No More Bush Tax Cuts for the Wealthiest

Originally Posted by Hemlock

The Obama administration on Wednesday acknowledged a wide-ranging definition of “green jobs” that includes bus driver, bicycle-shop clerk and other unexpected lines of employment, which the chairman of the GOP-led House oversight committee said is being done for “clearly political purposes.”
GOP Rep. Darrell Issa, chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, made the assertion during a hearing on how the administration counts so-called green jobs and the Labor Department’s recent change to how reporters can access key unemployment reports and other information.
The Labor Department "has jeopardized the integrity of employment data in some cases for clearly political reasons," he said.
Issa suggested the administration is reclassifying such jobs to prove that billions of taxpayer dollars, through the federal stimulus program, have created green, or environmentally-focused jobs – a major initiative for President Obama.
“It’s about politics. It’s always been about politics,” said Issa, R-Calif. “If you work at the Salvation Army, that’s a green job.”
When Bureau of Labor Statistics Acting Commissioner John Galvin balked on what qualifies as a green job under the agency definition, Issa responded, “Just answer the question.”
“Does someone who sweeps the floor at a company that makes solar panels -- is that a green job?” Issa asked.
“Yes,” replied Galvin, who also acknowledged that a bike-repair shop clerk, a hybrid-bus driver, any school bus driver and “the guy who puts gas in a school bus” are all defined as green jobs.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012...#ixzz1x2o445yZ

lol Faux Nooz link.

As the election draws closer, the two most closely watched economic indicators are the unemployment rate and the number of jobs created. On June 1, the Bureau of Labor Statistics issued bad economic news. The number of jobs created was only 69,000 and the unemployment rate increased from 8.1 to 8.2 percent. In a presidential campaign, the difference between an 8.2 and a 7.5 percent unemployment rate or a month of 250,000 jobs versus 69,000 can be the difference between re-election and defeat.

The die is already cast. Obama bet all his money on Keynesian stimulus propped up by super-expansionary monetary policy, the Detroit bailout, and extensions of unemployment insurance. He has nothing left other than infrastructure projects, subsidies for state teachers and first responders, and a feeble jobs credit for small business. The one move that could turn things around quickly — extension of the Bush tax cuts – would deprive Obama of his prime campaign message that “the rich must pay their fair share.” In a piece dated August 28, 2011 Why Obama Cannot Support a Real Jobs Program, I laid out an anti-Keynesian jobs program to create jobs and lower the unemployment rate. The third point in my program read “to create economic conditions that encourage businesses to hire and the unemployed to seek and accept jobs.” To do this, I advised not to extend unemployment benefits and to reduce the minimum wage, particularly for youths. The President did not follow my advice and look where he is now.

Originally Posted by Hemlock

As the election draws closer, the two most closely watched economic indicators are the unemployment rate and the number of jobs created. On June 1, the Bureau of Labor Statistics issued bad economic news. The number of jobs created was only 69,000 and the unemployment rate increased from 8.1 to 8.2 percent. In a presidential campaign, the difference between an 8.2 and a 7.5 percent unemployment rate or a month of 250,000 jobs versus 69,000 can be the difference between re-election and defeat.

The die is already cast. Obama bet all his money on Keynesian stimulus propped up by super-expansionary monetary policy, the Detroit bailout, and extensions of unemployment insurance. He has nothing left other than infrastructure projects, subsidies for state teachers and first responders, and a feeble jobs credit for small business. The one move that could turn things around quickly — extension of the Bush tax cuts – would deprive Obama of his prime campaign message that “the rich must pay their fair share.” In a piece dated August 28, 2011 Why Obama Cannot Support a Real Jobs Program, I laid out an anti-Keynesian jobs program to create jobs and lower the unemployment rate. The third point in my program read “to create economic conditions that encourage businesses to hire and the unemployed to seek and accept jobs.” To do this, I advised not to extend unemployment benefits and to reduce the minimum wage, particularly for youths. The President did not follow my advice and look where he is now.

Enjoy another 4 years of socialism!



I love it!.

thats why castro came to america for his health crisis?????? no health care funded by any gov, (the people) worked at very least. i personally know, of a middle age couple, who actually applied for us citizenship based on the crappy health care they were getting in canuck vill! i will try again.......STOP LISTENING TO HE LIBERAL MEDIA!

the others hate fox, because they report what the others decide amonst themselves, that the public has no "need to know". fox, strangly has nearly 90% of our veiwership. why? the 90% belive them over the sucky socisalt media. me too. look at the recall thing. the liberal media still try to spin it for ohbama! what a joke! and the good part? that media continues to lose veiwers every day! this is a good thing. fox had most of it. maybe they should have their profits stollen, and used to pay for free shit???????????? not.

if a one bird dies in an oil field, the media is all over it. BAD OIL!. if 100 birds fly into windmills, and die, ........well, its ok, as long as its in the name of "green"? animnal rights groups wont touch it. but they do, if the one bird dies. can we say "hypoctites?" one way or another, the libs are going to get their mouths slapped shut. they desperatly need it.

Originally Posted by blindbaby

thats why castro came to america for his health crisis?????? no health care funded by any gov, (the people) worked at very least. i personally know, of a middle age couple, who actually applied for us citizenship based on the crappy health care they were getting in canuck vill! i will try again.......STOP LISTENING TO HE LIBERAL MEDIA!

ROFL good times...

Originally Posted by blindbaby

the governments job is not to create jobs! not! thats for private industry. unless, of course, the leftists like taxing job creators right out of the country. the less government anyone has, the better off they are! who likes the idea of being told that "we the government" knows whas best for you?? not me. russia, china, n korea, iran,venezuella, all do not beleive this of course. they like controling all the buisness, and keeping everyone the same level. the peasant level......let private enterprise grow, like it used to. and we will have jobs back. i love how the left, now that they have failed with thier recall of scott, now says "democracy is dead!!" see what i mean by losers??? lol. they are the ones who wanted to not give him even one term, as they saw him cut lots of free shit. lol......and begin to balance the budget. now, they are so mad that the unions out spent scotts, that they are claiming its the other way around. what losers. we need rid of this party that used to be democrats, but got hyjacked by bunch of socialists. maybe they can hire one of the justices, like one of ohbamas appointees, to say its good, and install the democrate anyway!! ill bet they try!! lie. cheat. steal. the liberal way of victory! fek em. cant wait till nov. id like to see EVERY ONE VOTED OUT.

the right claims to "understand" economics and the free enterprise system, after all they revere it. but the truth is that they don't have a clue as to what works and what doesn't in their own country.

Lower taxes do not create jobs
"Job creators" don't create jobs
Incentives to businesses don't create jobs
Demand, and demand alone creates jobs. If a company finds that demand for their products outstrips their ability to produce those goods then they will hire people. Period.

Now the fact is that in order to have demand there must be people with the money to purchase those products.

In the last 30 years the average wage for the average person in this country has gone down even as their productivity has increased. At the same time, the average income for the richest of us has gone up. Rich people create nothing, they provide a valuable service and are paid handsomely for that service but they still create nothing of intrinsic value.

Therefore, reducing taxes on the rich creates nothing. It creates no jobs, it enables no change in the status quo except for a negative feedback loop. Fewer taxes means more money to invest in proceedures to reduce taxes which allows even more money to spend in order to reduce taxes still further. Remember what I said, Only workers create wealth and only the masses create demand.

Now, the less workers make for their work the less they have to spend, the less they have to spend the less demand, the less demand the fewer jobs. Allowing the rich to keep more money does not have the same effect - a rich person can and will only buy so many shirts, so many pairs of shoes, so many couches or refrigerators or even houses. In short, worshiping or coddling those who can best afford to help themselves will not now nor has it ever been a formula for getting a country out of depression.

Now it is true that a tax dollar makes fewer rounds in the economy but a dollar in the hands of a rich person makes even fewer rounds in that same economy.