Here we go again. In 2010, desperate Americans returned control of the U.S. House back to Republicans hoping that they would do the heavy lifting necessary to avoid our looming fiscal meltdown.
The Rs got the message. They promised to be courageous and steadfast and for a while they were. But now, with another election looming, they are losing their nerve.
In a sane world, legislators of all stripes would be grasping for ways to cut spending. But Speaker John Boehner recently whimpered, “there is no fight” over proposals to beef up the federal student loan program. Sounding like a schoolboy pleading for mercy from a bully, he went on, “why do people insist that we have to have a political fight on something where there is no fight.”
Obama and the Democrats have been cleverly seeding the field with land mines for the Republicans, insisting on votes whenever economically sound principles conflict with political popularity. The media never calls them out for this transparently cynical ploy. Instead they serve as a Greek chorus, affirming that we now have the proof that heartless Republicans hate women, wage earners, students and just about everyone else.
It started in late 2011 with the push to extend the “temporary” payroll tax cuts. Since these constitute the funding source for Social Security and Medicare, both of which are in deep trouble financially, it didn’t make a whole lot of sense. But Obama insisted that reverting to the prescribed rates would be a “tax increase” and the media bought it.
Republicans tried to push back, pointing out that it wasn’t really a tax increase but a tax shift. After all, not one dime of spending reform had been passed, meaning that all program benefits would still be paid for eventually, just not by current wage earners. Workers of the future, who won’t vote in 2012, will pick up the tab instead.
Payroll tax cuts won’t provide much economic stimulus either. Partly because they’re temporary, they don’t produce nearly the same economic growth that personal or corporate income tax cuts would. Republicans tried to argue that one too. But in the end, they believed they were getting bowled over and in danger of losing ownership of the tax-cut issue, so they gave in. The geniuses who spent a couple of trillion dollars on failed economic stimulus schemes won again.
So now the pressure is on to provide more taxpayer subsidy for student loans. But why, other than for political reasons, should this be on the table? After all, the student loan program grew from $64 billion to $269 billion annually in the last decade. Total federal subsidies for higher education soared $100 billion over the same time frame. Not coincidentally, college costs have skyrocketed. Meanwhile, we’ve produced a glut of graduates in many non-technical fields. Up to one third of recent graduates are unable to find work or are working in jobs not requiring a college education.
But no matter. President Obama barnstorms college campuses, proclaiming “We can’t make higher education a luxury. It’s an economic imperative. Every American should be able to afford it.” Blah, blah, blah.
So did the Republicans make a principled challenge to the assumption that college education is yet another benefit Americans are entitled to from government? They did not. They only want to discuss how to “pay for it.”
Here again they got hammered. They proposed taking $6 billion from the Preventative Health Fund, thus inciting charges that they are still waging the “war on women.” Never mind that only a quarter of one percent of the fund is targeted to women and that Democrats have already raided it to finance their own priorities.
Republicans are panicked about losing the moocher vote. That’s understandable when half of all Americans pay no income tax and a newfound sense of entitlement is taking hold. But they’ve probably lost the takers vs. makers battle already.
They’re better off making the case for fiscal responsibility and growth-oriented reforms. If they keep giving in to demagoguery, we’re in big trouble. Some things are worth fighting for.
East Valley resident Tom Patterson (pattersontomc@cox.net) is a retired physician and former state senator.
chatmandu002 posted at 10:44 am on Sat, May 5, 2012.
Obama and the democrats can't run on their record, they have to divide and distract until the election. With help from most of the liberal/progressive MSM they are doing a good job so far, such as the trumped up "War on Women" and the student loan rate increase. Expect many more distractions from the Obama campaign.
Hey Harry Reid, where is the budget? Come on Harry do you job and give us a budget. Hey Mr President, where is some entitlement program reforms?
Raise your hand if you are going to follow the President and his FORWARD (over the cliff) campaign.
Rich posted at 12:19 pm on Sat, May 5, 2012.
It'll be simpler. We'll hear about 'the recovery' almost daily. If enough people don't see it reflected in their day to day lives, the entitlement mentality will go dormant for a while and we'll, hopefully, see if unbridled capital can make the difference it did 1982. If they don't, we'll go back to entitlement. If they do, entitlement will wait in the wings once again for overproduction. What has to be faced here is that we don't this well and our system was never meant to sustain a government that controls this much of the GDP. So long as it does, economics rides a roller coaster, hang on.
Mike McClellan posted at 3:00 pm on Sat, May 5, 2012.
Ah, 1982, the halcyon days of Reagan. Reagan the Myth, that is.
The reality of Reagan is this.
The cost of government rose under Reagan:
During his administration, the cost of government rose 3%; under Ford and Carter, it rose 1.4%.
The Department of Education -- the department candidate Reagan swore to eliminate -- actually had its budget double under Reagan.
Farm subsidies rose by 140%.
Foreign aid doubled.
And he tripled the national debt.
Here's the source -- http://mises.org/freemarket_detail.aspx?control=488
Ah, unbridled capital . . . worked out well.
Not to mention that little thing called the Savings and Loan scandal, deregulation during the halcyon days that led to the disaster beginning just the year after the "difference" unbridled capital made in 1982. Five years later? A decimated S and L industry, and people without any savings thanks to that.
Ah, for the good old days.
Rich posted at 3:33 pm on Sat, May 5, 2012.
"The reality of Reagan is this."
In 1980, things were bad, in 1982 they were a lot better and kept getting that way through the rest of his two terms in office. Why? Watching it, being a part of it, I'd say, basically, he got government off our backs. Yes, unbridled capital works, but only until it overproduces. And, Mike, almost a quarter century is a real long calm before a storm, are you sure you're using the word correctly? Also, in your figures have you indexed for inflation? For growth of the GDP? For trade balance (especially in agriculture)? How much else have you missed?
Facts, especially those expressed as percentages, can prove almost anything. What they can't prove, or even begin to touch was the fact of the massive change wrought on families, between 1980 and 1982, and how much better it got. With three young children and a fledgling business then, I noticed. And it wasn't a calm BEFORE a storm, it was the end of a hurricane.
mnjcpa posted at 4:11 pm on Sat, May 5, 2012.
Right on Rich! Mike plucks out tidbits of information to form a false conclusion about one of the most popular leaders in American history. Tax revenues DOUBLED through his actions of lowering tax rates from 70% to the mid 20% - one of the best economic turnarounds in history from the Carter depression and 20%+ inflation.
My home has the TV turned off before this election so I don't have to listen to the ficticious unemployment numbers to the fake war on women. I hope Romney's got what it takes to ignore the left and do what he must do to save this country. We are at the cliff and left unvetted to do what he wants America will be transformed - but not in the way anyone thinks.
Mike McClellan posted at 6:02 pm on Sat, May 5, 2012.
Regardless of any other factors, the truth is under Reagan, the debt tripled. Under Reagan, the department he vowed to abolish doubled its budget. Under Reagan, the cost of the federal government rose faster than under Carter and Ford, adjusted for inflation, as the study I gave the link to shows.
And the "unbridled" nature of the Savings and Loans during Reagan, unbridled by deregulation in 1982, led to the almost $1 trillion in loss folks invested in Savings and Loans lost thanks to the greed "unbridled" by the unbridling.
And I see mnjcpa wants to trot out the low taxes equals more revenue illusion -- as if tax rates are the be-all and end-all. If that's the case, then, I wonder how he explain the higher taxes in place in AZ for the last two years and the counterintuitive (at least to him and others like him) job increase, revenue increase and per capita income increase in our state? Or maybe how after Clinton raised taxes the economy boomed? Maybe, just maybe, tax are just one indicator of many as to how an economy will perform.
If that were the case, this economy should've been going great guns over the last 12 years, seeing as we've had lower tax rates than under Clinton. And yet under Clinton the economy grew faster than under Bush, more jobs were produced, and per capita income grew at a faster rate across the board. That the lower rates under Bush and Obama haven't spurred better results is evidence that looking for a single-cause for a robust economy -- tax rates -- is simplistic.
Mike McClellan posted at 6:03 pm on Sat, May 5, 2012.
By the way, under Reagan, we had one year of the top rate at 28%, in 1988; the lowest rate after that was 50%.
Rich posted at 6:18 pm on Sat, May 5, 2012.
"Regardless of any other factors, the truth is under Reagan,..."
It got better. No statistic you can cherry pick, really nothing you have to say compares with having lived it. Under Obama. it hasn't. The conclusion is obvious. BTW Mike, do you know what halcyon means?
mnjcpa posted at 6:31 pm on Sat, May 5, 2012.
I know you aren't convinced so no need to get down in the weeds to prove your point Mike. I see how liberalism is killing small businesses every day. That's what matters to me, not some random statistic you use to try to prove a point. It's just incredibly amusing how liberals site Reagan as an example, continually trying to debase his extraordinary accomplishments. Go for it - believe all the fiction you listen to.
Mike McClellan posted at 9:07 pm on Sat, May 5, 2012.
Whatever "it" is, our economy clearly improved compared to its predecessor's fumbling and bumbling of it. Reagan clearly outshined Carter in many ways, including in some economic ways.
But I lived it, too, and I watched folks here in AZ and across the country pay the price of unbridled capital with the S and L debacle, and I watched our debt triple under him, and I watched a guy who came in promising to shrink government leave eight years later with a government larger than ever and with a Department of Education exerting even more control over states and districts.
The only "fiction" around here is the one promulgated by mnjcpa, that low taxes are the elixir to return us to the -- yes -- halcyon days of Reagan.
Rich posted at 9:31 pm on Sat, May 5, 2012.
"Whatever "it" is, our economy clearly improved compared to its predecessor's fumbling and bumbling of it."
Actually Mike, it hasn't. And therein lies the problem. A twenty-four year calm before the storm, that will check me out nicely, and what I have I've earned, not a pension from a part time job. You sound like someone younger. I left academia when they told me to pass someone because of the color of their skin. And the person they told me to pass was quite far from white. Therefore I don't even fully buy my President is educated. I went into business in 1973. Before Reagan it was a horror show.
Now here you are. Retired after teaching the youth of America that drunken, misfit, sociopathic writers are the key to 'critical thinking'. A governmental job is just another form of welfare. Ever earned an honest dollar Mike? If you had, you might have another opinion.
Mike McClellan posted at 6:36 am on Sun, May 6, 2012.
Based on the last paragraph, I just know Rich had to be friends with Dottie and Bob.
Accuracy posted at 5:16 pm on Sun, May 6, 2012.
Yes, the National Debt did very nearly triple under President Ronald Reagan during his eight years; from $908 billion in 1981 to $2.78 trillion in January 1989.
The National Debt nearly doubled under President George W. Bush during his eight years; from $5.7 trillion in 2001 to $10.6 trillion in January 2009.
But, President Barack Obama has added $5 trillion to the U.S. Government debt crisis in just three years . . . And the U.S. debt has surpassed the $15.6 trillion mark this year.
And, under Obama – with out-of-control government growth and reckless government spending – there’s much more debt increase to come in the near future
gilbertgrandma posted at 9:05 pm on Sun, May 6, 2012.
Mike - see what happened in Greece and France today? It's coming our way very soon if Obama is re-elected. Those countries are learning the hard way that eventually you run out of other people's money to pay for everything - it's going to happen here very soon if something doesn't change.
wdgnas posted at 6:51 am on Mon, May 7, 2012.
Republicans tried to push back, pointing out that it wasn’t really a tax increase but a tax shift.
when the feds increase your income tax rate, think of it as a tax shift...
wdgnas posted at 6:55 am on Mon, May 7, 2012.
Republicans are panicked about losing the moocher vote. That’s understandable when half of all Americans pay no income tax and a newfound sense of entitlement is taking hold.
and let us not forget, MORE than half of american corporations pay no income tax.
mnjcpa posted at 8:43 am on Mon, May 7, 2012.
I read my comment again Mike, and the last time I took English I believe you have to actually state something as a premise before you make it one. Guess you and I learned the language differently.
I didn't say that cutting taxes would solve our problems. But you support a regime that targets success and is attempting to create a rhetoric of hate towards those achievers. That's BS in my books. The "fairness" that Obama moans about needs to be towards the moochers - the people who think it's perfectly okay to retire at unreasonably young ages and the public foot the bill. Or ILLEGALS that have burdened our economy to the point of taking it to the brink of collapse.
The real heroes in my eyes are the people Reagan illuminated as the beacon that made this country great. Fewer businesses are started each year since the early 1990's. Why is that? It's liberalism, period. When it becomes economically unfeasible to take the risk to own a business and then be excessively penalized through taxation if you actually beat the odds and become successful - Reagan was the champion of that cause. You don't get it.
mnjcpa posted at 8:44 am on Mon, May 7, 2012.
Great comment gilbertgrandma.
mnjcpa posted at 8:58 am on Mon, May 7, 2012.
Here you go Mike for premise.
Under the Obama, the rate of new business start-ups fell in 2010 to the lowest point on record. As a fraction of all business, new companies plummeted to below 8 percent! Let’s talk numbers. In 2010, fewer than 400,000 new businesses created over 2.3 million jobs. But that was not enough to overcome the Obama economic destruction, which killed that many jobs plus 2 million more, resulting in a loss of 1.8 private sector jobs overall. This analysis is from two Census Bureau researchers and economics professor from the University of Maryland - not me.
Under the leadership of Reagan, a time of optimism and conservative economic policies – new businesses accounted for half of all businesses. They created a stunning 40 percent of all jobs. Now we’re in a period of economic stagnation, pessimism, and class envy, promoted and exploited by Obama himself.
American business, entire sectors of the economy are routinely smeared as villains unless of course they’re Obama campaign donors and cronies. Like Solyndra. Then they’re given millions in taxpayer funds to waste, while Obama blames Bush and Americans who’ve worked hard, managing to succeed despite Obama.
November can't get here soon enough for me and the millions of small businesses that I cheer.
CSalafia posted at 10:42 am on Mon, May 7, 2012.
"Republicans are panicked about losing the moocher vote. That’s understandable when half of all Americans pay no income tax and a newfound sense of entitlement is taking hold. But they’ve probably lost the takers vs. makers battle already."
These are the words of a smug, pompous windbag with no interest in facts or reality.
Of the ~50% who have no net Federal Income Tax burden, nearly 80% are either elderly, disabled, students, or low income workers.
Patterson is great at regurgitating right wing talking points. Personally, I cannot wait until he tromps on over to Sun City or Leisure World and starts knocking on doors telling the elderly and retired they need to pay more taxes to support giving corporations and the wealthy huge tax breaks. Perhaps he ought to stand outside any DES office, look into the eyes of the children of the working poor and tell them to "suck it up" and "quit being moochers".
GOP logic:
Tax breaks and credits for low to middle income people = bad
Tax breaks and credits for the wealthy and corporations = righteous
mnjcpa posted at 11:01 am on Mon, May 7, 2012.
Yes, that's the ticket CSalafia. When are you and other libs going to get it? Patterson's not regurgitating anything other than the truth.
We're $60 trillion + deep in unfunded entitlements (social security added $4 trillion last year alone); we're running $1.3 trillion in annual federal budget deficits; and we're on the wrong side of the trade deficit by $500 billion each year. Yet this barely merits a discussion on the news. Where's the outrage? Liberals like you have created this mess, period.
CSalafia posted at 11:28 am on Mon, May 7, 2012.
Patterson's regurgitating, alright....but it sure ain't anything that could be called truth.
Mike McClellan posted at 11:29 am on Mon, May 7, 2012.
Well, mnjcpa, at the risk of inventing a premise you say doesn't exist, let me quote you nevertheless:
"Under the leadership of Reagan, a time of optimism and conservative economic policies –"
What jumped out at me was the phrase "conservative economic policies" -- you mean like the ones that tripled the national debt?
What exactly is that conservative economic policy? Is it the same one that Bush adopted?
I'd like you to enlighten the readers here as to what that policy is.
gilbertgrandma posted at 11:52 am on Mon, May 7, 2012.
Mike, you keep going after Reagan for "tripling the national debt", yet you ignore the fact that Obama has raised the national debt higher in three years than Bush did in eight. Since you are obviously an Obama supporter, tell me why that's a good thing?
CSalafia posted at 11:54 am on Mon, May 7, 2012.
Oh, Mike, you know better than to confuse people who think like TPers with facts!
mnjcpa posted at 1:25 pm on Mon, May 7, 2012.
Mike - try reviewing my 8:58am or 11:01 am comments for starters. Since you you're not comprehending what I write I will repeat for your convenience -
"Under the leadership of Reagan, a time of optimism and conservative economic policies – new businesses accounted for half of all businesses. They created a stunning 40 percent of all jobs. Contrast that with Obama's performance - In 2010, fewer than 400,000 new businesses created over 2.3 million jobs.
Do those facts mean NOTHING to you? What the phony jobs report doesn't communicate is that under Obama the jobs created plus 2 million more, resulting in a loss of 1.8 private sector jobs overall. And that's just for one year.
I never said lowering taxes was the solution. But I do know this. If you think successful business owners will take Obama's prescribed mandate to solve the problem (tax them to death) - it will take us quicker to the cliff than you think. I have a client right now that's moving everything he owns out of America and I say good for him. He risked everything he had to grow a successful business, took care of a lot of families for many years - something you've never experienced and consequently can't even relate to. He's not some evil, rich guy - gives hundreds of thousands of dollars to charity each year.
Every single one of us regardless of political party needs to understand the American debt problem, but you're content to pick apart Reagan. Why? Because America's mood was one of optimism, confidence, and leadership contrasted with the mood today - where Obama promotes economic stagnation, pessimism, and class envy.
No leader ever succeeded playing those kind of childish games. So I say buck up, face the music, and let's all team together to fix this problem. It may be too late already.
Mike McClellan posted at 3:11 pm on Mon, May 7, 2012.
gilbertgrandma, I think one of Obama's two BIG mistakes (the other being expanding health care rather than focusing first on contracting health care costs) is his not embracing and arguing for the Bowles/Simpson proposals.
However . . .
mjncpa would rather attack than explain how tripling the debt conforms to his claim that Reagan embraced "conservative economic policies."
Come to think of it, I believe the Bush administration had a VP who said the deficits aren't important.
So I'm confused: I thought debt was a BIG DEAL with Republicans. I guess when one of their own tripled it, it was a little deal.
Rich posted at 6:51 pm on Mon, May 7, 2012.
"So I'm confused: I thought debt was a BIG DEAL with Republicans. I guess when one of their own tripled it, it was a little deal."
Debt is a component of many things, inflation, GDP, trade balance, and a laundry list of other things. It is a BIG DEAL in relation to these things in line with stated objectives and performance, a very little deal, on it's own and cherry picked to make a point. And that is, apparently, why you are confused. You cherry picked something, expressed it in a very prejudiced manner (even in relation to the inflation of the dollar Reagan didn't 'triple' the debt), and expected it to mean something. As a statement, it really doesn't mean much.
mnjcpa posted at 7:57 pm on Mon, May 7, 2012.
Touche Rich - couldn't say it any better. It's the ideology we're fighting and the sad part of it is Mike was an educator. This is the thinking America is producing in school today.
wdgnas posted at 5:50 am on Tue, May 8, 2012.
mnjcpa: and when the government of the country your client has moved everything into nationalizes all foreign or domestic accounts for that matter then what?
wdgnas posted at 5:57 am on Tue, May 8, 2012.
mnjcpa: We're $60 trillion + deep in unfunded entitlements (social security added $4 trillion last year alone); we're running $1.3 trillion in annual federal budget deficits; and we're on the wrong side of the trade deficit by $500 billion each year.
maybe, just maybe if the majority of the manufacturing jobs hadn't been sent off shored, we wouldn't be on the wrong side of the trade deficit by $500 billion each year. why not build another billionaire a stadium or arena or ball park?
Mike McClellan posted at 7:39 am on Tue, May 8, 2012.
I see Rich has added "economist" to his all too brief tenure at the mysterious "fully accredited" college that employed him.
And his sidekick has shown up to add his two cents.
But I wonder, can they cite any -- any -- economist or historian that disputes the huge debt growth under Reagan?
I mean, any economist besides those two, that is?
And while they're at it, maybe the cpa can explain how growing the debt enormously is part of "conservative economic policies"?
He has been notably silent about that. No wonder.
gilbertgrandma posted at 8:34 am on Tue, May 8, 2012.
Mike, why do you keep going back to Reagan? That ship has sailed. We need to figure out how to stop the bleeding now, because under Obama, we're soon going to bleed out!
Accuracy posted at 1:07 pm on Tue, May 8, 2012.
Mike McClellan keeps pointing out that Ronald Reagan adopted an economic program that created $1.6 trillion in deficits over his eight years – 1981-1989 – as president.
The military benefited the most from President Reagan’s increase.
But, $1.6 trillion is not a staggering amount compared to Barack Obama’s increase of $5.556 trillion in just over three years as president. Along with his proposes to have the federal government spend $45.4 trillion in taxpayer money over the next decade.
Mike McClellan posted at 1:52 pm on Tue, May 8, 2012.
Well, Accuracy, to borrow from that eminent economist Rich, you're comparing 1988 dollars with 2012 dollars. Why don't you find out what $1.6 trillion in 1989 equals in 2012 dollars and then make your argument.
DrJCA1 posted at 2:40 pm on Tue, May 8, 2012.
You guys go on and on about things that mean absolutley nothing in the here and now. The past is just that - the PAST. It does not matter who did what, or which president was good or bad. The only thing that matters is what is going on right now. The only fact yu all need to know is that if our elected officials do not work together and cooperate with the "other side", we won't have a country to argue about in a decade or so. Our nation is so large and diverse that no one philosophy - liberal or conservative - can fix all of our problems. We need clear headed thinkers who have the stones to do what's right for the majority of Americans, not a bunch of jerks who just want to show off and have their childish temper tentrums. If you know anything at all about American history and economics, you'll see that we've had good and bad times no matter who was in charge. It's the nature of the US society. We've always had wealthy folks as well as those who have nothing.No one is going to change that fact or make us all equal in the future. Reading your argumentitave comments just shows eveyone why the congress clowns act the same way.
mnjcpa posted at 3:02 pm on Tue, May 8, 2012.
Well said DrJCA1 and gilbertgrandma.
That's what I was attempting to get across to Mike, but you both got the thought across much better than I. Even when Mike's called on his myopic view, he'd rather argue than try to compromise. This confirms I did the right thing years ago to pay a bright, creative teacher that was fed up with Big Government education to teach my grandchildren at home so they would grow up understanding the world untarnished by liberal ideology. Best decision I made.
gilbertgrandma posted at 3:06 pm on Tue, May 8, 2012.
DrJCA1 - thank you for your commonsense post! As I said previously, we need to stop dragging Reagan, Carter, Bush, etc. into this and figure out how to stop the bleeding now before it's too late. Apparently, most folks would rather just argue.
Rich posted at 6:05 pm on Tue, May 8, 2012.
"...if our elected officials do not work together and cooperate with the "other side".
But the problem is not that they don't, it's that they do. They are clueless about what to do, and they cooperate to be absolutely sure that we only get a choice between clueless and more clueless. We end up voting for the lesser of two evils, and they have collaborated to be completely sure we get an evil one way or another.
mnjcpa posted at 7:31 am on Wed, May 9, 2012.
wdgnas
Those manufacturing jobs have been shipped off-shore or to a right to work state are for a very simple reason. Labor unions. No company can pay people lifetime benefits and healthcare benefits (like the infamous AZ Willie) and expect to stay in business long. These windfalls are often multiple millions of dollars that is really just another form of redistribution of wealth.
Judging from your snarky comments that's been fueled by Obama's favorite rally cry - class warfare - it's everyone else's business what a business owner does with what he/she risked and earned. Look to where the problem lies, not the result.
wdgnas posted at 7:56 am on Wed, May 9, 2012.
mnjcpa: how do you explain manufacturing jobs leaving right to work states? and not all unions pay lifetime benefits, as if the union members paid nothing into those benefits. another lie that if repeated often enough even you believe it. like i stated before and i will use your infamous "i know a", i know a person that worked for asu and receives benefits till age 84. not a lifetime. unless she dies before 84...
mnjcpa posted at 12:33 pm on Wed, May 9, 2012.
Easy. Don't make the mistake I did to use an antidote to establish a premise.
Excessive government regulations, labor unions, and unskilled applicants produced by big government education require management to look elsewhere to meet profit goals and pay shareholders what they expect.
I never said union members didn't contribute to their pensions. They contribute similarly as private sector employees, but with one GIGANTIC difference. When private sector employees leave work they have to depend on the measly $3-$14k a year they put away. Union members on the other hand get a GUARANTEED amount each and every month for life.
Don't believe me? Pull out a financial calculator and see what that amounts to over 30+ years. It can be worth multiple millions which is completely out of touch with reality.
It's not a lie and not difficult to understand - you just have to be willing to learn rather than be caught in the prism of your own beliefs.
wdgnas posted at 6:14 am on Thu, May 10, 2012.
mnjcpa: Excessive government regulations, labor unions, and unskilled applicants produced by big government education require management to look elsewhere to meet profit goals and pay shareholders what they expect.
more lies. how do you explain manufacturing jobs leaving right to work states? either you can't or you won't. if right to work states are so great, why are manufacturing jobs leaving them. go ahead, you can say the word.
when the price of wheat went up, so did the price of bread. when the price of wheat went down, the price did not reflect the change in price. the producers of the bread blamed the middle man for price of bread. the middleman was removed and the price of bread still did not reflect the change.
mnjcpa posted at 7:40 am on Thu, May 10, 2012.
If you're not willing to look outside your own beliefs - then there's nothing I or anyone else for that matter can help you with. Good luck - you need it.
mnjcpa posted at 8:07 am on Thu, May 10, 2012.
The title to Patterson's post is: Temporary fiscal solutions now won’t fix the economy later. He's absolutely correct.
Until the Left understands that it is mathematically certain that America is bankrupt, then no reform is possible. How anyone can possibly support an incumbent that hasn't produced a budget since in office is beyond me. And the class warfare that he's superb at won't work either. People are ticked. There AREN'T enough taxes to raise on producers to fix the economy. THE ONLY WAY is dramatic reform of entitlements - period.
If you want to keep dragging your heals fine - see you and other American's in bankruptcy when the world no longer recognizes the dollar as the world's currency. You think we've got problems now? You're in for a wild ride.
wdgnas posted at 7:10 am on Fri, May 11, 2012.
mnjcpa: you never answered my question, only dancing around the subject. maybe you should try a stint on dancing with the stars.
THE ONLY WAY is dramatic reform of entitlements - period. is the defense budget considered an entitlement? at one point entitlements were on the table.
didn't opec already stop trading in dollars? going for the euro instead, although with greece having it's issues. have any idea what the best selling automobile in greece is? the porsche cayenne. the real reason why germany doesn't want to give up on greece. tell me there's no money in greece.
and i believe heels is spelled with a double e, not ea. where did you learn to spell, anyway? i do not expect you to answer any of my questions, merely think about your answers. wouldn't want to make your brain hurt.
wdgnas posted at 7:12 am on Fri, May 11, 2012.
mnjcpa: one more thing. no need to worry your pretty little head about me. i'll be just fine...
mnjcpa posted at 8:48 am on Fri, May 11, 2012.
Sorry wdgnas for not being your intellectual equivalent. One thing I do is listen to what others have to offer - rather than engage in insults and hateful rhetoric. Be my guest if that makes you feel better because no fact I put up will change thinking that won't be changed.
Defense is and always has been only a tiny piece of GDP. People love to bat it around as critical to our economic survival - but it's not. Patterson's posit is true. Significant reform must occur or we will not survive economically. My work is in the financial markets and I've worked in tax issues for over 25 years but clearly that experience has nothing on you.
wdgnas posted at 5:15 am on Sat, May 12, 2012.
mnjcpa: typical republican response. play the victim card...
mnjcpa posted at 9:42 am on Sat, May 12, 2012.
Wrong again. I won't waste my time trying to illustrate what many people are tring to understand with someone that's a legend in their own mind.