By MontanaTrace on 02-05-10

The report is not accurate. It’s propaganda. The numbers are skewed. There are actually more unemployed for January. A million plus have just quit seeking work because they are older and don’t expect to gain employment. Now those people are not counted as unemployed. Therefore, 9.7% is reported as a gain, when in fact, the truth is, it’s worse, not better.

Liberal reporting.

By hammer on 02-05-10

Let’s not pay attention to the enemployed that have given up.  There is much more to this story than the headline.  Keith Olberman wouldn’t tell you though.  Hey, if this administration would not come out with another useless stimulous package that never worked before and started to focus on reality, then I would be encouraged, but that is far fetched. to say we don’t want this country to do well is weak.  I am against this policy because I know it doesn’t work.  Mix up another jug of KOOL AID, it’s drinking time again

By MontanaTrace on 02-05-10

I’m not angry. There’s nothing to be angry about. We have a serious problem that needs repair. Reporting skewed numbers as fact is done for what purpose? I think I know the reason and my guess is, everyone, including you, know too. The report of 9.7% as a .03% improvement in the number of unemployed is intentionally misleading.

The US just lost another 20,000 jobs, the government reported today.

AP reports: The unemployment rate dropped “unexpectedly” in January to 9.7% from 10% while employers shed 20,000 jobs for the month.

Some wanna explain that math?

“The rate dropped because a survey of households found the number of employed rose by 541,000.“

“The government report also stated 930,000 fewer jobs last March than previously estimated. The department also revised down its estimates for April through October adding an additional 433,000 job losses.“

This certainly clears the picture for the bunko game numbers.

All told, 8,400,000 jobs lost.

The Prez needs to do something to build confidence. More jobs will do it, at least on paper.

Bottom line: Putting people to work and letting them and businesses keep more of their earnings will work, again. Instead, we are just reporting about jobs gained rather than really doing something about it.

By Native on 02-05-10

Hammer - Well, we’ve determined your definatly not a stock analyst.  The Dow fell blow 9900 and rallied huge to finish above 10,000.  I know the market well enough to know that this is completely irrelevant to the conversation but its become somewhat of a hobby lately to point out that you are factually wrong every time you say something.  By the way, every credible analyst out there knows that the market was going down the last 2 days because of instability in the European markets.

Ironically, you are obviously the one controlled by the media.  Your a walking billboard for paranoid conservative media engaged in commentary rather than news reporting.

By MontanaTrace on 02-05-10

Oh, I’m in favor of the stimulus, it’s just not being correctly or timely administered.

The work you describe is a good start. The earned incomes will circulate seven times throughout many industries. It will be a base for taxes that can help bailout our government.

Two of the most constructive events in the economic history of America were the G.I. Housing Bill after WWII and Eisenhower’s Interstate Highway System. Both put Americans to work and created great tax basis, not to mention the hundreds of purchases that were byproducts (pun intended).

My complaint (of many) is that the promised stimulus package has played such a back seat role for this administration. Health care and staying elected seems much more important to our current leaders.

By MontanaTrace on 02-06-10

It was confirmed this AM that the % of decline was not due to a gain in jobs, that number is still dropping. The decline is attributed to the huge number of unemployed who have just given up looking and are now not considered in the count of unemployed.

We lost an additional 20,000 jobs in January.

The good news is that while we are still increasing numbers of unemployed, that continued drop is declining in speed.

Businesses will hire when they think they will keep more of the money earned.

Cut business taxes. Jobs will come. New employees will pay taxes and spend money, thereby stabilizing the economy and even creating growth.

Getting a Dem to cut taxes is like…............... pick an analogy.

By David E on 02-06-10

http://www.whitehouse.gov/assets/documents/SEPT_20__Innovation_Whitepaper_FINAL.pdf

Follow this link and read the report, outline about innovation to create sustainable jobs, businesses. Some of you might see areas where your expertise could be useful in jobs creation. Maybe some of you could innovate, invent or create new businesses.
As for this Pres Keeps spending insanely. It is like your credit card, if you don’t pay the balance off it carries forward. Well the bulk of the balance was charged over the last ten years and never got paid off so it carries forward. The President whom ever it is has no ability to change that fact unless they can find a way to pay off the balance. Today as it stands the President would have to completely cut social security, medicare and defense to do that. Or he could cut all other spending and chose one or more of the before mentioned programs and achieve the same. That is the choice today right now. Follow this link and get out your calculator and figure it out for yourselves. http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/02/01/us/budget.html I will be waiting for your realistic fact based solution.

By David E on 02-06-10

Well MT read the rest of the statement, here is the conclusion.

Therefore, we reject both sides of this unproductive and anachronistic debate. The true choice in innovation is not between government and no government, but about the right type of government involvement in support of innovation. A modern, practical approach recognizes both the need for fundamental support and the hazards of overzealous government intervention. The government should make sure individuals and businesses have the tools and support to take risks and innovate, but should not dictate what risks they take.
We propose to strike a balance by investing in the building blocks that only the government can provide, setting an open and competitive environment for businesses and individuals to experiment and grow, and by providing extra catalysts to jumpstart innovation in sectors of national importance. In this way, we will harness the inherent ingenuity of the American people and a dynamic private sector to generate innovations that help ensure the next expansion is more solid, broad-based, and beneficial than previous ones.

By David E on 02-06-10

Well I am just reading the report. I think it is disingenuous to complain about the government not doing enough to create jobs and then complain they are involved in job creation. I am not certain this report fosters bigger government. The fact is government grow during the last administration because of one. The creation of the Homeland Security agency and two because of the 2 wars we are fighting. We expanded the role of government in our daily security also. The NSA grow to its present massive size. Again because of the wars, terrorist threats and cyber security. Yep your right government has grown. Sometimes it is in our best interest to have government involvement, sometimes not as the report says repeatedly. I am not advocating for the report one way or the other. What I am advocating is innovative thinking and new approaches to build a sustainable economy that will provide long term living wage jobs. And yes the government better be involved in that process.

By mooseberryinn on 02-06-10

I stand by my earlier remarks.  Business/commerce, investments, purchase of big ticket items (which creates employment), likes stability.  The regime management by whiplash style does not and has not promoted any feeling of stability.  the threats of enormous “reforms”, idiot speeches about millions of “green” jobs to promote very expensive (and costly to business) “cap and trade” undermines any confidence that this regime might have a clue.

By JB on 02-06-10

The 9.7 percent rate is the seasonally adjusted figure for January.  The table at this link shows all of the numbers, including the U6, which is a much more accurate figure, in my opinion:

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t15.htm

By hammer on 02-07-10

Did you hear Bush blame Clinton for 911? Or did you hear Bush blame Clinton for the wallstreet fraud?.  No, this administration could start by taking responsibility for their own watch.  To sit here and blame Bush is not going anywhere and that seems to be the ultimate direction for liberals.  Debate over at the point.    Believe me David E, I do know business, and the number one reason why people do business with people is based upon trust.  You may think because you have all your links and lengthy exuses for Obama, but Sarah Palin is trustworthy at least.  That goes along ways.. I truly believe that Sarah would do a much better job than this so called president we have.  Trust is what Reagan created in Americans, they backed him.  That is not rocket science.  IT shows that trust can go along ways.  Keep on giving Obama exuses through Bush and we’ll see how far it goes.

By tazmanian on 02-07-10

With regards to Obama, are the following “screw ups” or are they policies of a radical?

1). Is giving Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the mastermind of 9/11 and his two henchment a show trial with full Constitutional rights in New York a screw up? 2). Is giving the Fruit of Kaboom Bomber, who isn;t a citizen of this country, full Constitutional rights for an act of war a screw up? 3). Is being tougher on Israel than Iran a screw up? 4). Is apologizing to the muslim world a screw up? 5). Is planning to send 90 hardened terrorists from Guantanamo Bay to Yemen a screw up? 6). Is an executive order giving Interpol immunity from American laws a screw up? 6). Is taking CIA assets and spy satelites away from hunting terrorists and diverting them “to assess the hidden complexities” of global warming a screw up? 7). How about releasing captured al Qaeda terrorists form Gitmo so the can go through the US court system or go back to the battlefield, is that a screw up? 8). Is giving captured terrorists laawyers and plea bargains instead of harsh interrogations a screw up? 9). Is categorizing terror attacks as crimes, committed by an “isolated extremist” or a “victim of stress” a screw up? 10). Is paralyzing the CIA by prosecuting agents a screw up? 11). Is abandoning a major US missle defense system in Europe a screw up? 12). Is allowing Iran and North Korea to go nuke up without consequences a screw up? 13). Is bowing to the Saudi king and the Japanese emporer a screw up? 14). Is apologizing to the world, repeatedly and often, for the supposed sins of the US a screw up? 15). Are closed door negociations and backroom deals and bought and paid for votes, instead of promised transparency a screw up? 16). Is reneging on a campaign pledge, repeated eight times, to put Obamacare negociations on CSPAN a screw up? 17). I regeging on promises to post legislation five days in advance on the internet and that no lobbyists will work in my White House a screw up? 18). Is creating a two trillion dollar sluch find called TARP and stimulus a screw up? 19). Is regeging on promises of post partisanship, non-partisanship post Red State-Blue state and instead instituting a hard left, bitterly partisan agenda a screw up? 20). Is taking over the car industry and the financial sector a screw up? 21). Is demonizing the banks, wall Street, the insurance industry, doctors, Gallup and the US Chamber of Commerce a screw up? 22). Is promising “no-bid” contracts for his administration and then having “no-bid” contracts a screw up?

Now you decide, but I don’t think all these things are screw ups, these are acts of a radical administration.

By David E on 02-07-10

This discussion is about Jobs not media pundit talking points, but here’s my answers based on what I know. And thanks I applaud you for actually identifying your concerns in the form of questions regardless of whether we agree or not. 

1). No, it is the LAW OF THE LAND If you travel to a foreign Country you become subject to their Law. This is our Law based on over 200 years of practice. Under our law we have an established history to return criminals to the jurisdiction where they committed the crimes. NYC is the geographic location of the crime and of the district Federal Court. I will concede that the court can be convened anywhere the court decides with in the district. Trial does not need to be held in the existing court building.

2). No, same as 1.

3). Don’t know Need more information? 

4). No its good manners responsible diplomacy.

5). Where would you send them?

6). No the law is reciprocated by Interpol to our foreign agents.

6). I think this is untrue, I can assure you that if a satellite came off service, diverted to another mission, something better took its place. You won’t know what that was, its like flying stealth fighters for 20 years before their existence was made public.

7). No same as 1.

8). No same as one. Torture goes beyond harsh interrogations

9). No. Terrorism is a tactic. The determination to separate individual vs. state sponsored acts is the point of Law. Did the individual represent an organized state? Like USA vs. Japan in WWII. Or did they act independently of an organized State. This is a tough question our system is still trying to answer. However under the current law these individuals are independent criminals.

10). No, if you break the law you have to answer for it.
11). No. Look up the history of ABM and the history of treaties between the Soviet Union and USA. The system was determined obsolete before deployment. 

12). Un-True, false statement. I would point out we do not control what other countries do.
13). No, its manners within the boundaries of cultural custom. Washington bowed to the King or Queen of England as have all Presidents. It is diplomatic Courtesy

14).No, we have to admit our mistakes too.

15). No, the Whitehouse does not control congress and can change its mind if it wants too. Just like you and me.
16). Same as 15.
17). False, they post a lot of stuff.
18). Obama did not create TARP, We will see if the stimulus works.

19). False, the President does not control Congress or the Courts. It is called the balance of power. We don’t elect a King we elect and executive, manager.

20). I dunno would you by a Chevy or Chrysler?

21). No they earned it on their own.
22). You will have to provide evidence to support this claim.

By inthemiddle on 02-07-10

End of fiscal year 2009, last year of Bush jr. budget. Deficit of 1.35 trillion $.
End of fiscal year 2010, first year of Obama budget. Deficit of 1.6 trillion $.
Subtract the 265 billion $ stimullus package from 2010 and you come up with the same deficit.Not to bad considering the mess Obama was left by Bush.
I am not a big fan of deficit spending as I am very concerned about the problem we are leaving our kids and grandkids, but please give me a different solution to this mess we are in. Just saying don’t run a deficit won’t solve the problem. And if we don’t do something it will only get worse, it won’t correct itself. We can no longer trust big business to do what is best for our country, if we could, do you think they would have moved 15 million jobs to China over the last 10 years.

By Craig moore on 02-07-10

Look at the following 6 charts:  http://www.house.gov/budget_republicans/graphs/20100201presidents.pdf

By David E on 02-07-10

Well actually Craig did. If Hammers dream comes true Sarah Ps deficit will be larger than Obama’s

By hammer on 02-07-10

Who’s war is the now.  I believe you’re almighty Obama has his name on it now.  BLinded by liberlism.  Truly a mental disease.  And yes, Sarah Palin would be a better president that the one we have now.  Go on back up a guy who shows no progress and claim he is successful, just like a normal liberal would.

By Native on 02-08-10

hammer - I would like to hear your definition of liberlism. 

Of course I don’t expect an answer.  I’ve asked you to clarify and/or back up dozens of statements and you’ve always ignored me.

By Native on 02-08-10

I don’t care about your definition.  He debates, so I acknowlege his comments.  You just yell crazy things that scream paranoid-conspiricy-theorist so its a waste of time to try and have a conversation with you.  If someone makes a good point you just start screaming tired buzz words like B.O. regime, socialist, kool-aid, marxism… so go ahead… try to make a point without your usual vocabulary and paranoia and maybe folks will consider you relevant.  I bet you can’t do it.

By Native on 02-08-10

Ha ha, I have to admit JB, I said that exact same thing to somebody else about a week ago.  I concede.

Don’t really care for the liberal jab though.  Thats why I want hammer to give me his definition.  Everyone keeps dropping the terms liberal, right wing, left wing, whatever and I am starting to think that not everyone has the same interpretation of what they mean.  I am a registerred republican.  I argue with super-conservatives because they are taking relevant issues and turning them into partisan laced tirades and I think that gives republicans an unfair image.  I guess I am a liberal republican and maybe you’d like me to change teams (I think I will) but its frustrating to try to stay on topic when I keep getting called a liberal and a socialists and I don’t in any way support those parties.  You know how many times I’ve been called a name for just defending Obama?!  Not saying I like him, just for defending him people go crazy.

By hammer on 02-08-10

Native, you are not consistantly a conservative.  Conservatives don’t believe in raising taxes.  You seem to to be influenced by that.  You are a God fearer but tend not to beleive.  Consistancy is key.  Like Roark said, it’s not rocket sceince.

By Kalispell Native on 02-08-10

Barack (Yes, hammer, I note your consistency in insulting the President by mis-spelling his name) Obama was making a policy speech in a classroom full of children using a teleprompter.

Sarah Palin used a tele-prompter to make a partisan speech to the Republican National Convention among other appearances before the G No P faithful.  I can see the readily apparent parallel between the two groups of attendees.  My money is on the school kids being smarter.

Sarah doesn’t need any fancy clothes or jewelry?  Really?  How many hundereds of thousand of dollars did the RNC pay to 5th Avenue stores in NYC to wardrobe her and her family?

And quit it with your dog-whistle racism.  Barack Obama had his share of jobs that he legitimately was qualified for and worked and studied hard to be qualified for.

By JB on 02-08-10

@Native:  first off, I apologize for the lib jab - it really was uncalled for.

Second - and I want to hit this with full force - politics is a dirty word in this country - period.  Politics, in and of itself,  is the vehicle by which a civil society interacts with government.  What needs to really be addressed is “Washington politics” - the way that legislation gets passed, the way decisions are made at the highest levels of government, deals getting made behind closed doors, etc..  I know that Obama has himself addressed this, on numerous occasions - the problem is, he seems to use this as an excuse to follow his own agenda, thus he loses credibility with the American people - just like every other president before him.

By Native on 02-09-10

Hammer & JB - I guess my point all along is that I too think that the government is grossly corrupt and inept.  But I think you just lose a lot of support for your opinion when you funnel all of that discontent at Obama.  Thats the problem with the tea parties.  If you strip them down, they have a fundemental point that the Gov needs some fixin.  Unfortuanatly, the message is drowned out by crazies comparing Obama to Hitler and calling him a socialist.  So whats the issue?  Do conservatives have a problem with how the government is being run or do they just hate that our current leader is a young, educated black man that threatens to change things from the status quo?

By cs1 on 02-09-10

Recent studies have shown that when people discussing public policy refrained from using identifiers such as, right wing, left wing, democrat, republican, liberal, conservative, socialist, etc. they were much more likely to accept, acknowledge and understand their counterpart side and come to a reasonable conclusion.
Having said that, if there is a majority of one group over another the majority has the upper hand in decision making, that’s part of the democratic process. Any party that listens to and takes into consideration the minority’s concerns and actually uses some has done a fair job in my opinion. But, a minority that uses their lack of a majority to stop or impede any and all policy decisions is just plain wrong.

By hammer on 02-09-10

In addition, what about the democrats that are against the health care bill the dems are trying to shove down Americas throat?  Shouldn’t you blame your own bill by not fitting the needs of Americans?  People are awake now.  Barak can continue to try to fool America, but the sleeping giant has awoken.

By hammer on 02-09-10

Neither is forcing a bill down Americans throat.  Dems have not listened to any ideas given by the Reps.  Don’t be fooled that this new CSPAN approach is going to attempt to listen to Reps.  This is just for show.  Barak doesn’t want to start over from scratch.  He doesn’t want to change anything on the bill.  Once again, this is just another show put on by Barak.

By Native on 02-09-10

Hammer - I didn’t intend to pull the race card.  But I apologize.  The point I am attempting to make is that I hear the hatred towards him and all the name calling and all the stereo-types and I can’t figure out why he seems to be a bigger target than any politician that I can remember.  I know that you like Reagan and you just critisized Obama for not having work experience.  So why would you love a president that was an actor over a president that was a law professor for over 20 years, edited Harvard’s newspaper was a practicing attorney and yes, community organizer is a job just like working for the United Way or the Salvation Army.  Why was there so much uproar that he is not a citizen of the US when John McCain was born in Panama and nobody even brought that up.  Mitt Romney’s dad was born in Mexico & nobody brought that up.  He is attacked unfairly.  You blame him for problems that existed before he was even a senator. Why do you blame him for ALL of our problems even when it is clear that it is more about the government as a whole than what is in the realm of his control?  Is it that you don’t like what he is trying to do or is it something else?

By hammer on 02-09-10

I am listening, more than you know.  Barak has no intentions on changing anything in the health care bill.  IT NEEDS TO START OVER FROM POINT A.  That’s what we are saying.  CAN YOU HEAR ME?

By Native on 02-09-10

Hammer - The republicans wanted tax cuts in the stimulous bill and so he complied.  Remember the state of the union when he mentioned it and all the republicans stayed seated so Obama made a crack.  So don’t say he hasn’t listened to anything.

I don’t know what you are referring to with Joe The Plumber.

We came here to get away from govt control?  Are you referring to the Mayflower?  Mass immigration through Ellis Island?  Border jumping from Mexico?  Please clarify.

Congress has fudged the health care bill, not Obama.  The Dems made it too complicated, the Republicans won’t give ground.  Its a mess.  Obama just called for reform.

Time will tell on the stimulous.  You will soon see several projects in our area finally start up.  You will know people that are back at work because of it. 

You still have not given me your definition of liberal.

You still have not explained to me why Obama is a socialist.

You still have not said why you called Barney Frank a moral disgrace.

You still have not said where you get your information.

Your becoming a very hard person to take seriously.

By KPD on 02-09-10

“Toyota has been traditionally known for the most recalls in the auto industry”

Umm… I just REALLY find that hard to believe.. where are you getting the info from for that one?

Here’s the top 10 recalls of all time, lots of GM and FORD in this list… not a single Toyota though:

http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/total-recall-ten-largest-auto-recalls-of-all-time/

I know you said the most recalls historically. Back it up… the rest of your rant is the same old same old hammer, you constantly regurgitate the this broken record.

“You can talk the talk, but you don’t walk the walk.“

By cs1 on 02-09-10

You meant more independent accountability not reliability.  You know, it seems that malapropisms and Bush supporters go hand and hand.  Have you ever thought about running for a political position?  The reason I ask is that you are very good at talking out both sides of your mouth, i.e.: on one hand you don’t want government run health care, but, on the other hand you are ticked off about your (mis) understanding that Medicare (the #1 Government run health care plan) will be cut.  Make up you mind, for goodness sakes.  Either you want it or you don’t.  It’s so typical for your type to argue in this fashion that I’ve come to the sad conclusion that you argue merely for the sake of the argument instead of for any prospect of making a single intelligent point.  And, by-the-way, the founding fathers came to America to escape religious persecution not government control.  And, our government was created for the general welfare of the country and its citizens, not the infrastructure of our country.  Goodness gracious….

By Kalispell Native on 02-09-10

ya just gotta love hammer’s delusional false bravado.  hammer must be a Cub’s fan.  BTW hammer,  your favorite naked pin-up boy is pro-choice, which means the teabaggers will bounce him out of the G No P come MA primary time.

By hammer on 02-09-10

cs1, American was formed because the govt was controlling the church, which means too much govt(that was my point).  ON the health care, I do believe in Medicare, but I don’t believe that I should be paying for people who don’t want to pay for it or are too lazy to get a job.  Socialism does not work in America.  This country was not built on socialism.  It is amazing that people think that the change for AMerica needs to be socialism.  America is speaking loud and clear.

By hammer on 02-09-10

KPD, here are some more articles on Toyota who has a previous record of a large amount of recalls
 
  http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33077383/
 
http://www.toyotamonitor.com/blog/1035980_preparing-for-the-largest-toyota-recall-in-history

http://www.google.com/search?q=history+of+toyota+recalls&hl=en&rls=com.microsoft:en-us&tbs=tl:1&tbo=u&ei=TQ5yS8XDCorYsgOsqNySCA&sa=X&oi=timeline_result&ct=title&resnum=12&ved=0CC8Q5wIwCw

By Kalispell Native on 02-10-10

I can almost smell the gangrenous stench from the infected fractures of the G No P body politic.  [happy dance in here]

By Kalispell Native on 02-10-10

Roark: What I think about economic recovery solutions is of little import, not unlike your Randian/Objectivist fallacious exhortations that have no basis in reality when it comes to solutions.  Pot kettle black, bubba.

By Kalispell Native on 02-10-10

Not my job, man.

By David E on 02-10-10

Here is a solution. Members of congress stop the politics, stop worrying about the next election and get to work to solve problems in earnest. That means they have to read the bills, read studies and reports and look at budgets. They have to manage not from a self interest point of view they have to manage from a fact based perspective and choose the best solutions available. Even if those solutions do not fit the politics. They also have to find the middle ground where they can find consensus so they can solve problems. That means all parties. I think we the people can handle the truth when it is based on facts and not political fear. We scream we don’t want government intervention in health-care. Well take a fact based look at the current system. It is today majority funded and regulated by the government. Medicare will be the largest national budget item over the next decade eclipsing social security and defense spending combined if costs grow at current levels. As good managers politicians should be acting on that budget fact instead of misdirecting the American people. However what they do is put off doing anything hoping the next guy will take the risk of fixing the problem leaving them with no risk in having to take a hot political position. As the President clearly said, “we need to be careful about what we say, because we can back ourselves into a corner”. That means you can’t change your public stated position on anything because you will appear to flip flop or will appear to turn against your party. When did we lose independent thought, ideas in America? As for health-care it was aborted before it ever got off the ground. Baucus and Grassley control the Senate finance committee and they are old friends. And they get a lot of money from the heath-care lobby. And that is the real problem special interests. I predict that when the HC industry fails because of cost and the majority of us can’t pay in the future it will scream for a government option just like the banks. Hammer you need pay close attention to what you say. Did you really mean all those neighbors of yours who have lost their jobs and can’t find work like the millions of Americans across this country are too lazy to work?  Or will you flip flop on that statement.

By emerson on 02-10-10

Thanks JB - I am always interested in different perspectives. A few things about this article that were pretty far off the mark:

1) The article claims that Reagan’s policies ended historical boom-bust economic cycles. The problem with this analysis is this: Looking at economic cycles back to about 1820 the Economist magazine tracked that there were nearly equal periods of economic expansion and contraction (punctuated with deep depressions in the 1800s twice) up until the Great Depression in 1930.

After the Great Depression, there was a marked decline in the severity and frequency of economic contractions. One could make a cogent argument that many of the policies set as the result of the Great Depression (FDIC insurance, Glass Steagall Act, monetary policy etc) were the real catalysts of the following period of economic stability.

What the American Spectator is saying is: “Look at how stable things have been since Reagan!“ while ignoring the fact that the stability actually existed for a period of 40 years prior to Reagan coming to office. Based on that fact, it is hard to attribute that stability to Reagan- and most ironic - the more reasonable attribution is to the policies that came out of the period that the article is actually trying to discredit!

2) They stated that every time you cut taxes, revenue increased, is also misleading. The inverse could also be said and be factually true. “Every time you raise taxes, revenue increases.“ This is because most economies have a general trendline toward expansion. It is akin to saying, “Every time the leaves fall off the trees, the snow soon comes after…“ While that may be true, the reason for snow isn’t because the leaves fell of the tree. It’s because winter is just a natural fact of life.

In fact, what happens with GOP tax policy is that they cut taxes at a steeper level than the subsequent economic growth. The result is large budget deficits. The same principle applies to any business: if you cut prices, you will decrease your income. You may make up for it in volume, but usually not.

Keynesian economics are really just the basics of common good business practice: During good times, save some money and store up a reserve that you will need during the down times. During the down times, spend that money to keep your company going and to invest to be ahead in the good time.

GOP economics seem to be the opposite of that truism: During good times, cut taxes and goose the pedal on an already hot engine. During down times, cut spending and kill any fuel to an already sputtering engine. The equivalent business practice would be to cut prices during good times and don’t save any money for the rainy day. When the bad times come, they seem to promote essentially shutting down shop and hunkering for a better day they hope will come… cont.

By hammer on 02-10-10

David E, nice try on taking it out of context.  My point is that there are only 12 million that truly can not afford health insurance, the other of the 36 million can afford it but choose not to purchase.  I believe that a majority of the 12 million people who can’t afford it have ridden the govt their whole lives.  I don’t believe giving them more(health insurance) besides the welfare they are already on.  We already have to pay for the ones that leave hospital bills, doctor bills unpaid.  We get passed on the debt of those unpaid bills.  Also, I don’t believe that we should be paying for those who choose not to pay.  They have cell phones, body tatoos, a bag of weed, smokes, but choose to not pay for health insurance.  This is my biggest problem with the whole approach of social health care.  I must say I appreciate your take on we the people can handle the truth.  If we saw more of that from Washington, I believe you’d see much more cooperation.  It’s a matter of trust and politicians have proven not to be trusted.

By hammer on 02-10-10

Emerson, stable 40 years before Reagan.  Come on!  21% interest rates, unemployment at record high.  That is not stable.  This is unrationable garbage that continues to be spewed.  Reagan brought America back.  Iran hostages, jobs, jobs, jobs.  Man, get over the Reagan hatred.  The man was a great president

By emerson on 02-10-10

I am talking about periods of economic expansion vs economic contraction. These are matters of measurable fact.

And BTW - the highest level of unemployment since 1948 was in 1983 (3 years into the Reagan presidency). Just the facts man.

By hammer on 02-10-10

I pay for my own insurance. Those 12 million people have been living off of govt.  THey are increasing the cost of health coverage in America.  There are plenty of Americans that choose not to pay for health insurance and claim they are broke.  But they have their smokes, their alcohol drugs, etc.  This country is not built on socialism.  I am a working person and understand the costs of health care, but you don’t understand that the costs will go up for us that are already paying for insurance.  I don’t think it can be more clean than this.  Open your eyes to opportunity.  Stop waiting for the govt to help you out mitch.

By hammer on 02-10-10

MITCH how about interest rates at 21%.Oh yah you don’t want to hear anything about that.  Did you hear Reagan blaming Jimmy Carter.  NO.  He took the responsibility on his own watch.  He did succeed and you don’t like it. He cut taxes and created jobs.  Just the opposite of Barak.  People are not behind a dishonest guy like this president.  You keep asking the same questions and I will give you the same answers.  Blinded by liberalism

By hammer on 02-10-10

If you think, that doesn’t make it right.  How about industries pooling their money together and buying large group health care plans.  This will allow much lesser expensive costs.  Auto industry pool with each other.  Farmers are pooling their money together with NEW WEST.  This seems to be a very good start and an accountible start.  People with jobs need to have good health coverage so they can keep their jobs.  And pooling industries together would be a great place to build from.  People who are losing jobs is another issue, but socialising it will not bring costs down.  I don’t know much about Japan, but I don’t hear the world bragging about their health care at all.  We have a great system it just needs improvement, not socialising it.  The people who can’t afford it do have health care, they just don’t pay the bill and it is passed on to us.  I don’t understand how you can’t understand something this simple.  But you choose to go social with it.  We pay for it, why give them even more.  It will increase the costs even more.

By Vud on 02-10-10

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2008/10/18/business/20081019-metrics-graphic.html

By cs1 on 02-10-10

In 1980, the “misery index”—unemployment plus inflation—crested 20 percent for the first time since World War II. Ronald Reagan blamed this on Jimmy Carter, and went on to win the White House. Reagan then caught the business cycle on an upswing, for what conservatives call “the Seven Fat Years” or “the longest economic expansion in peacetime history.“
Were either of these presidents responsible for their fortune with the economy? No. Carter battled the peak of an inflationary trend that began in 1965. In the following chart, take special notice of the long, slow climb in the inflation column:

By cs1 on 02-10-10

Year   Inflation Unemployment (1)
———————————————-
1961     1.0%    6.7%
1962     1.0     5.6
1963     1.3     5.6
1964     1.3     5.2
1965     1.6     4.5 < Vietnam war spending increases
1966     2.9     3.8
1967     3.1     3.8
1968     4.2     3.5
1969     5.5     3.5
1970     5.7     5.0
1971     4.4     6.0
1972     3.2     5.6
1973     6.2     4.9
1974   11.0     5.6 < First oil crisis
1975     9.1     8.5
1976     5.8     7.7
1977     6.5     7.1
1978     7.6     6.1
1979   11.3     5.9 < Second oil crisis
1980   13.5     7.2
1981   10.3     7.6
1982     6.2     9.7
1983     3.2     9.6
1984     4.3     7.5

By cs1 on 02-10-10

Want more Eco 101 history?

By hammer on 02-10-10

You better get out of the underwater basket weaving 101 and look at your own information.  It’s right under your nose.  Reagan created jobs and brought down inflation.  You will never see the light on Reagan because you are on the liberal band wagon.

By cs1 on 02-10-10

Conservatives also criticize Carter’s promotion of expanded government regulations. But Carter actually began deregulating during his term; in 1978, he deregulated airlines; by 1980, he was deregulating trucking, railroads interest rates and oil. All are fundamental to the economy’s operations. Carter also set up the deregulatory machinery that Reagan would later use to slash regulations almost in half by the end of his second term. Again, Carter’s actions should have nudged the economy in the right direction, not sent it into the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression.
And yet, there is no evidence that regulation was even the cause of the period’s stagflation. The economies of Western Europe are far more regulated than the U.S., and their productivity has been growing faster than ours.

By hammer on 02-10-10

Typical liberal bringing in symbolism over substance.

By hammer on 02-10-10

This year I paid over $40,000 in federal taxes.  Don’t you think I care where my money goes?

By Scott on 02-10-10

Back to the topic at hand, while I am glad that the rate fell, we all know that the rate doesn’t include underemployed or folks that fell out of the system due to time restrictions on benefits. Look, I hope that this administration decides to do some major tax cuts for all of us, but these unemployment rates are still very very high.

Did anybody see the guy standing at the stop light today at the BestBuy,HomeDepot entrance that said:

“Need work. I am losing my home. Please help and God bless”. He wasn’t the usual homeless looking type of guy who stands there. He had new clothes, a haircut and you could see the embarrassment on his face.

When I start seeing people like that stand at a stop light asking for help, I start getting a little scared. Look…we know that employers who have minimum wage jobs have HUNDREDS of applicants in the flathead valley for EACH position. We recently had 700 applicants for ONE position at our business. Things are bad out there folks and they are not getting better any time soon.

By David E on 02-10-10

VUD good link an the article paints a dismal reality. It is the reality that we are going to be in this economic mess for a long while. Without major reform or the socialization of key, fundamental programs like health-care and social security and defense we are not is an economic position to fix the problem. To believe we can spend and not tax is a false belief. If we look at proposed future earning that fuel the cut taxes position we can clearly see that it has not worked as illustrated by the NYT graph. Expansion of the economy failed to keep pace with key areas of inflation. If you look at the current value of the minimum wage adjusted for inflation it is still five dollars. If we go back to the argument that raising the minimum wage would break business it to proved false. Today what broke the bank is the expense on the top end of the economic pyramid not the bottom. One bank failure Goldman, wiped out or balanced the total earnings of all those who work for minimum wage in the country. Who now are expected to pay to make the free market work. It is socialism for the rich funded by the American worker. So that must make Bush a socialist if we use the logic prevalent in this discussion. Symbolism? Liberal Conservative I just don’t care. How about Disgustedism.

By cs1 on 02-10-10

Thanks for the heart felt comment DE. I’m one of those that lost my home. We all need to come together.

By Kalispell Native on 02-10-10

cs1: hammer fled MT decades ago and lives out of state.

By Scott on 02-10-10

Hiya CS1,

Guess what, when those tax cuts expire every business owner who is a sole proprietor will lay off more workers. Do you honestly think they are going to take a hit on their bottom line and risk losing their business to keep that extra employee who might put them deeper in the red? Do you honestly believe that the “Rich”(defined as those who make 250,000 or more) got there because it was given to them? When you run a business and you have to make payroll, pay taxes and cover health benefits, 250,000 may sound like a lot but that owner is lucky to clear 20,000 a year.

The class warfare argument is BS and at the end of the day, people with your viewpoint who push the class warfare arguments will suffer and that is very very unfortunate.

By Vud on 02-10-10

Interview with Reagan’s Budget Director:

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/business/jan-june10/makingsense_02-05.html

PS The entitlement programs probably WON’T be cut in time (by either party).

Taxes are DEFINITELY going up (by either party).

By cs1 on 02-10-10

Yea Scott, what Native said. 
Dittos, if Rush says 250k isn’t rich it must be true. Of course if your comparing his $30 million a year to $250k, it isn’t.
But, if you were to compare the average household income in Flathead County to that same $250k I think those of us at the average would respectfully disagree.
The middle class is disappearing and that’s just the way some want it.

By Kalispell Native on 02-10-10

Your words hammer, “ I work with a ton of businesses out there and your 80% statement doesn’t hold water.“  If you work with a ton of businesses “out there”, meaning in MT, then where are you if not in here?

By hammer on 02-10-10

I’m not stroking myself in public, I am just demonstrating that I spend alot of money with our govt and I’m not happy how they are spending it.  I’m not here to look down on anyone. I just don’t think that sitting around complaining about how tough it is and wanting more from the govt works very well.  Listen Native, I want you and everyone here to succeed financially, successful people want others to be successful and I wish everyone here the best of luck, but to sit and whine and cry and demonize people who are out making it happen is not the Amercian way.  In my opinion that attitude will get you nowhere. No it’s not taxed on the business, but why does it matter.  You are making a bigger deal out of it.  Thanks for the complement.  Let me tell you, if I had Kalispell Native’s attitude, I’d probalby be right there whining with you and expecting the govt to send me the next check too.  BUt I was not raised that way and will never understand that mentality..  Alot of the recession is in attitude.  I hope you guys can turn yours around, because that is part of the problem.  GOod employees are easy to find right now.  Ask any business out there.  Five years ago, businesses couldn’t find anyone to work. Now there are some valuable people who have been laid off and businesses are taking advantage of this and hiring these people and waiting it out.  BUt you can’t find opportunity sitting on your couch.

By Native on 02-10-10

I actually agree with you hammer and now I can now see the relevence to your points.  Your points are better made when you calm down.

Just because someone is a liberal, doesn’t mean they are asking the govt for hand outs.  I haven’t lived a day of my life without health coverage and I’ve never had to pay for it because my employers always have and I still couldn’t be a bigger advocate for reform.  65% of doctor bills don’t get paid today.  If you can verify that you didn’t earn over $30k in the last year you will probably qualify for medicare if you need care.  These 2 issues are what boils my blood.  The system is brokin and conservatives are nit-picking reform by attacking the little things instead of focusing on the big picture.  They are distracting the public with buzz words like “socialism” and “death panels”. Yes, part of the bill is of socialistic principal.  You cannot run effective government without a few social programs.  I believe that most poor people desperately want to pay for health care but they simply can’t afford it. The expense is so great that you could hold 2 full-time low paying jobs and still not be able to afford it for you family.  For a second you should try to consider the morally-good poor people and stop focusing on the bad-lazy poor people.  Give humanity the benefit of the doubt.  I know Jesus would…. zing!

By emerson on 02-10-10

I think sometimes it is easy to focus on the idea of “poor lazy people of poor moral character” and forget that there are a lot of wealthy people who have equally terrible moral character.

It is a distraction thrown out by conservatives all the time: focus on the bad poor people - but ignore the bad things that the powerful and wealthy inflict.

I have no idea whether Hammer is truthful in his wealthy proclamations. But assuming he is, this is a testament that ANYONE can make it in America. Even folks that struggle with basic literacy it appears…

But just because it is possible for a person to “make it” doesn’t mean that everyone makes it. That is the foundational principle in a competitive society: there will be winners and there will be losers. It isn’t a competitive society if everyone wins.

That is the fundamental contradiction in conservative thinking: they want a competitive society with winners and losers - but then they expect EVERYONE to win… and they cast scorn on those who don’t.

We must as a civilized society realize that we have a significant obligation to the many, many, many people in America who work hard, try their best, but still don’t succeed.

By hammer on 02-10-10

Look folks, I really don’t care if you don’t believe me or not.  I know that truth and that is all that matters.  I have no guarantees, if I had emersons or Kalispell Natives attitude I would be broke too.  I do give to the poor, I make donations as a part of my giving every year.  I also contribute my time back to the community.  See guys like emerson or KN think the worst of -people who make good money and don’t think about the positives that are created.  Why should we socialize for guys like that. They can go get it on their own.  I don’t think they are incapable, their attitudes against successful people hinder their true potential.  Look how Bill Foley was criticized.  That man is a good guy, but people want to think the worst of him because he is a self made billionare.  Medicaid already exists for the poor.  This proposed health care bill is way too socialized for me.  My opinion will not be changed unless they start pooling industries together to buy health plans.  That has been the only rational plan I have seen so far.

By hammer on 02-10-10

Emerson what about coverage for everyone.  I can’t afford that.  You seem to leave out the meat and potatoes.  Typical liberal.  That is the socialism that you conveniently leave out.

By emerson on 02-10-10

And Hammer - you say you “can’t afford health care for everyone.“

So you are really saying that you can afford providing universal health care to people in Iraq (which our tax dollars are paying for), but you can afford spending more on the military than every other country in the world COMBINED…

But you can’t afford helping to provide working class families in America health care?

The same families that disproportionately send their children to fight ande die in the wars that rich Republicans start? You can’t “afford” to help them have health care—but you CAN provide health care to Iraqis?

Is THAT what you are saying? Is THAT what Conservatism stands for?

By David E on 02-10-10

The current system outside of government relies on the ability of employers to pay for or provide insurance for employees. What I would like to see is a shift away from employer based (paid) health-care. One system that covers everyone or pays for everyone’s insurance; call it single payer.  The way it would work is much like social security is set up, except for the distribution of funds. Funds are collected through payroll deduction like social security. A base rate would be established that everyone would pay equally. Employers would match the employee contribution. So if you pay 10 percent so does the employer. All workers and all employers pay creating a pool that everyone participates in equally. As an example Wal-Mart would have to pay a fair share in the pool. Then vouchers are issued to every citizen to pay for private insurance or the healthcare providers they choose. Of course a formulary of cost for treatments and procedures would have to be established. These already exist in the current system.

By covering everyone there would no longer be people who can’t pay as all treatment would be re-reimbursed to the HC providers.

The system would stay private for profit or any other structure HC provider chooses. One of the major problems in the system is HC providers often don’t know how much they will be paid or how much it will cost to get paid. Insurance companies routinely denied claims for services and these claims have to be re-billed many times before payment is made. This drives up costs. Everyone could have a health-care debit type card that when a service is billed the HC provider is immediately paid for the service through the system. This works successfully in Taiwan and they have an administrative cost of 1.5 % compared to ours of around 33 to 34%. Another feature of that system is your health records are stored on the card and are immediately accessible by the doctor. The increased communication in the system reduces duplication of services and reduces the incident of medical mistakes. This will reduce Tort claims. We can take the best systems and integrate them into a system that works. A system every body pays into and a system where everyone has choice. A national pool.  Other treatment modalities would have to be developed to further contain costs. These also exist in the current system we just have to identify what works well and adapt those models through out the system. If we focus on successful treatment instead of just cost we can reduce un-necessary Non-effective treatments and obsolete programs. We can also help more people go to school to become doctors by helping them pay for school. 

Well we could also buy less F-22 fighters that not even the military wanted. And just watch Politicians from Alabama, Mississippi, Texas fight for their NASA programs that no longer have a mission

By emerson on 02-10-10

Hammer - you’re not paying attention: People who show up in emergency rooms DO receive care. This is based on a law that Reagan passed. And the way it happens now.

But this is the most expensive place to provide medical care - and it is only for a limited form of medical services. For example - people with cancer can’t get treatment in an emergency room.

So what’s your choice? Option 1, 2 or 3?

And to say we can’t afford to reform our health care system is a silly thing to say. Within 10 years America will spend 20% of our GDP on health care.

Doing nothing will literally bankrupt us.

By hammer on 02-10-10

Sorry Emerson, I should have said David E.

By David E on 02-10-10

Yeah. The fact is we all owe each other, that is the premise of a society. Society is a pool of people untied for the common good, we all have a role to play and we all have to pay for each other. That is why we have roads, schools, the post office you know it is why we have a country. If you don’t like government or a structured society you can afford to move. There are plenty of places where government and structured society do not exist. Try that for a while, with your money you would be a king or warlord what ever you want to be.

By David E on 02-10-10

Who am I to tell you you have to pay your fare share. I am a citizen who gladly pays my fare share.

By hammer on 02-10-10

THere you again.  We have MEDICAID!  The system is already there

By hammer on 02-10-10

David E, I have a great idea, why don’t we have the people who want to pay into the social program pay it.  If you pay your share and want to pay everyone elses that can be your choice.  Then you can have your socialized system in place.

By hammer on 02-10-10

Guys, you don’t get it.  The system is one of the best in the world.  Sure it could use some reform, but not like the one OBama has presented.  Why do you go back to such extreme points.  My grand parents are on Medicare. They paid into the system.  Why should we cover someone who decides to make a career on depending on the govt and never pay into the system.  If you go back to the extreme points like this last one, I am done with this.  You two are looking for handouts

By emerson on 02-10-10

Actually the World Health Organization has rates the US health care system 34th in the world for outcomes.

Do you just download your brain from Glen Beck and Rush Limbaugh through USB or through Firewire?

By David E on 02-10-10

Yeah, yes thank you I do want a public option a system I can pay into if I want. That is exactly what I want a public option and you agree. You know we have changed as a people. I have been doing some research on WWII. What I am amazed at is how that generation came together in the face of a national crisis and sacrificed and worked together to overcome the threats of the time. Think about it, they gave selflessly for the greater good of all. They invented the modern world in just 4 years.

By David E on 02-10-10

I don’t want a free ride, In fact the system I would like to see is one where everyone pays. Go back and read my post. EVERYBODY PAYS INTO THE SYSTEM, it is not free. Further all employers pay, no more big corporation dodging the cost. Like I said Wal-Mart who now only pays for 25% of its work force would have to match their contributions. Yes of course what you pay would be based on what you earn, it would be a percentage like social security. You see I think everyone should pay because that is the only way it is going to work. Now take a breath and think

By hammer on 02-10-10

David, I am with you partly on working people paying into the system, I do have no faith in the govt controlling it.  THey have not proven to me to be reliable. It is quite clear that you have to draw the line on the people not paying into it.

By hammer on 02-10-10

$6 million dollars.

By David E on 02-10-10

Those who do not have jobs and have been in the system all their lives. Yes we need to reform entitlements, however we have to be realistic. Clinton tried and did reform welfare with the welfare to work program. However when you have a single parent with 3 kids they have to be able to afford health-care, day-care to be able to work. That means they have to earn a living wage. That means you have to provide training and cover those expenses while they train. I worked in the program and found most people do want to work. The barrier is transitioning from a safe known income-welfare to working where risk is often over whelming until the person can get a solid footing. Yes the system has created the problem. Also you have many individual who are disabled and unable to work or are determined to be unemployable. I once hired a mentally disabled janitor, who by the way was a fantastic worker. He was dependable as the sun. However he looked and acted well behind, slow. Many people were uncomfortable he worked for us, he made them nervous he wasn’t normal. When I left the company one of the first things the new boss did was fire the guy because of those prejudices, I was told by a former employee who was upset with the firing. It is tough ground, but I agree people on welfare need to work even if we have to make jobs for them.

By hammer on 02-10-10

David, maybe we have alot more in common than I thought, but I am sure we have some differences.  I apologize if I made you guilty by association.  You have to admit, there are alot of people blogging here that are not self reliant on these issues.  I should go spend some time with my wife now.

By David E on 02-10-10

Yeah me too Good night

By David E on 02-11-10

As millions of American struggle to maintain their economic stability, their homes, families, jobs a sad reality is sweeping the nation. I am just discussed with politics and here is why.  Yes for many of us we are still unemployed and we are told over and over that our government has failed us. When the truth is those who make the claim are the failure. We need to stand untied not divided. Regardless of what you believe seek the truth, truth that is being stolen from under our noses. 
Follow this link and see who wants credit where none is due for the stimulus spending.

http://thinkprogress.org/touting-recovery-opposed/

I am done and I wish you all the best of success. I hope those of you who are unemployed find the best jobs you ever dreamed about. As Joesph Campbell so famously said, “Follow your bliss”. It is there you will find your true happiness in what you do. So if you have no others options today focus on what you truly love and make that your work.

By David E on 02-11-10

That is pretty good, I like it “Follow your blisters!‘

By the jamhole on 02-11-10

Quit doing meth and get a job like the rest of us. Or is the problem there are no jobs to get? Quit doing meth and make more jobs!