« Barack the Clueless 2 | Main | Addressing the Problem »

Sunday, April 08, 2012


Donald Pay

The job numbers are bad, but isn't that the Republican plan? Had we followed the Republican plan, how much worse would they be?

This entire missive can be summed up right here: "The Republican majority in the House has produced a budget two years in a row. I am not here defending those budgets."

Maybe you're beginning to join the sane world after all. Of course you're not going to defend Republican budgets. No one with any working synapses would. These budgets would have produced more joblessness, more tax gifts to the rich, more misery to the poor and middle class, and more deficits and debt.

We have a weak recovery because Republicans wouldn't go along with policies that would have made the recovery stronger. A stronger economy along with jettisoning Republican budgeting, tax and war policies gets us back to a federal budget in balance.


Hold on: isn't it at least as plausible, if not more so, that the major cause of the recovery's anemia is the stagnation of wages and the concentration of wealth at the top that has left the middle class without the purchasing power to drive the consumer demand on which the large majority of our economy is based?

Mark Anderson

Gosh, I just lost my comment from previewing it. Serves me right, you can't save the country with a 10 minute response.
So a speedier version. Read Robert Reich on the Paul Ryan budget:http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/Robert-Reich/2012/0322/Ryan-s-budget-helps-no-one-but-the-rich Read Paul Krugman on the Ryan budget:http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/04/06/ryan-in-two-numbers/ By the way Ken, Krugman isn't vile, you are revealing too much about yourself with those type of comments, although I wouldn't try to defend the house budgets either.

Donald Pay

Cory is right. The recessions from the Reagan Administration on have been characterized by longer and longer jobless tails as we emerge from each recession. Republican policies that weaken domestic industries and the middle class have made it more difficult to emerge from job turndowns. All the Republican trickle down has gotten us is more debt, fewer jobs, and longer periods of job loss.

Stan Gibilisco

Donald, in this case you and Cory are absolutely right (in my opinion).

We must also remember that while a lot of people remain opposed to Obamanomics, a lot of people favor it too.

I don't much relish the idea of four more years of Obama. But the idea of four years of Romney actually makes me sick.

Jon S.

Cory, I think you are confusing a symptom for the disease. I believe it has recently taken place that the United States has the highest corporate tax rate in the world. That is not a recipie for robust job activity. Perhaps the economy is so overtaxed and regulated that it can no longer create well-paying jobs at a profit. And contra Pay, the Ryan budget proposes reducing tax rates on the wealthy while also drastically reducing "loopholes" for the wealthy. The result, Ryan believes, is that the wealthy will actually pay more in effective taxes while we will have fewer economically distorting tax policies.

It seems strange to say the way to create jobs is to tax the wealthy more and institute more government control over economic activity. Note how the critics here have nothing positive to say about the president's plan. How could they? Why did last year's budget lose 97-0 in the Senate? Because it was so wise and ssagacious? Why did this year's budget lose 414-0 in the House? And Harry Reid is pulling out all the parliamentary stops to make sure it doesn't come to a vote in the Senate? Because it is so awesome it will blow our minds? And why can't the Senate Democrats propose a budget? Why is Harry Reid trying to strong arm (unsuccessfully) the Senate parliamentarian into ruling that they don't have to pass a budget? Becuase he thinks his ideas are just too damn good that no one will get them?

I do think neither party has much to say about the loss of well-paying manufacturing jobs in the United States. Both parties are more friendly to the financial sector than to manufacturing/industry (I mean this as an observation, ot necessarily an indictment). But I also think that the structure of modern international economics makes it very difficult for the United States to effectively compete in many cases. For example, the textile industry is gone and it ain't coming back.

I now wait for the liberally minded Donald Pay to tell me I am a mental defective. I mean, why else would anyone disagree with Donald?

Ken Blanchard

Mark: Paul Krugman blamed conservatives for the shooting of Gabriel Giffords. That was nothing short of vile. He was part of a full court press to tar the Tea Party Movement as violent, when there was not a shred of evidence for that. He accused Republicans of fomenting violence by using violent rhetoric, when he and Democrats used exactly the same kind of language repeatedly. He accused Republicans of living in a different moral universe for making a claim about unemployment that was substantiated by his own book on economics. He is a vile, partisan hack.


Thank You

The given information is very effective
i will keep updated with the same

industrial automation

Mark Anderson

If Paul Krugman is a vile, partisan hack, what are you Ken? A non-vile, partisan hack?


Thanks for contribution such helpful information. The information provided is very nice and this information is not available so easily. Therefore I thank the writer for the useful input.
web services

The comments to this entry are closed.