“This country is home to the finest workforce in the world, where people have been raised to believe that anything is possible if they work hard. Yet in spite of the mettle and tireless spirit of the American people, our economy continues to flounder.
“It is time to restore America’s greatness, to unleash the innovation and entrepreneurship that have made us an example to other nations. Washington needs new leadership that understands that throwing money at our problems is not the answer and that pro-growth, pro-jobs policies are the key to jump-starting our economy and creating jobs.” 2012 RNC Convention Speaker & Ohio Republican Senator Rob Portman.
" High unemployment, declining incomes and crushing debt is not a new normal. It’s the result of misguided policies. And next January, our economy will begin a comeback with the Romney Plan for a Stronger Middle Class that will lead to more jobs and more take home pay for working Americans.The problem with the republicans being upset about unemployment in America is it is 100% fake outrage.
America is on the wrong track; but Mitt Romney and I will take the right steps, in the right time, to get us back on the right track!
I believe my record of getting things done in Congress will be a very helpful complement to Governor Romney’s executive and private sector success outside Washington. I have worked closely with Republicans as well as Democrats to advance an agenda of economic growth, fiscal discipline, and job creation." Paul Ryan's(R- Wall St.) 2012 RNC Convention Speech.
Lets not forget that Mitch McConnell started off President Obama's tenure with this:
Then they blocked the American Jobs Act which was set to:
THE AMERICAN JOBS ACT1. Tax Cuts to Help America’s Small Businesses Hire and Grow
2. Putting Workers Back on the Job While Rebuilding and Modernizing America
- Cutting the payroll tax in half for 98 percent of businesses: The President’s plan will cut in half the taxes paid by businesses on their first $5 million in payroll, targeting the benefit to the 98 percent of firms that have payroll below this threshold.
- A complete payroll tax holiday for added workers or increased wages: The President’s plan will completely eliminate payroll taxes for firms that increase their payroll by adding new workers or increasing the wages of their current worker (the benefit is capped at the first $50 million in payroll increases).
- Extending 100% expensing into 2012: This continues an effective incentive for new investment.
- Reforms and regulatory reductions to help entrepreneurs and small businesses access capital.
3. Pathways Back to Work for Americans Looking for Jobs.
- A “Returning Heroes” hiring tax credit for veterans: This provides tax credits from $5,600 to $9,600 to encourage the hiring of unemployed veterans.
- Preventing up to 280,000 teacher layoffs,while keeping cops and firefighters on the job.
- Modernizing at least 35,000 public schools across the country,supporting new science labs, Internet-ready classrooms and renovations at schools across the country, in rural and urban areas.
- Immediate investments in infrastructure and a bipartisan National Infrastructure Bank, modernizing our roads, rail, airports and waterways while putting hundreds of thousands of workers back on the job.
- A New “Project Rebuild”, which will put people to work rehabilitating homes, businesses and communities, leveraging private capital and scaling land banks and other public-private collaborations.
- Expanding access to high-speed wireless as part of a plan for freeing up the nation’s spectrum.
4. Tax Relief for Every American Worker and Family
- The most innovative reform to the unemployment insurance program in 40 years: As part of an extension of unemployment insurance to prevent 5 million Americans looking for work from losing their benefits, the President’s plan includes innovative work-based reforms to prevent layoffs and give states greater flexibility to use UI funds to best support job-seekers, including:
- Work-Sharing: UI for workers whose employers choose work-sharing over layoffs.
- A new “Bridge to Work” program: The plan builds on and improves innovative state programs where those displacedtake temporary, voluntary work or pursue on-the-job training.
- Innovative entrepreneurship and wage insurance programs: States will also be empowered to implement wage insurance to help reemploy older workers and programs that make it easier for unemployed workers to start their own businesses.
- A $4,000 tax credit to employers for hiring long-term unemployed workers.
- Prohibiting employers from discriminating against unemployed workers when hiring.
- Expanding job opportunities for low-income youth and adults through a fund for successful approaches for subsidized employment, innovative training programs and summer/year-round jobs for youth.
- Cutting payroll taxes in half for 160 million workers next year: The President’s plan will expand the payroll tax cut passed last year to cut workers payroll taxes in half in 2012 – providing a $1,500 tax cut to the typical American family, without negatively impacting the Social Security Trust Fund.
- Allowing more Americans to refinance their mortgages at today’s near 4 percent interest rates, which can put more than $2,000 a year in a family’s pocket.
Yes everything the republicans have been whining about and blaming President Obama for, a very good start to fix our problems wrapped up in one bill and they blocked it. By the way, Mitch McConnell does not stand alone!
Today(9/19/12) the Republicans Blocked the VETERANS JOBS BILL!
Just to be perfectly clear, TODAY (9/19/12) THE REPUBLICANS BLOCKED THE VETERANS JOBS BILL!
As the New York Times asks: Who could oppose a veterans jobs bill? The 2012 republican version of course! (emphasis mine):
Congressional Republicans, resolute in their commitment to deny the Democrats anything that looks like an accomplishment in an election year, have spent the week obstructing passage of the Veterans Job Corps Act of 2012. It’s a perfectly inoffensive bill from Senator Patty Murray, the Washington Democrat, meant to increase hiring and job training for veterans, especially those who served in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Who could oppose hiring more veterans as cops, firefighters and national-parks workers? Who could be against helping veterans apply their military training to earn civilian occupational licenses? The unemployment rate for new veterans hit nearly 11 percent in August, compared with 8.1 percent nationwide. Veterans and active-duty soldiers are committing suicide at alarming rates. The men and women who defend America in uniform are 1 percent of the population. Why shouldn’t the 99 percent give them a hand?
I’ll let the Republicans explain.
Senator Tom Coburn of Oklahoma says it is dishonorable and cowardly to help veterans find jobs when there are more important things (what?) to do. Perhaps forgetting where he worked, he denounced the legislation on Wednesday as a “political exercise” and a waste of time, since the House wasn’t going to pass it anyway. (If that’s going to be the standard, the Senate might as well shut off the utilities.)
“Where is our honor? Where is our valor? Where is our sacrifice?” thundered Mr. Coburn, immediately after suggesting that the bill cost too much.
Rand Paul of Kentucky went further, saying he would block the bill until Pakistan freed Shakil Afridi, the doctor who helped the United States find Osama bin Laden. He also wants to halt all American aid to Pakistan until Dr. Afridi is released. If that halts American aid to veterans, too bad.
“I care deeply about the veterans . I care deeply about housing and helping the veterans who have fought for their country. But this is about whether we as a country and the American taxpayers will be asked to send good money after bad to allies that are not acting like allies.”
It’s only “about” that because of Mr. Paul. This ought to be about jobs for veterans.
Ms. Murray has not managed to open the Pakistani prison cell, but she has tried to make her bill as bipartisan as possible, by incorporating wholesale additions from Richard Burr, a North Carolina Republican. The Senate could have rallied behind this bill, shown its dedication to the troops, and been done with it by now. But Democrats will have to pass this bill the hard, slow way, with repeated large votes overcoming Republican procedural objections. At this rate, it might pass on Wednesday. Or it might be killed by Republicans committed to making a bigger point about honor, valor, sacrifice and obstruction.
From now on the Republicans can send our troops to war with the slogan
"Don't come back, you cost too much"!
That's a winning election strategy!
We will see if the American People punish the republican party in November, for their incredible disregard for the amazing men and women in our military!
Wisconsin Guard units continue to deploy into war, it seems it is never a big news issue now.
ReplyDeleteMany of our neighbors who want to move on with their lives, and many who have already served overseas on deployment face the reality of being forced to return for deployment; some even faced with going to jail if they don't, thanks to the I.R.R. part of service that many young people don't quite fully grasp the nature of at enlistment.
This, as much as if not more than the 47% bullshit Romney spewed needs to really get driven home, by me, by you, by Dem's, Progressives, Obama, Biden, etc.
ReplyDeleteThese bastards prop themselves up like some great fucking patriots, and yet once again, they are spitting on the graves of our fallen soldiers, and spitting in the faces of those serving now.
It's amazing the length's these assholes will go to make Obama a 1 term President. Norquist, Boehner, Cantor, and McConnell should all be looked at as traitors. 200 + years ago they would have been viewed as such.
The were called Tories 200 years ago!
ReplyDeleteYou are exactly right!
DeleteThe Tea Party totally misrepresents its cause. 200 years ago, before Independence, our original colonies were run administratively through the British East India Company. This is the model to what multi-national corporations today have become. Their military you see in the movies were actually private mercenaries, run as a division of the East India Company. Sovereign governments giving control over to corporations has been the agenda for our Republican Party for the past 40 years.
Tories were and still are the British conservatives, dedicated to their monarch. America was about progress, and the only way to progress was by breaking away from British political and economic domination.
The Tea Party and those Republicans that go along with it are frauds!
As usual you only tell half the story. These bills are loaded with pork spending and kickbacks to unions. From the first jobs act:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.politico.com/news/stories/1011/66144_Page2.html
This most recent one gave money to local governments with no stipulation to hire veterans. If its veterans you care about, legislation could be introduced that does just that, but that is only a diversion here.
Spend a ton of money, promise it will be paid by increasing taxes on "the rich" and throw in a promise to the veterans and call it a jobs bill. Now that they don't have both houses, this is how this administration hides its kickback spending to its supporters. Take out all the spending and see what happens, it will be the dems that kill it.
You're so fucking stupid.
DeleteIf I was stupid, I would believe everything I am told. If I was REALLY stupid, I would talk like you do.
DeleteHey, Mr. IMBR.
DeleteI got a flat tire on my old Buick today.
Guess what?
It was Obama's fault.
Once again, IMBR shows up spouting some provably false, inane nonsense in an effort to defend the indefensible. http://legiscan.com/gaits/view/432490 There's a link to the bill. Please show us all the pork and union kickbacks. Yeah, there isn't any. Maybe instead of blindly supporting a political party to the detriment of the entirety of our nation, you could show a little intellectual honesty for a change? Maybe when the party that claims to have a monopoly on patriotism engages in wildly unpatriotic behavior, you could call them on it for a change instead of constantly acting like their little party fluffer. I know, that might require you to reevaluate your tightly held, simple minded narrative which could cause you some discomfort. The rest of us call that learning. You could try it. What do you have to lose? Because honestly, you really suck at this whole political argument/debate experiment you've been having.
DeleteI did make it part of my nightly reading and commented below. I did especially like how it denies medicare benefits to people who owe back taxes. See what happens when government controls health care? they get to decide who deserves it. Do you think this targets the rich? The young?
DeleteIt was a nice try to attack me personally, but it only exposes you as a close minded punk.
"I did especially like how it denies medicare benefits to people who owe back taxes."
DeleteUm, no. From the summary page of the bill:
Amends the Internal Revenue Code to provide for a 100% continuous levy upon the property and rights of Medicare (title XVIII of the Social Security Act) PROVIDERS and SUPPLIERS neglecting or refusing to pay taxes.
Once again, you demonstrate your unwillingness to engage in intellectual honesty. Or is it that you just don't comprehend what's written in the bill? It's okay to admit that if it's the case, that's how you learn.
I attack you personally because you choose to obfuscate issues with hyperbolic bullshit. It's the kind of thing that prevents honest discourse that's so necessary and lacking in our society. You've repeatedly shown yourself to be unwilling to engage in honest discourse (you just demonstrated it again in your post above). So why bother trying to engage you with any respect. You aren't deserving of it. You're deserving of derision and ridicule. I will gleefully continue to point out the neighborhood clown at any opportunity you present to me.
1. your link says nothing of what you followed it up with.
ReplyDelete2. yes it would be nice to know the jobs created and saved are good union jobs to know that they then pay well.
3. Most police, fire, teachers jobs are union and essential ..
4. yes spending money is the only way out of the recession, so dont pas the AJA but the veterans jobs bill is a different story , they worked with the repubs tremendously to get it passed ....
so who is telling part of the story ???
Funny you didn't include this from the fact sheet you linked to:
ReplyDeleteFully Paid for as Part of the President’s Long-Term Deficit Reduction Plan.
To ensure that the American Jobs Act is fully paid for, the President will call on the Joint Committee to come up with additional deficit reduction necessary to pay for the Act and still meet its deficit target. The President will, in the coming days, release a detailed plan that will show how we can do that while achieving the additional deficit reduction necessary to meet the President’s broader goal of stabilizing our debt as a share of the economy.
$, bn
Tax Cuts to Help America’s Small Businesses Hire and Grow
70
Cut employer payroll taxes in half & bonus payroll cut for new jobs/wages
65
Extend 100% expensing in 2012
5
Putting Workers Back on the Job While Rebuilding and Modernizing America
140
Teacher rehiring and first responders
35
Modernizing schools
30
Immediate surface transportation
50
Infrastructure bank
10
Rehabilitation/repurposing of vacant property (neighborhood stabilization)
15
National wireless initiative
0*
Veterans hiring initiative
n.a.
Pathways Back to Work for Americans Looking for Jobs
62
UI Reform and Extension
49
Jobs tax credit for long term unemployed
8
Pathways back to work fund
5
More Money in the Pockets of Every American Worker and Family
175
Cutting employee payroll taxes in half in 2012
175
TOTAL
447
* Proposal has a gross cost of $10bn, but a net deficit reducing impact of $18bn because of spectrum auction proceeds.
Notice, veterans hiring iniative = N.A.
Also of interest is the first paragraph which states: the president will tell us how we can pay for this. I missed the link to that report.
Actually I did...also 1o billion is LESS THAN 18 billion, that also does not take into effect the fact that 2 million people working and paying taxes LOWERS the deficit.
ReplyDeleteI wish the deficit hawks were deficit hawks when it came time to passing the bush tax cuts.
PS: While this is about hiring of veterans the republican party throwng them under the bus, you will notice in the AJA where i highlighted the programs that help veterans specifically
lol, no that 10 billion is just for the national wireless iniative. they predict it will have an 18 billion return after private sector companys buy it and begin running it.
DeleteThe cost of this bill is almost 450 billion. Again, no word on how it will be paid for, other than raise taxes on the rich.
The point I am making is: look at all the spending in the bill. How does that help veterans. It doesn't, its just a way to make a headline when it doesnt pass.
With 450 billion we could make every vet in the country millionaire with a bunch of money to spare.
I also read that after the Bush tax cuts were introduced tax revenue reached an all time high. But of course Laffer was all wrong.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/beltway/2012/02/22/after-bush-tax-cuts-payments-by-wealthy-actually-increased/
But it does create more infrastructure and more systems to support people.
DeletePeople helping people.
Nah, I got more than I need, why should I give a 8765.
We finally agree on something!
ReplyDelete"But of course Laffer was all wrong."
Its to bad it took 30 years for people to figure that out!
Careful with that broad brush!
Delete"But of course Laffer was all wrong. Its to bad it took 30 years for people to figure that out!"
This was identified as manufactured Republican B.S. by many people just as soon as it was announced. Conveniently benefiting Ronald Reagan, who just happened to be J. Edgar Hoover's favorite informant and tool.
It is always interesting to see paintchip eaters like IMBAR admit that Laffer was full of shit though. They figured it out after only 29.94 years.
Jeff, some research for you:
Deletehttp://www.prageruniversity.com/Economics/Do-High-Taxes-Raise-More%20Money.html
BULLSHIT !!! The bill voted on yesterday was a STAND ALONE BILL. NO PORK !!! And it was ALLREADY PAID FOR.. Watch the senate in action before you flap your yap ! Also Each and every room at the VA hospital had C-span on yesterday when the roll call vote lady said... MR JOHNSON OF WISCONSIN... NO !!!
ReplyDeleteYour right, I read the bill last night. they split this one aspect out on its own from the previous bill. And while it spends 1 billion with no estimate of how many it will employ it does appeal to unemployed veterans. But it does so in a manner that only public sector employers can benefit from hiring vets. Like police, fire, and municipalities. Which is great if your looking for revenue as they all are, but it will limit the opportunities provided by this bill for the actual unemployed. I also found out that there are already six veteran training programs in place to help veterans get back into the workforce. So it would seem this is more of a kickback to local governments who hire veterans. Then they can just blame Walker when the funding runs out and they are over budget again, right Capper? The funding comes from repealing funding from looking for petroleum and natural gas deposits on American soil, taking away medicare from delinquent (hello. all you in favor of government healthcare) taxpayers (the poor) and a promise that with increased revenue agents more revenue can be extracted from non payers. Which of course means it isn't really funded and that goes against new deficit spending rules put in place by the democrats. But mostly I found this from CBS news:
DeleteDemocratic lawmakers turned to the legislation shortly before they'll adjourn for the final weeks of this year's election campaigns. The bill had little chance of passing the House this Congress, but it still allowed senators to appeal to a key voting bloc. Politics as usual.
Of course it had no chance of passing the House, Paul ryan is there and he is not a fan of Americans working or our vets....
DeleteSo i am curious IMBAR, how would you recommend we get Americans working again???
I say we give the republicans 4 years to prove their theories. I will assure you it won't be as bad as if Obama is in office again. While Romney isn't as Reagan-like as I would like, I trust him more with the checkbook than Obama.
DeleteI quote, "Government is not the solution, government is the problem"
The last 30 years havent been enough of a time trial? what theories would you like tried that we have not done so far?
DeleteAs for your checkbook, no one ran it up like reagan so if thats who you trust with your money ....watch out
"I say we give the republicans 4 years to prove their theories."
DeleteROFL! You're right, why didn't we think of that before? My god all this time we should've been lowering taxes and deregulating markets and industries! My god, if only businesses had some excess capital freed up they could go on a massive hiring spree. Imagine the unequaled levels of prosperity if we would've tried that! You really are an idiotic tool if you believe that. Are you going to honestly sit here and claim that Republican "theories" haven't been tried? FFS what is it you think we've been doing for 30+ years? Yes you're right, if Romney has proven anything it's that he's trustworthy. There's the guy I want to hand my checkbook to, good call.
Thank you. No seriously, thank you. On any given day I can check out this blog and know that somewhere you've posted some blatantly retarded comment that will be guaranteed to make me laugh. 4 years to prove Republican theories, LOL, that's your best one yet! Excellent!
Judging by your use of acronyms I doubt you have seen what the economy was like before Reagan. But thanks for backing your theories up. Now you can go back to CNN and comedy central where the other "smart" people get their news.
DeleteJust remember, every year Obama has been president we have had three times worse yearly deficits than Bush's worst year, and that was bad. QE will bring us inflation like we haven't seen in 30 years. And, I doubt you pay very much tax, but keep an eye on this, and how it affects the economy. Especially if your guy wins: http://www.atr.org/days-taxmageddon-a7203
Oh, take the time to set up a moniker, so I can keep track of your insightful comments here.
You know when you newly found deficit hawks try and blame President Obama for the deficit rise of putting the two wars on the books, you really lose alot of your credibility!
DeleteIMBR- Ah yes, a link to a page with the heading "taxmageddon". If only we had some historical precedent of what the economy, unemployment, and the budget deficit might look like under those tax rates. If only we could look back and see just how crushing those exact tax rates would be to the American economy. Oh, wait.
DeleteYou demonstrate in this post what it is that makes you so laughably inept in persuasive argument. In one sentence you carry on about the crushing deficit, in the very next you condemn ending the very tax cuts that are largest single driver of that deficit. You imply that Obama is implementing some massive tax increase when in it’s an expiration of tax cuts that had a sunset provision written into them (to avoid the Byrd rule and allow passage through reconciliation). But hey, why quibble over insignificant details when you can use rhetoric and hyperbole to disparage your perceived political enemy? It’s not as if you demonstrate a propensity towards nuance in your arguments ever anyway.
What else is driving that deficit you are so very clearly concerned about? Two wars, started under Republicans. The economic recession, which happened under Republican watch and was largely driven by financial deregulation. Economic recovery measures, which were a response to the aforementioned recession and which a large percentage of was actually tax cuts. Lastly there’s TARP, which again, was enacted under Republicans. Let’s not forget that Obama has already extended the tax cuts once. According to your Republican theories that should’ve created a massive economic boom that resulted in countless jobs added. Why would you think that another extension would have that result? What was it you were saying earlier about giving Republicans 4 years to prove their theories? I think they’ve proven them already.
See, that’s the problem with mindlessly following an ideology while ignoring the results. At best you end up looking contradictory. Usually though, as you routinely demonstrate, you look like a hypocritical jackass. Here’s a question for you to ponder. What would it take for you to admit that your ideas are wrong? What evidence would be enough to make you honestly rethink your narrative?
One last thing. Regarding this:
“ Now you can go back to CNN and comedy central where the other "smart" people get their news.”
“And, I doubt you pay very much tax”
Wow, zing. Really good burn. You’re awesome at this, do you do it professionally? You’re even worse at making assumptions than you are at making logical conclusions. How frighteningly embarrassing would it be to have to go and tell your friends at the John Galt circle jerk that you got verbally thrashed by a young, low tax bracket, Comedy Central viewer. I was actually setting up a moniker, but I decided to postpone that, as I’m sure it will further alienate you to see “Anonymous” lambasting you repeatedly. I will tell you this though, I’m union. According to your infantile narrative then, I’m part of the 7% that extorts the job creators for massive amounts of undeserved compensation for the trivial work I perform so that I can live a gloriously lavish lifestyle of excess. I therefore must actually be overtaxed because again, according to your narrative, us wealthy elites are being crushed by a cumbersome tax burden. I also buy gas, tobacco, liquor, have a cell phone, pay an electric bill, and FICA. So yes dumbass, I pay "very much" tax.
The problem I have with anonymous is that I can never get to know the poster. I'm not sure if you want me to believe you are the same person that posted above because you are obviously not yet you tell me I am all wrong in my assumptions.
DeleteSo without the help of a moniker lets figure out who you are. You say you are union but fail to say public. But counting yourself in the 7 percentile and your better than average vocabulary would suggest you are an educator of some sorts. Probably college level is my guess.
You made some bad assumptions yourself. You talk about deficits and spending, but you didn't mention stimulus. Its like ignoring the "elephant in the room". While its true we are wasting our money trying to influence democracy in the middle east, Obama had promised to change that. I haven't seen a change in policy yet, or change in attitudes towards us.
You want to credit Obama for extending the tax cuts and ask why it didn't help. It didn't help because they were already in place. It would have hurt to remove them, and I think Obama realized that.
I would enjoy discussing these topics with you but I wont know who you are anymore.
The best question you asked is, what would change my mind. I guess I would need to see truth in the argument that 4 more years of Obama would help this country. That is a tougher question to look back and history and find an answer. What will happen when interest rates go up and we owe 16 trillion? What will happen when QE devalues the dollar and raises the price of everything we buy? How can we afford to let Obamacare go into force?
I still have my reservations about Romney, but even if he did nothing it would be better than the path we are on.
What does it matter who the person is? And people can be educated and articulate without being college professors.
DeleteThe stimulus played a minor role in today's deficit, coming in third after Bush's tax cuts and the two unfunded wars.
The funniest thing about your comment is that economists have said that Wisconsin would be better off if Walker had done nothing, yet you continue to advocate for a Walker style governance, which makes you rather look like your talking out of your dorsal-side orifice.
Do not forget Medicare Part D, one of the biggest spending bills we have ever passed, and its proud supporters paul ryan and Tommy Thompson!
DeleteBUT that takes away from the original point of the post, IMBAR was successful in driving the topic away from the original intent. THe republicans screwed the veterans over!
Risk your lives, fight my wars bit do not ask for anything in return!
It does matter because he tells me I was way off with my assumptions. If I was I would like to know. I contend that it was a separate person coming to the aid of the previous commentor. You could tell me if they were made from the same computer.
DeleteIts true people can be educated without being a college professor, but the commentor gave other clues. Well anom, how far off am I?
As far as the deficit we discussed the impact of the Bush tax cuts already. According to your link the CBO predicts 1 trillion over ten years, thats assuming it doesn't stagnate the economy further. Doing the math that doesn't even come close to closing the yearly spending deficit. As far as the wars, why aren't you asking your president why we are still there?
Which economists say Walker has made WI worse off? I want to see that link.
And in the face of bankruptcy, credit downgrades, and illegal teachers strikes, you advocate a Pat Quinn style of governance. But you see, because you are not anomymous I know where you are coming from, I understand why. You personally gain from public unions and want to see status quo stay the same. I don't agree, but I understand.
“I'm not sure if you want me to believe you are the same person that posted above because you are obviously not yet you tell me I am all wrong in my assumptions.”
DeleteObviously not? LOL! How dangerous it is to assume when you are as woefully inept at it as you so clearly are.
“So without the help of a moniker lets figure out who you are." You say you are union but fail to say public. But counting yourself in the 7 percentile and your better than average vocabulary would suggest you are an educator of some sorts. Probably college level is my guess.”
So according to you, a moniker in some way helps to make judgements about who someone really is? What does that tell us about you then? I prefer to judge an idea on it’s merits and not on the messenger. That’s probably where you start to fall into trouble. For you, the messenger seems to matter more than the message. For you, ideology seems to trump policy and results. That’s a great way to make decisions btw (yes, for the sake of brevity I sometimes use acronyms). By 7%, I meant 7% of private sector employees that are unionized, not 7 percentile income. I guess the facetious nature of the comment was over your head. Unsurprising. Actually, I’m a structural Ironworker with Local 8 in Milwaukee if it’s that important to you. Surprised? That’s what assumptions get you. You assume, because someone can type multisyllabic words, and structure a sentence, then they must have a Master’s Degree level education at a minimum. In reality, I’ve never been to college. I do read a lot though if it makes you feel better. As I said before, you should stay away from making deductive assumptions. You are beyond pathetic at it.
“You made some bad assumptions yourself. You talk about deficits and spending, but you didn't mention stimulus. Its like ignoring the "elephant in the room".”
Yeah, first of all that would be an omission, not an assumption. Again, intellectual honesty, not your strong suit. Second, I did mention it. “Economic recovery measures, which were a response to the aforementioned recession and which a large percentage of was actually tax cuts.” WTF do you think that was? I guess we’ll have to add reading comprehension to your list of weak attributes.
“While its true we are wasting our money trying to influence democracy in the middle east, Obama had promised to change that. I haven't seen a change in policy yet, or change in attitudes towards us.”
Wait, so now your criticism of Obama is that he DIDN’T change Republican policies? You see what you’re doing right? Of course you don’t. You’re making completely contradictory statements in an effort to castigate what you view as your political opponent. This is why I point out you, and others like you, for mockery. You do not want to participate in honest discourse. You are not concerned with positive outcomes in this country if those outcomes derive from policies implemented from the opposing party. That, btw, isn’t patriotic.
“You want to credit Obama for extending the tax cuts and ask why it didn't help. It didn't help because they were already in place.”
Wait, I’m confused. Those tax cuts were in place, yet the economy dove into a recession, and the deficit exploded. When the previous tax rates were in place, we had economic growth, low unemployment, and a balanced budget. You claim to care about deficits and jobs, yet oppose allowing those tax cuts to expire? Please tell me how that’s in any way a logically consistent position? It looks to me like there is no historic correlation between tax rates and job growth, but there does appear to be correlation between tax rates and deficits.
“The best question you asked is, what would change my mind. I guess I would need to see truth in the argument that 4 more years of Obama would help this country.”
DeleteNo. This is your problem. You see everything in terms of Obama. The question wasn’t about support of an individual politician, it was about support of a narrative. What would it take for you to change your views and admit your ideas and narrative are wrong? What evidence would have to be presented to you to stop blindly supporting a political party?
“I would enjoy discussing these topics with you but I wont know who you are anymore.”
You’ll know who I am by that feeling of shame you have after reading an “Anonymous” post that points out your inconsistencies and laughable attempts to defend the ideals of of men and women that have nothing but contempt for this country. You’ll know who I am when you feel that spotlight shining on you, highlighting what a glorious asshat you’ve held yourself up to be. You’ll know who I am after you’ve been so verbally trounced you’re forced to retreat into your safe place and curl up with your tattered copy of Fountainhead, crying yourself to sleep on your "Factor" pillow.
That's terrific, an ironworker that uses statements such as "It’s not as if you demonstrate a propensity towards nuance in your arguments ever anyway. " Do you do the labor? Or does your salary come from the dues they pay?
DeleteI have friends in local 8 (yes, I was an iron worker) and assuming you are who you say you are, you are far different than the average member. Assuming your active in union affairs, I would ask you what percentage of the members vote for candidates the union agrees with?
So lets review your "verball trouncing".
The messenger does make a difference when reviewing the message. It is why this site tries to personally attack all of its opposition, discredit the messenger and you've discredited the message. Both sides do it, so you're wrong there.
I was off when assuming the 7% was the public sector union members. But I spent years on the steel so if your telling me I don't know the type of person that works there, your wrong again.
The assumption you make is that the deficit is Bush's fault. The elephant in the room is Obama. Bush, even with his wars in full fury, his tax cuts in place, and his obvious lack of intelligence (sic), still only had a worst one year deficit of about 450 billion. Compare those to your presidents. So when you blame the deficits on war and tax cuts, wrong again. I wouldn't mind it if you told me what caused our current recession, other than tax cuts. Your perspective might be interesting.
My criticism wasn't aimed at Obamas foreign policy, which is flawed no doubt, it was to point out that your president won office by saying on thing and doing another. Something you seem to give him a pass on, broken promises.
I'll point out that government revenues were never higher than immediately after the Bush tax cuts went into effect. Now wether they are good long term may be argued, but to say they caused the recession, is foolish.
While its true there isn't much correlation between tax rates and job growth, there is an immediate effect on economic activity. And we may get to see the effect it has on deficits next year.
You say you care about jobs, but support the party that killed the mining bill. Which by the way had your unions support. How can that be a logically consistent opinion?
Now I'll go back to my feeling of shame. That's not bad, you could actually be funny if you weren't so angry. It's OK, through no doing of your own work may pick up for you next year.
“That's terrific, an ironworker that uses statements such as "It’s not as if you demonstrate a propensity towards nuance in your arguments ever anyway. " Do you do the labor? Or does your salary come from the dues they pay?”
Delete“I have friends in local 8 (yes, I was an iron worker) and assuming you are who you say you are, you are far different than the average member.
“But I spent years on the steel so if your telling me I don't know the type of person that works there, your wrong again.”
Wow, what an incredibly judgmental dickhead you’ve shown yourself to be. I couldn’t possibly be articulate and an Ironworker right? Please, tell me, what kind of a person is it that works there? I’d love to hear your generalizations of an entire group of workers. Because in my experience, you know, being an actual member and all, I’ve found Ironworkers to be a pretty diverse group of people with varying political beliefs and attitudes. But what do I know, I only happen to be one of them. I guess, lacking reading comprehension skills, you missed this, “Actually, I’m a structural Ironworker with Local 8 in Milwaukee”. Notice the structural Ironworker part. That should’ve been your clue that I actually work in the field. I guess with your keen deductive reasoning you missed that. Not that it matters. Every single one of our officers either currently works in the field or were elected out of the field. Every one. Being a former Ironworker and having “friends” in Local 8 I would’ve thought you would’ve know that. Possibly it’s an attempt on your part to avoid intellectual honesty to support your narrative that union representatives are bad people, and “takers”.
“Assuming your active in union affairs, I would ask you what percentage of the members vote for candidates the union agrees with?”
How the fuck would I know? What, you think we sit at union meetings and require members to disclose who they vote for? There’s actually very little political coordination within our meetings at all. No one is forced to vote a certain way. No one is coerced. That’s a fallacy created by people like yourself in an effort to malign unions whom they see as political opponents, completely ignoring union’s integral function in the ascendency of the middle class in the U.S.
“The messenger does make a difference when reviewing the message. It is why this site tries to personally attack all of its opposition, discredit the messenger and you've discredited the message. Both sides do it, so you're wrong there.”
Wrong again. Shocking how consistent you are in that regard. This site, first and foremost, points out the inherent fallacy of a message. Quite skillfully I might add. It also points out the hypocrisy and contradictions of the messenger when they exist as well as any self interest being served by the messenger. This is, and should be, separate from the message itself. When Bruce Bartlett criticizes Reaganomics, I don’t discount what he says because he’s a Republican. When Obama signs the NDAA into law, I don’t automatically run around advocating what a great piece of legislation it is. I agree or disagree on the merits. Everything else is secondary. Now, that doesn’t mean Bruce Bartlett’s statement isn’t further reinforced by his position as a former policy advisor to Reagan, or that Obama’s signing of the NDAA wasn’t mindfuckingly hypocritical given his previous statements about executive excess. Just that it doesn’t change the inherent right or wrong-ness of the message. Which brings me to my next point.
You really, and I mean this in all seriousness, should absolutely stop making assumptions. You seem to base them on preconceived ideas you have of labels people should fit neatly into. You keep implying that I unapologetically support Obama in all areas (I do not). That I am some sort of lock step Democratic Party cheerleader (I am not). That I have no criticisms for Obama at all (I do, quite a few actually). This may be because you project your behavior onto others and cannot conceive of a scenario in which someone thinks prudently, regardless of ideological belief. If I have a belief, and see evidence and facts that contradict those beliefs, I weigh the evidence and change my beliefs to fit the facts. I do not ignore facts to protect my ideological beliefs. Once again, this is called learning.
Delete“The assumption you make is that the deficit is Bush's fault. “
No, I don’t. Scrolling back up, I don’t think I even typed the name Bush once. I just don’t ignore, his, and other Republicans massive contributions to it.
“ The elephant in the room is Obama. Bush, even with his wars in full fury, his tax cuts in place, and his obvious lack of intelligence (sic), still only had a worst one year deficit of about 450 billion. Compare those to your presidents. So when you blame the deficits on war and tax cuts, wrong again. Assuming for the moment your figures are accurate, the statement completely ignores, unsurprisingly, what it is that is driving the deficits under Obama. The deficit has increased under Obama due to a continuation of Bush policies, as well as the recession, which started under Bush and was due in large part to deregulatory practices, as well as the response to the recession. I’ve already explained all this to you in my 12:54 Am post. So yes, the wars and tax cuts are the LARGEST drivers of the deficit. It doesn’t matter if you ignore it, it’s still reality. So, ask yourself this, is the reduction of the deficit important to you? If the answer is honestly yes, then you have to address not just spending, but revenue as well. They are both drivers of the deficit. If you aren’t willing to address revenue, then you simply are not serious about deficits. If you aren’t serious about deficit reduction, that’s okay, but then stfu about it.
“I wouldn't mind it if you told me what caused our current recession, other than tax cuts.”
Holy shit, are you really that dense? Please show me where I stated that tax cuts caused the recession? I specifically stated that deregulatory practices played the largest part in the recession. You know, the whole housing bubble bursting with mortgages tied to derivatives as a result of the GLBA, and the CFMA? Banks stopped lending, demand dropped, jobs were lost. This highlighted another central problem which is lack of middle class income gains which had been previously hidden by a second household income, and later spending on credit. Less money to spend translates to lower demand which translates to jobs lost. Scott Walker could maybe tell you a little about that process as we’ve seen the results of it in Wisconsin.
“You say you care about jobs, but support the party that killed the mining bill. Which by the way had your unions support. How can that be a logically consistent opinion?”
Because again, our union doesn’t tell us how to think or vote. I don’t support legislation that is written specifically to give corporate control over the very regulations that govern that corporation. I don’t think myopically about policy. Corporate written legislation never ends well for the populace. Think Enron loophole, or the Citibank-Salomon Smith Barney exemption to Glass-Steagall. Gogebic stating which regulations they want enacted is a huge red flag. Jobs are important to be sure, but what are the long term ramifications of that bill?
“It's OK, through no doing of your own work may pick up for you next year.”
DeleteI’m guessing this is your attempt at sarcastic humor? Thanks, but I’ve done well this year actually. Having a good reputation with contractors and an understanding wife that’s okay with me booming for short periods has allowed me to pick up work in 383, 1, and the U.P. when work in 8 is slow. I really haven’t been off too much.
This little dialogue has been a real blast I must say, but I feel like I’ve helped derail the original topic enough. So, to bring things back around to the original topic, let’s see what you’ve had to say about it.
First, you said that the Veterans Jobs Bill was “loaded with pork spending and kickbacks to unions.” A review of the language proved that statement to be false. Did you retract it? Of course not. Then you changed direction claiming, “it denies medicare benefits to people who owe back taxes.” Once again, a review of the bill proved that to be false as well. So, are we at the point where you admit you were wrong, or do you dive deep into your bag of anti-logic and double down on your bullshit rhetoric? Do you admit that Republicans blocked this bill for purely political purposes with no concern whatsoever for the welfare of veterans, or do you double down and move on to some other line of astounding cognitive dissonance? I’m betting on the latter. Here’s your chance to prove me wrong.
To the contributors to this blog, my sincerest apologies. I apologize for my part in the hijacking of this topic. All of you do an incredible job of bringing us excellent reports and help to make this undoubtedly the best Wisconsin-centric blog on the web. My thanks to you all.
No, thank you. That was incredibly informative and entertaining. Hell, if I knew who you were, I'd even consider signing you on as an author.
DeleteI appreciate your thoughts, and it is nice to know who you are now and where you are coming from. You are right in that I tend to stereotype groups of people. And there will always be exceptions to the rule, but typically, they are pretty close.
DeleteAt first I had my doubts that you were who you said you were. But I have no doubt anymore. There are still a few points I would like to go around on with you, but you'r right, I will stay on topic. Identify yourself, so I know its you challenging my thoughts in the future. I will give you the respect you deserve. It was the previous jobs bill that was linked that was full of pork spending. I did post part of the bill and what it spent money on. The latest attempt was to break out the veterans and push that part alone. Some would say this is posturing with only the benefit of pitting republicans against veterans. But looking past that, in order to conform by their own rules they needed to make provisions for ten years to pay for a five year bill. A popular trend in this congress and administration. Admittedly, I read the long version of the bill and misunderstood the intent of the levies against medicare providers. Yes, I was wrong that it would take benefits away. It instead, would cut the number of providers. I still commend senator Johnson for his vote, not because I think he has no concern for the welfare of veterans as the posting wants to suggest, but because he is doing what he said he would, cut government spending. While some of the funding came from other programs being cut, much of it was purely hypothetical.
By the way, the friends I have in local 8 have come around, they cannot justify the agenda this president has, as have most of my union employed friends. Its why I asked for your thoughts on union voters. But I don't surround myself only with people who agree with me, its the ones that don't agree that are more interesting.
So I'll guess we'll see how the "republicans lack of concern for the veterans" plays out in November. If you want to call them out for putting politics above issues that's fine, But I will still point out democrats put the bill to a vote when they knew it wasn't going to pass, and the media ran with the headlines.
I thought he was going to end those wars? And close gitmo. Turn our enemies into allies. Balance the budget.
ReplyDeleteI will have to watch some of his old campaign speaches for humor tomorrow.
"It is better to be thought a fool,....than to open your mouth, and remove all doubt."
ReplyDelete(falsely attributed to Mark Twain & Abraham Lincoln, but found in much earlier text, including: Proverbs 17:28: >>Even fools are thought wise if they keep silent, and discerning if they hold their tongues.
English Standard Version
King James Bible:
Even a fool, when he holdeth his peace, is counted wise: and he that shutteth his lips is esteemed a man of understanding.
“There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance - that principle is contempt prior to investigation.”
> (falsely attributed to Herbert Spencer)
"Remember Rule # 62:
> (Don't take yourself too seriously).."