he partisan debate over jobs creation has descended into a blame game between President Obama and congressional Republicans.
 |
|
Photo by: Pete Souza
President Barack Obama
|
“Over and over, they have refused to even debate the same kind of jobs proposals that Republicans have supported in the past – proposals that today are supported, not just by Democrats, but by Independents and Republicans all across America,” Obama complained in his radio address Saturday morning. “Meanwhile, they’re only scheduled to work three more weeks between now and the end of the year.
Republicans in the House respond that they’ve passed 15 job-creating bills only to have those measures bottled up in the Democrat-controlled Senate.
“We call these bills the ‘forgotten 15’,” Rep. Bobby Schilling of Illinois said in the Republican address Saturday.
“These are common-sense bills that address those excessive federal regulations that are hurting small business job creation,” said Rep. Schilling, a freshman lawmaker whose family owns a pizza business in Moline. “A number of them have bipartisan support. Yet the Senate won’t give these bills a vote, and the president hasn’t called for action.”
The essence of the divide remains: Increase federal investment to stimulate job creation versus easing environmental and other regulatory restrictions that critics say can hinder job creation.
As with much of the debate in Washington these days – including the effort by the bipartisan congressional “super committee” to cut the federal deficit by $1.2 trillion before draconian budget cuts kick in automatically – this one can’t avoid the subject of taxes.
If you enjoy the content at iBankCoin, please follow us on Twitter
obama is like a virgin discussing fucking. its painful to listen too. or a toddler explainin the stork.
at least the gop is relevant. too bad you have to be a chinese child to get hired. but those little hands do have jobs.
The real question is how large should the government sector be? The dems want more gov’t and the repubs less. The productive portion of the economy can only carry so much social welfare. The costs have to come out of someone’s ass.
depends on where you live. the west coast could give a fuck. the east coast peeps are fucked if the poor really get pissed. think london or athens or libya or egypt. old money means massive population of poor.
the next civil war will be east vs west. the east is rome. gigantic fuckery with huge ghettos and huge police forces to keep the ghettos in check. fuckin horrible weather too. to a socal resident the east is a timebomb. better keep the po hiring up.
woodshedders post in the news comments some weeks ago about how part of the income disparity in the country relating to married 2-income families -vs- single parent 1-income families is so profound.
To be clear, and to clear up anybodies panic attack over some type of moral judgement contained in this post, I’m a single parent. I’m also the 1%. I guess thats the exception, but anyway…
Why does this disparity exist? Because of the massive safety net of the welfare programs. Single moms get umpteen benefits and it can even be profitable to have kids.
Forgetting for a second the “idiocracy” darwinistic implications of this type of behavior in society, …
I would ask everybody to consider this irony: we set up a massive socialistic welfare net to “help the kids”. Result? Alot more poor and neglected kids than there was before it.
As I have postulated in the past on these IBC News comments, welfare/socialistic handouts in society work, very efficiently, to INCREASE the wealth gap, not to reduce it. Because, eventually (and probably quite quickly) that free government money winds up in the hands of people being productive.
Is the financialization of America bad for it? No question. Is it bad to have the smartest kids graduating today dreaming of being hedge fund managers instead of the next Steve Jobs? No question, the former helps nobody but themselves as they play in this zero sum game, the latter improves the world/creates jobs.
But at the end of the day, socialism creates exactly what it tries to prevent. Forcing citizens to be productive both reduces the wealth gap and mitigates inflation (see previous arguments, or, if you prefer, fawk awff).
Charity doesn’t help people, it hurts them, over the long haul, in the fullness of time. Can charity help people prone to being productive in an acute/transient time of need? Of coruse.
I, like most people with my viewpoint, am a fairly charitable guy. I’ve little doubt that I’m the best tipper who reads this message board, for example.
But charity for charities sake simply hurts those it purports to help. Free rides aren’t so free for those who recieve them, in the long run.
for those of y’all too slow to follow: if there wasn’t such a massive safety net for single mothers, there would be alot less single mothers.
Think as many girls got all drunk and hopped in the sack with a future dropout, or as many girls dropped out of high school and then shacked up with a crackhead BEFORE they could get paid for doing it / saved from the financial aspects of their mistakes?
Of course they didn’t.
Check, I think you may be over-simplifying things, but I agree with the foundation of your argument.
Our society has become fractured. People want to compare productive, healthy, successful people against those who are less productive, less healthy, and less successful. What they find is that they are not equal. Shocker!!! Surprise!! Lmao…
No amount of taxing the rich or redistributing wealth will make the less productive more productive, nor will it make someone who not successful, successful.
I can see why you are single; you’re wife must have left or killed herself after suffering through years of your sophomoric rantings.
checklist:
Regarding your statement that our “socialistic welfare net” is to blame for increasing the number of poor and neglected kids and for increasing the wealth gap, I have a question for you.
Does the data support your claims, or is it only ideology propping up your argument?
Your claims suggest that the child poverty rate should be lower in the US than in the Western European nations. Does the data support that?
http://drpinna.com/child-poverty-the-usa-tops-the-list-24083/child-poverty-rates-in-different-countries
Your claims suggest that the child poverty rate should be lower in the red states (like South Carolina) than in the blue states (like Massachusetts). Does the data support that?
http://www.de.sott.net/image/image/s3/78265/full/article_0_0D76E32C00000578_572.jpg
I’ll let you look up the data comparing the income disparity or wealth gap between the US and the more socialist nations of Europe, because I’m sure you are interested in the truth.
Ottnot, your graphs, while pretty, are meaningless.
Surely, being the academic, you realize that without knowing the data behind them, that they are of no use?
Re: other countries. Was the poverty level normalized across currencies? In other words, was poor in U.S., meaning likely to have a car, 2 TVs, cable, Xbox 360, washer/dryer, and never going hungry, equal to being poor in other countries?
I will say the same about the State graph, but lets first deal with your country specific info.
Finally, what you have presented is a bit of a red-herring. It would be more on topic to compare countries/states with high levels of double parent homes vs. single family homes.
meanwhile Ron Paul wins Iowa straw poll in a landslide http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/10/29/ron-paul-wins-both-tallies-at-gop-pres-straw-poll-in-iowa/
goes unreported in republican shill sites like drudge report , fox news
Hey guess what? The # of people who voted in that poll was 430. 430 whopping people. In other words, who gives a shit?
exactly … but if any other candidate won, it’d be front page news