard to cut jobs and limit demand in our fragile economy? Republicans complain that high taxes, threats of high taxes and regulations are killing the job-making enthusiasm of employers. But when business people are asked why they're not hiring, they insist that &quot;limited demand&quot; is their real problem.&quot; --------------------- The Republicans are not trying to &quot;cut jobs&quot;. Republicans are trying to cut the deficit, which has set record levels under this democrat President. You cannot sustain an economy with record debt levels, and assume 'we the people' will spend money, without the ramifications that entail record debt levels, i.e. potential for higher taxes, entitlement cuts, higher interest rates, etc.). The typical democrat argues 'Obama is a victim of the problem', which is false, and comical at best. Democrats set this debt machine in motion (with the consumers) back in 97'-99', when Clinton: 1. Pushed for less obtrusive home lending rules <a href="" rel='nofollow'></a> 2. Allowed the Glass-Steagall to be overruled <a href="" rel='nofollow'></a> The result of these two policy changes allowed CONSUMERS and FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS to make moral hazard decisions that would eventually cripple the economy. Debt levels rose during the 2000s, as the Federal Reserve and Bush did not move on this looming issue.


Sun, Nov 27, 2011 : 9:49 p.m.

RayA2, a CEO would gladly add additional workers if they, through their efforts brought enough to pay their salary and earn additional profits for the company (which would then please the stockholders). You knew that right?


Sun, Nov 27, 2011 : 8:19 p.m.

The liberal agnda to rail against job-creating small businesses is about over. The &quot;wealthy&quot; are 'wealthy' because they worked hard to earn it. Liberty and freedom provides information to ALL for use in creating wealth and opportunities. Is it the fault of successful people that they can better use information and their skills better than you? Socialist agendas by the Left wing to 'spread the wealth' is a negative to advancement of society, as money is diverted to resources unprepared, and incapable of maximizing benefits to the masses. Wealth furthers liberty and freedom by enabling advancements that could not have happened.


Sun, Nov 27, 2011 : 4:43 p.m.

&quot;Job making entusiasm of employers&quot;? What stockholder or CEO is ever enthused or rewarded by the the number of employees he added to the company dole? Why do you suppose that with the lowest tax rate for the wealthiest and for corporations in our nation's history we have one of the highest unemployment rates in our history?


Sun, Nov 27, 2011 : 3:30 p.m.

Beverly, What about job killing democratic ideas? EPA will cause 1.4 million jobs to be lost by 2020. <a href="" rel='nofollow'></a> Or the 220,000 lost to higher fuel effeciency standards. Not to mention the higher cost to buy the nw cars. <a href="" rel='nofollow'></a> How about gulf coast jobs lost, to qoute NYT,&quot; Even the government's estimate of the impact of the drilling pause — 23,000 lost jobs and $10.2 billion in economic damage — is proving to be too pessimistic. &quot; <a href="" rel='nofollow'></a> We need to cap spending until we get our deficit under control. More government deficit spending only makes our Greece moment come sooner.

David Paris

Mon, Nov 28, 2011 : 5:55 p.m.

So, your points are that: protecting the environment is a bad thing; Saving fuel is a bad thing, and; Proceeding with caution after a Major Environmental Catastrophe is also a bad thing? Priorities like those are truly misguided, it shows that you really don't care about other people, particularly future generations, a Perfect Republican. And, like ERMG says: &quot;As for your other sources--laughable. The Heritage Foundation and a web site bought and paid for by the coal industry. Yeah, there's two &quot;fair and balanced&quot; sources. Laughable.&quot;

Edward R Murrow's Ghost

Mon, Nov 28, 2011 : 1:03 p.m.

Once again, a conservative who has not read the links the provide. From the NYT link on impact of the 6 month drilling moratorium: &quot;When the Obama administration called a halt to virtually all deepwater drilling activity in the Gulf of Mexico after the Deepwater Horizon blowout and fire in April, oil executives, economists and local officials complained that the six-month moratorium would cost thousands of jobs and billions of dollars in lost revenue. . . . YET THE WORST OF THOSE FORECASTS HAS FAILED TO MATERIALIZE as companies wait to see how long the moratorium will last before making critical decisions on spending cuts and layoffs. Unemployment claims related to the oil industry along the Gulf Coast have been in the hundreds, not the thousands, and while oil production from the gulf is down because of the drilling halt, supplies from the region are expected to rebound in future years. &quot; Note to Outdoor: you, apparently don't understand what it means when a report is too pessimistic. It means that the situation is BETTER than the report had expected. The article shows that rather than thousands of job losses, the number had been in the hundreds. As for your other sources--laughable. The Heritage Foundation and a web site bought and paid for by the coal industry. Yeah, there's two &quot;fair and balanced&quot; sources. Laughable. Good Night and Good Luck


Sun, Nov 27, 2011 : 3:29 p.m.

Ridiculous commentary. &quot;job killing Republicans&quot;? We now have a debt of $15 trillion dollars - there's a job killer We have spent over $750 billion on stimulus with zero results The current administration is fixated on tax increases when a bigger issue is wasteful spending at unreal levels &quot;shovel ready&quot; jobs weren't ready. Honestly. With so much blame to go around in Washington do we have to really have to immaturely &quot;blame&quot; and point fingers? Every politician in Washington is culpable for this disaster. To blame a party is silly in the face of the facts.


Tue, Nov 29, 2011 : 6:22 p.m.

But wait! President Obama gives excellent Teleprompter speeches! He's going to make a killing giving speeches once he is out of office. Too bad he doesn't know how to lead.

Hot Sam

Mon, Nov 28, 2011 : 8:53 p.m.

Some are still mesmerized by his speeches and blind to what he does...


Mon, Nov 28, 2011 : 8:43 p.m.

Rob, is looking for those McConnell filibusters making you that frustrated? You've almost completed the timeline. I'll summarize: 1) Obama submits a budget in January, was deemed folly by his own party. 2) Makes April SPEECH, not official budget proposal. 3) In May, original folly exposed with 97-0 vote. You may be able to provide insight as to why it went to a vote in the first place if it was truely &quot;superceded&quot; - it could have been tabled until the promised April speech was submitted as a budget proposal. 4) June: Waiting for that budget proposal 5) July-August, still waiting for that budget proposal and the 6) September, ANOTHER speech prior to the starting of the super committee hearings. No official budget submission from the April Speech. 7) October. No official budget submission for the April or September speeches. Just awaiting that &quot;super committee&quot; 8) November... Truth hurts Rob, your guy's a failure. Two of your own top party hacks put an op-ed in the NYT last week asking him to bow out and let Hillary run. This was about a sitting president. And frankly, it is not my concern if there are responses to my posts or not, that is totally up to the community. What I will promise however is that when the usual suspects walk their dogma, I'll be sure to point out what was left behind.


Mon, Nov 28, 2011 : 5:47 p.m.

And you clearly knew the answer to why the budget was voted down apparently because you knew the answer was that the President's speech at GWU superseded the budget with more stringent deficit reduction. Apparently this is all a game to you, but I'm done playing. Facts will always win out against game players who only show pieces of the facts to attempt to twist the debate --- the full truth always will win out. You're busted and I'm done playing your stupid game like others before me who have learned what


Mon, Nov 28, 2011 : 5:43 p.m.

Sorry, wrong once again, the budget was voted on May 25, 2011 after the President's speech in April. It was submitted in January but not voted on until May. Got it. Your &quot;facts&quot; are as correct as most tea drinking republicans --- not at all. In fact, I see nobody else even responds to your posts except to indicate the same thing --- that they tire of disputing your claims with actual research.


Mon, Nov 28, 2011 : 2:42 p.m.

rob, your &quot;help&quot; consists of science fiction and time travel. Obama's budget was submitted to the Senate in February, the April speech you cite was after his budget was defeated 97-0. Regarding the April speech, the Congressional Budget Office stated that the budget framework outlined by Obama in the 13 April speech is not a &quot;workable&quot; budget. CBO couldn't score it because they don't estimate speeches. He never submitted another budget to the Senate after his own party showed him the door.


Mon, Nov 28, 2011 : 2:17 p.m.

@arborcomment: sure thing, glad to help. The Presidents budget was voted down because it was replaced with an updated proposal he outlined at George Washington University in April with stricter deficit reduction target. Does that help you out ? LoL.


Sun, Nov 27, 2011 : 10:17 p.m.

Rob and David, please give me your take on the Obama budget submitted to the Senate in February. It was defeated 97-0.


Sun, Nov 27, 2011 : 8:47 p.m.

When the democrats controlled the white house, the house, and the senate, they still weren't able to accomplish much because they didn't have enough votes in the senate to overturn a potential filibuster. They didn't even have to filibuster, all they had to do was make the threat. With that, the republicans got to shoot down a bunch of legislation without even a vote.


Sun, Nov 27, 2011 : 8:20 p.m.

No, wrong again. Bills dealing with economic measures typically start in the House. Further, the balanced budget measure started in the House and failed in the House by well over 20 votes, not even moving to the Senate. Best to get the facts straight.


Sun, Nov 27, 2011 : 6:43 p.m.

Last time I checked, legislation starts in the Senate. I wonder who controls the senate and executive branch? Also, the House tried to push through several bills, such as a balanced budget amendment. What happened to it you ask? Reid tabled it, meaning, he wouldn't even let it come up for debate! Liberals.

Hot Sam

Sun, Nov 27, 2011 : 5:34 p.m.

Thank God for the NO votes...imagine how bad it would be without them...


Sun, Nov 27, 2011 : 3:48 p.m.

Again... Say what you will about the &quot;TeaPublicans&quot; and the Republican controlled House all you want....and in so doing ignore some basic irrefutable facts: The Democratic party and President Obama controlled All three branches of government and had carte blanche to do as they pleased to fix the economy in the short term. They chose to ram through an unpopular healthcare bill that nobody even had a chance to read. And you lambaste others for failure to reach compromise and build consensus??? Seriously? That's your argument??

David Briegel

Sun, Nov 27, 2011 : 3:36 p.m.

And a TeaPublicon Party that will only say NO. How about Boehner and the gang pass a jobs bill that McConnell will get the required 60 votes instead of just fillibustering every single thing? After all, they are so yearning for bipartisanship!


Sun, Nov 27, 2011 : 3:15 p.m.

Beverly, your party has ZERO idea on how to create jobs. Your president has destroyed jobs, attacked companies that hire, and instituted more JOB KILLING measures like Obamacare. Furthermore, your parasitic party is a bunch of do-nothing leeches who have sucked what life remains in our economy into your greedy bodies. Just step aside and get back to what you democrats do best; protest and complain like children.


Mon, Nov 28, 2011 : 7:13 p.m.

My favorite booting of the pooch by the Obama administration is the NLRB denying a new Boeing plant in South Carolina, demanding it be built in union run Washington. It is absurd that the federal govt is denying a company the right to build where it wishes. Perhaps Boeing is waiting until the Nov 2012 election before it decides to open that plant overseas. The unemployed of South Carolina must really be proud of this administration.


Mon, Nov 28, 2011 : 3:10 a.m.

lordhelmet, do you have any explanation of how these measures are 'job killing,' is it just like, your opinion, man?


Sun, Nov 27, 2011 : 11:33 p.m.

Corp. taxes are the lowest they have been in 40 years. And that's 40 years of decline in taxes in corporations. why hasn't your party delivered on the promised job growth, since this mechanism is their one and only solution to all problems?


Sun, Nov 27, 2011 : 8:17 p.m.

Actually it's the republican House that has passed fewer bills than almost any House in history and the republican-minority Senate that has filibustered more bills than any other Senate in US History. Thus, the Do Nothing Congress label seems to fit the republicans pretty well.


Sun, Nov 27, 2011 : 3:10 p.m.

We all need some govt. judges, police etc... What we don't need are public unions tha are parasites on the taxpaying public. Those govt. jobs are not real jobs.


Mon, Nov 28, 2011 : 7:09 p.m.

It's not the unions, it's binding arbitration that causes unsustainable public liabilities. Ohio tried to limit it so that cities could pay employees what they can afford. It was just overturned in the Nov election. But that does not fix Ohio's problem, there still is no problem. So if binding arbitration continues in Ohio, it may result in massive layoffs. Or much higher taxes. Unions are necessary because too often management is bad and employees need protection from bad management. If you have good management you do not need a union. But union leaders look silly when they complain about layoffs. They actually compete with one another. When fire fighters complain about layoffs, they are actually promoting layoffs should occur in another department to some other union's members.


Mon, Nov 28, 2011 : 2:09 p.m.

You mean like police, firemen, teachers, librarians - those kind of parasites?

Stuart Brown

Mon, Nov 28, 2011 : 2:37 a.m.

Braggslaw is right! My hometown of Saginaw, MI has eliminated all UAW jobs and is now much better off having rid itself of the greedy UAW! High wages for lazy workers (and all workers are lazy) damage the economy--now that we have effectively removed any bargaining leverage from workers, we will all get more stuff to enjoy. You see, only superior beings are worthy of being paid a CEO level salary--only a superior being financial genius could engineer two financial bubbles within 8 years of each other (tech &amp; mortgage). You see, if the inferior beings were compensated like CEO's they would all quit their jobs and run off to Florida while superior beings continue to work even with their CEO level pay package! Where would the world be without superior beings cracking the whip and reminding us of our inferior status?

Homeland Conspiracy

Mon, Nov 28, 2011 : 12:46 a.m.

Did you know that labor unions made the following 36 things possible? Weekends without work All breaks at work, including your lunch breaks Paid vacation Family &amp; Medical Leave Act (FMLA) Sick leave Social Security Minimum wage Civil Rights Act/Title VII - prohibits employer discrimination 8-hour work day Overtime pay Child labor laws Occupational Safety &amp; Health Act (OSHA) 40-hour work week Workers' compensation (workers' comp) Unemployment insurance Pensions Workplace safety standards and regulations Employer health care insurance Collective bargaining rights for employees Wrongful termination laws Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA) Whistleblower protection laws Employee Polygraph Protection Act (EPPA) - prohibits employers from using a lie detector test on an employee Veteran's Employment and Training Services (VETS) Compensation increases and evaluations (i.e. raises) Sexual harassment laws Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) Holiday pay Employer dental, life, and vision insurance Privacy rights Pregnancy and parental leave Military leave The right to strike Public education for children Equal Pay Acts of 1963 &amp; 2011 - requires employers pay men and women equally for the same amount of work Laws ending sweatshops in the United States Thank a union member by buying union-made in America products!


Sun, Nov 27, 2011 : 8:28 p.m.

Maxwell, That appears to be Richard Bong in your picture the P-38 Lightning pilot and all time ace leader. Is that correct? I just read his biography. Guy could fly but he could not shoot the broadside of a barn.


Sun, Nov 27, 2011 : 7:24 p.m.

Which public employees ones are parasites?


Sun, Nov 27, 2011 : 4:55 p.m.

I don't think you really have a clue. What proof do you have of what you say is true? I know plenty of public union folks that work much harder than your &quot; private sector &quot; employees.


Sun, Nov 27, 2011 : 3:49 p.m.

If you don't like unions perhaps you should consider moving to communist China - they don't have unions....

David Briegel

Sun, Nov 27, 2011 : 3:18 p.m.

But corporations buying our govt with their &quot;free speech money&quot; is really cool?


Sun, Nov 27, 2011 : 3:03 p.m.

The U.S. is $15 trillion in debt. In 2009 we spent almost $1 on a stimulus plan. From Investos usiness Daily 11/23/11. &quot;Recovery: After nearly all the stimulus money has been spent, the Congressional Budget Office now admits it cost more than advertised, did less to boost growth and will hurt the economy in the long run.&quot; <a href="" rel='nofollow'></a> Economics 101. Government does not creare wealth, therefore it cannot create long term prosperity. All government jobs, even the ones we need to function as a society, are created by taking from money from a taxpayer. Current proposal was to spend another $500 billion. Very little of it was targeted for infrastructure, most went for 1 year to create public sector jobs that would require local taxpayers to pick up future year salaries. This was also a cynical political plan to get Pres Obama reelected. So what is the difference?


Tue, Nov 29, 2011 : 6:13 p.m.

Show me when the &quot;Independent bipartisan Congressional Budget Office&quot; projections have been correct at least one time? Just once has CBO been correct on any of their projections? They haven't. Yet people keep drinking the Koolaid.


Mon, Nov 28, 2011 : 2:06 p.m.

Independent bipartisan Congressional Budget Office projected 1.9 million jobs created immediately if enacted in full under the Presidents Jobs Plan, and Zero Under the Republican &quot;regulation' plan.


Sun, Nov 27, 2011 : 3:05 p.m.

Almost $1 trillion.