Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yes, Biden means everything he says and they do want to raise taxes. We are ALL facing the mother of all tax hikes. If Obama doesn't get his way he said he will veto the passing of the Bush tax cuts and this means taxes will increase on "everyone" not just the rich. The middle class have less money, business owners have less money. We are set into a negative spiral downward.
President Obama, who hates capitalism is playing businessman with your money has invested in the companies below:
• Solyndra
• Ener 1
• Beacon Power
• Abound Solar
• Amonix Solar
• Spectra Watt
• Eastern Energy
All of these companies have two things in common: they were, coincidently, all contributors to Obama's campaign. All the companies that Obama spent our tax dollars to invest in went bankrupt. And you still think he knows what is best and want to "give him more time"? You should be asking "more time" to do what.
Biden said it's about time that they take responsibility here. What about the people who have been taking out of the government coffers all their lives, isn't it about time they take responsibility?
I appreciate the thorough answer, but you started bashing Romney which makes me think you don't have a strong case for Obama and aren't sure he can do it.
What does "investing in the middle class through jobs " mean? I don't really understand because they generally are not the ones who create jobs. Education is very important, but that helps with future economic benefits and is not a plan to turn the economy around ASAP. We are heading towards an economic cliff! CNBC has top economists say that every day. We can't afford to wait a few years for people to get an education. We have educated people right now who can't find a job at all or are underemployed.
You admitted to some degree that his policies are socialist, and it's a shame that you aspire to the "advanced economies" of other countries.
You say, "Romney would trade them for tax cuts for the wealthiest in society," which has been proven to be a lie, and is nothing more than a fabricated talking point for Obama.
You said, "Our economy is recovering," but I don't agree and most Americans don't, especially economists.
You said, "I believe we should keep the faith and keep on," but "Hope is not a strategy."
The "public investment" in government jobs is in many ways a big waste of taxpayer money. A typical federal government office is overstaffed with layers of management and a lot of people sitting around doing nothing, and when they finally do something, it's in their own sweet time.
I know you tried, but I honestly did not see one thing in your plan that explained what Obama would do differently and one reason why we should believe his failed policy will suddenly rise from the dead and save us.
I appreciate your even-handed tone. Let's just say we disagree. The genius of the 1940s-2000 had a very large share of public investment in government jobs,etc. Starting with WWII, and the technical spinoff like the Army Corps of Engineers, NASA, National Labs,etc. and the major investments in many aspects of America through the National Institutes of Health, the National Science Foundation, PBS, the interstate highways systems, internet,etc. These created opportunity, created technocratic position whereby a person could go to college and get a professional jobs (highway engineer, microboliologist, water quality inspector), not to mention tremendous advances in fundamental science and environmental quality, drops in infant mortality, life extension, public health, and a myriad of technology. Yes, there is some dead wood, and room for improvements, but throwing out the baby with the bathwater is not a solution.
In the current GOP narrative, all these activities were worthless, and the jobs they created do not add to the velocity of money. All evidence leads me to the contrary. I don't mean to trash Romney, but in my mind where he has failed is to differentiate himself from the failed laissez faire policies of Reagan and the Bushes (business will always do a better job if unregulated) and the fantasies that tax cuts will pay for wars, and with the extra money wealth people will hire their fellow citizens. We have learned that the wealthiest will use that extra money to increase their advantage more, through lobbying for more tax cuts, breaking unions, cutting environmental and safety regulations, and outsourcing. They MIGHT hire. The 1% no longer have any loyalty to any but themselves. The evidence of that is all around us. They even have the brass to say they WILL NOT hire unless we select Romney. That is simple extortion. And the wealthier you are, the more leverage you have to do that. The conservative policies have led to instability and levels of inequality bordering on banana republic territory.
A mixed economy is more just, more diverse, and more stable. It is a healthier economy. Period.
Obama is simply trying to fight this fantasy narrative, whereby the wealthy create a system that serves themselves, and hoodwink the rest of us into believing it serves all America. That is what powerful people do, but there are also people who know that investing in America's greatest asset, its people, is a good bet. And having a multifaceted economy, that doe not just protect current business interests, but aggressively takes us where we need to go, while maintaining safeguards for our citizens and the environment, is how we built a great country.
If you want to know where Obama wants to go, look at the policies of Eisenhower, the moderate Republican. He was a technocratic pragmatist. Obama follows his lead, and as a scientist, I see it's logic too. Conservatives would consider him socialist now, but I suspect his opinion would differ.
In fairness to Romney, he might be a viable moderate alternative in different times. With a rabidly antintellectual and militant wing of his party, even of Ryan, and a pattern of political cowardice, I cannot trust Romney to chart a middle way.
I appreciate your even-handed tone. Let's just say we disagree. The genius of the 1940s-2000 had a very large share of public investment in government jobs,etc. Starting with WWII, and the technical spinoff like the Army Corps of Engineers, NASA, National Labs,etc. and the major investments in many aspects of America through the National Institutes of Health, the National Science Foundation, PBS, the interstate highways systems, internet,etc. These created opportunity, created technocratic position whereby a person could go to college and get a professional jobs (highway engineer, microboliologist, water quality inspector), not to mention tremendous advances in fundamental science and environmental quality, drops in infant mortality, life extension, public health, and a myriad of technology. Yes, there is some dead wood, and room for improvements, but throwing out the baby with the bathwater is not a solution.
In the current GOP narrative, all these activities were worthless, and the jobs they created do not add to the velocity of money. All evidence leads me to the contrary. I don't mean to trash Romney, but in my mind where he has failed is to differentiate himself from the failed laissez faire policies of Reagan and the Bushes (business will always do a better job if unregulated) and the fantasies that tax cuts will pay for wars, and with the extra money wealth people will hire their fellow citizens. We have learned that the wealthiest will use that extra money to increase their advantage more, through lobbying for more tax cuts, breaking unions, cutting environmental and safety regulations, and outsourcing. They MIGHT hire. The 1% no longer have any loyalty to any but themselves. The evidence of that is all around us. They even have the brass to say they WILL NOT hire unless we select Romney. That is simple extortion. And the wealthier you are, the more leverage you have to do that. The conservative policies have led to instability and levels of inequality bordering on banana republic territory.
A mixed economy is more just, more diverse, and more stable. It is a healthier economy. Period.
Obama is simply trying to fight this fantasy narrative, whereby the wealthy create a system that serves themselves, and hoodwink the rest of us into believing it serves all America. That is what powerful people do, but there are also people who know that investing in America's greatest asset, its people, is a good bet. And having a multifaceted economy, that doe not just protect current business interests, but aggressively takes us where we need to go, while maintaining safeguards for our citizens and the environment, is how we built a great country.
If you want to know where Obama wants to go, look at the policies of Eisenhower, the moderate Republican. He was a technocratic pragmatist. Obama follows his lead, and as a scientist, I see it's logic too. Conservatives would consider him socialist now, but I suspect his opinion would differ.
In fairness to Romney, he might be a viable moderate alternative in different times. With a rabidly antintellectual and militant wing of his party, even of Ryan, and a pattern of political cowardice, I cannot trust Romney to chart a middle way.
You're a scientist, Fiddlehead? Interesting. Scientists are usually logical and understand that the failed experiment of socialism is not a successful model to follow. Demonizing the 1% is class warfare, but selective class warfare because of that 1%, half are Liberals. I'm sick of success being demonized, no matter what the profession and we need a job environment where businesses will hire our recent college grads at a reasonable rate of pay. I don't think I can stress enough how DEPRESSED this generation of 22-25 year olds are. Many have older siblings who graduated in 2007 and landed decent jobs and have moved forward with their lives. The graduates of 2011-2012? It's bad out there ...... we have a serious anxiety, depression problem with this generation. If you don't have children in this age group, just make yourself aware of kids that age in your community. What are they doing? What's their demeanor? Are they continually immersed in texting? Economics is being replaced by History of the Americas in our high schools.
Obama allocated over $10 Billion in the 2009 ARRA for "innovative programs" for Title I schools. We have written all the way up to Arne Duncan requesting the research on which they validated specific programs as revealing actual "academic improvement". He couldn't produce anything. $10+ Billion for junk social justice programs that have no quantifiable evidence of improving teaching and learning in our poorest public schools. Now how does that sit with you?
And the cuts to NASA? Did they have to be so severe?
So this is your input to explain Obama's economic plan?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
