Ultimate College Softball
Register Calendar Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment   Page 5 of 14     «   Prev   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   Next   »
Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,422
Reply with quote  #121 

Quote:
Originally Posted by swifty

Regarding downsizing and outsourcing, the answer is to vote Republican and install an administration whose legislation will assist the economy in it's recovery and jobs will be created so that Dewey doesn't have to worry about extending unemployment insurance.



For a minute there, I thought you were actually going to tell us what that legislation might be.

Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,422
Reply with quote  #122 

Bowles and Simpson talk Deficit Commission.

swifty

Registered:
Posts: 941
Reply with quote  #123 
Once again, I don't understand your humor, but that's my problem.  That aside, you didn't respond to my substantive comments about the dilemma US companies find themselves faced with as it pertains to higher taxes, regulations and interference vs. outsourcing.
bluedog

Registered:
Posts: 10,739
Reply with quote  #124 
How arrogant is Pelosi....She's saying this even now after the American people just told her to go away....

Quote:
"They [Democrats] know that I'm the person that can attract the resources — intellectual and otherwise — to take us to victory because I've done it before."  

GoHawks

Registered:
Posts: 483
Reply with quote  #125 

Quote:
Originally Posted by swifty
Companies are forced to outsource in order to be competitive.  Taxation, Govt restrictions and interference, and Union wages make it impossible to compete and earn a profit.  They could decide against outsourcing and ultimately go out of business cause their operating costs are too high or they could raise prices which means they would not be competitive or items would be priced so high as to not be affordable and ultimately be forced out of business.  On the other hand, outsourcing keeps them profitable and in business, and the mfg jobs that are lost can shift to sales and marketing to sell the products that are mfg abroad.  I guess instead of downsizing, companies can maintain employees that they don't generate enough business to pay for, and ultimately fail, and then all of their employees would lose their jobs.  If our economic system was our government, it would certainly be more effective than what we are experiencing now.  Regarding downsizing and outsourcing, the answer is to vote Republican and install an administration whose legislation will assist the economy in it's recovery and jobs will be created so that Dewey doesn't have to worry about extending unemployment insurance.

Don't worry Swifty. You'll get your way.  For eight years OSHA/EPA/FDA regulations etc. rules were gutted and Americans just put a ton more hardcore anti-regulation people into congress.  Some Dems are in the same boat, and the rest don't have the power or the voice to fight against the corporate media machine.

You are right on.  Electing Republicans will make corporations more powerful/profitable.  Not sure how that's a solution to outsourcing though as there will always be cheaper labor somewhere - until Americans start making what the Indians/Vietnamese make.  Don't think that aint where we're headed.  Heck, with no work safety, environmental or food safety regulations it'll feel a lot like a 2nd/3rd world country!  Again, don't think that aint where we're headed.
swifty

Registered:
Posts: 941
Reply with quote  #126 
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoHawks

Quote:
Originally Posted by swifty
Companies are forced to outsource in order to be competitive.  Taxation, Govt restrictions and interference, and Union wages make it impossible to compete and earn a profit.  They could decide against outsourcing and ultimately go out of business cause their operating costs are too high or they could raise prices which means they would not be competitive or items would be priced so high as to not be affordable and ultimately be forced out of business.  On the other hand, outsourcing keeps them profitable and in business, and the mfg jobs that are lost can shift to sales and marketing to sell the products that are mfg abroad.  I guess instead of downsizing, companies can maintain employees that they don't generate enough business to pay for, and ultimately fail, and then all of their employees would lose their jobs.  If our economic system was our government, it would certainly be more effective than what we are experiencing now.  Regarding downsizing and outsourcing, the answer is to vote Republican and install an administration whose legislation will assist the economy in it's recovery and jobs will be created so that Dewey doesn't have to worry about extending unemployment insurance.

Don't worry Swifty. You'll get your way.  For eight years OSHA/EPA/FDA regulations etc. rules were gutted and Americans just put a ton more hardcore anti-regulation people into congress.  Some Dems are in the same boat, and the rest don't have the power or the voice to fight against the corporate media machine.

You are right on.  Electing Republicans will make corporations more powerful/profitable.  Not sure how that's a solution to outsourcing though as there will always be cheaper labor somewhere - until Americans start making what the Indians/Vietnamese make.  Don't think that aint where we're headed.  Heck, with no work safety, environmental or food safety regulations it'll feel a lot like a 2nd/3rd world country!  Again, don't think that aint where we're headed.

You're right GoHawks, thats exactly where Obama wants us.  After all, it's only fair that us privileged, wealthy Americans are brought down to their level so we are all the same.  
PatGillickProtege

Registered:
Posts: 4,364
Reply with quote  #127 
Quote:
Originally Posted by POV
Quote:
Originally Posted by woody
Quote:
Originally Posted by PatGillickProtege
Well we all know that Katie Couric from the CBS Evening News is a liberal elite douchebag.

http://dailycaller.com/2010/10/27/katie-couric-the-great-unwatched/comment-page-1/#comments

I'd love to run into her on the street just to spit in that Old Bag's face. 


Hey PGP, don't be so hard on the old leftist Gal. She is way hotter than Pelosi, and the botox injections haven't to date make her look like she has suffered a stroke. She just needs a to let loose of her pent up emotions and party down with the peasants who carry the pitchforks.

The Republicans have got to swell with pride knowing they can count these two amongst their loyal supporters. 

And the Democrats know that everyone of their POV/POS supporters are just like them POSs.


__________________
Keep 'em moving Colonel, a man that eloquent has to be saved.
POV

Registered:
Posts: 2,715
Reply with quote  #128 

......and I rest my case.

PatGillickProtege

Registered:
Posts: 4,364
Reply with quote  #129 

Quote:
Originally Posted by bluedog
I quote Ann Coulter and she gets ridiculed....

I quote Pelosi, Biden and Obama and I get ridiculed.....

The Democrats just put Pelosi back in charge after the people sent a message for them to dump her........And, Rangel thinks he's being treated unfairly......Back to normal for the dems, it seems....

Obama's chances of getting re-elected are evaporating....Looks like a one-term prez...

Next Dem with a target on her back is the Slum Lord herself Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA).  I hope the House Ethics Committee throws the book at that racist b*tch.  She reminds me of Aunt Esther on Sanford & Son but that is too good for her.  Esther was a God-fearing christian woman with a sense of family.  Waters is just a typical bigot who is always, as my Gramps use to say about certain groups of people, "crying the blues".


__________________
Keep 'em moving Colonel, a man that eloquent has to be saved.
PatGillickProtege

Registered:
Posts: 4,364
Reply with quote  #130 

Quote:
Originally Posted by bluedog
How arrogant is Pelosi....She's saying this even now after the American people just told her to go away....

Quote:
"They [Democrats] know that I'm the person that can attract the resources — intellectual and otherwise — to take us to victory because I've done it before."  

When oh when will someone pull a Nancy Kerrigan and cold-clock Pelosi in her knee with a metal pipe?  And while they're at it, throw her on the ground and maybe she'll break her hip.  That's a party a lot of Americans will throw when that day comes.


__________________
Keep 'em moving Colonel, a man that eloquent has to be saved.
Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,422
Reply with quote  #131 
I've been waiting for an opportunity to counter the deliberately sarcastic "Liberal Logic" threads with three curious questions of my own.  Looks like this thread has taken a turn for the worst so I'll insert them here to change direction.  I'm not being coy when I say I can't quite square these views. 

a)  Extension of Bush tax rates -  Why is the Party that wants so much to be known as "tax cutters" trying so hard to convince the American people that extending these Bush tax rates is not really tax cutting?  (Rush Limbaugh - First off, there are no tax cuts being proposed by anybody for anybody.)
 
b)  Term limits -  How can Conservatives champion the right of Americans to choose the kind of Government they want, then counter it by trying to limit the number of terms they can vote a particular person into office?

c)  Tort reform - How does one explain the Conservatives implication that a progressive tax system somehow restricts what otherwise should be unlimited rewards for coming up with a good product or service, while at the same time doing all they can to limit the financial penalty for offering up a horrible product or service, (tort reform).

Needless to say, I find all three of these examples to be quite inconsistent and truly "illogical".
CoachB25

Registered:
Posts: 2,234
Reply with quote  #132 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dewey
I've been waiting for an opportunity to counter the deliberately sarcastic "Liberal Logic" threads with three curious questions of my own.  Looks like this thread has taken a turn for the worst so I'll insert them here to change direction.  I'm not being coy when I say I can't quite square these views. 

a)  Extension of Bush tax rates -  Why is the Party that wants so much to be known as "tax cutters" trying so hard to convince the American people that extending these Bush tax rates is not really tax cutting?  (Rush Limbaugh - First off, there are no tax cuts being proposed by anybody for anybody.) Dewey, because Republicans are asking to continue operating at the same tax rate that American has functioned under.  Investors on on pins and needles with the everyday ebb and flow of the market his past year.  Dewey, many investors including myself have pulled out of the market and are anxiously awaiting a time to put our money back in.  I say "pulled out" and so, for the sake of honesty, we pulled out a significant amount but did let some ride.  While we are "poor folk," we do have a substantial amount to throw back in for "poor folk."  Dewey, probably not significiant as compared to you West Coast citizens.
 
b)  Term limits -  How can Conservatives champion the right of Americans to choose the kind of Government they want, then counter it by trying to limit the number of terms they can vote a particular person into office? Dewey, do you not see the problem now with how powerful these politicians are?  Do you not see them build their political base by courting all of the Washington lobbists with promises of what can be achieved for the lobby effort over the next few decades?  You suggest that they are in favor of limiting their choices for representation.  I'd suggest that they are in favor of limiting the power of those who don't necessiarly represent the people and rather represent their own purse strings.

c)  Tort reform - How does one explain the Conservatives implication that a progressive tax system somehow restricts what otherwise should be unlimited rewards for coming up with a good product or service, while at the same time doing all they can to limit the financial penalty for offering up a horrible product or service, (tort reform).  Dewey, here is what I don't understand from your viewpoint.  You then are in favor of the exorbinant settlements in these lawsuits?  You don't understand what these limitless lawsuit judgements have done to Doctors and their ability to render care?  You don't understand that even for a sprained ankle, they will prescribe a month out of play or even two months since they always have to error on the side of caution rather than risk lawsuit.  Then, people complain Doctors are padding their wallets with continued visits back, referrals to other Doctors for second opinions, ...  No wonder a bandaid in an emergency room is roughly $18 in our area.

Needless to say, I find all three of these examples to be quite inconsistent and truly "illogical".


So, for the record, I'm in favor of tort reform, term limits and continuing the current tax practices.  George Washington once said that there is no problem with the concentration of power in one man's hands as long as that one man is willing to give that power back to the people.  JMHO!
JoiseyGuy

Registered:
Posts: 24,434
Reply with quote  #133 
Wide open question:  Exactly what do you perceive to be the role of our government in our representative republic??  After you have answered that to your satisfaction, then consider to what degree is our government fulfilling your definition?   
__________________
"Freethinkers are those who are willing to use their minds without prejudice and without fearing to understand things that clash with their own customs, privileges, or beliefs. This state of mind is not common, but it is essential for right thinking. Where it is absent discussion is apt to become worse than useless." Leo Tolstoy

"Do not try to teach pigs to sing. It will frustrate you and infuriate the pigs who will unite in anger against you, and you will never achieve singing your song". Dr. Petersen
Softballfanatic

Registered:
Posts: 1,152
Reply with quote  #134 
Dewey------Come on now!! You are disappointing me with that post!!!!

A. If continuing the current rate of taxation is a tax cut, please explain to me how? Playing word games, as you are here, is really disappointing. A tactic that did not work well for President Clinton. Continuing something in practice today, without change, cannot be viewed, sold, or promoted realistically as cutting or raising!

B. Dewey---Is there a term limit on the Presidency? On many, most, all governorships? Why? Let me answer. To prevent too much power from being garnered! I, and many feel that something similar should apply to all elected positions. I personally feel that the limits should be more liberal than with the Presidency and Governorships, but still some limitation is needed. Are you opposed to the term limits on the Presidency and Governorships?
 
C. The unlimited rewards for which you speak are apparently in reference to the decisions of others to pay a company or individual for services that they apparently felt were worth the expenditure. Free choice. Progressive taxation is imposed arbitrarily buy government at different rates based on how successful one is? If a person or company produces a bad product or service, they will not receive the rewards of a buying public. Tort reform has to do, again, with an arbitrary decision imposing excessive penalties on companies or individuals. The tort reform currently being touted most by conservatives is in the medical arena. If you do not think that this has an effect on health care costs, I have some ocean front property in Oklahoma to sell you!

I hope that unclouds the skies for you!

__________________
Jerry Wallace "For The Love Of The Game"
DaddyO

Registered:
Posts: 1,016
Reply with quote  #135 
Looks like Dewey and I can sing Kumbaya on one issue.

I am not in favor of Term Limits either, except for those specifically defined in the Constitution.  I cannot imagine, during this last Congressional session, the damage that 50-60 House members could do knowing that they were basically lame-duck House members.  If Pelosi could get the moderate newbies to go along with and vote for Obamacare with the newbies knowing that they would eventually have to answer to those in their districts, how much worse would it be if the House members knew they DIDN'T have to answer to their constituents?

Those in Congress have to answer to the people.  After this last election, this should be crystal-clear. 

__________________
Scratch a reactionary leftist, find the fascist writhing underneath.
GoHawks

Registered:
Posts: 483
Reply with quote  #136 
A:  Continuation of tax cuts.  Tax rates are scheduled to be higher on Jan 1 and will likely be cut.  Semantics.  Not sure its worth arguing about.

B:  This one baffles me too Dewey.  Term limits take power away from the people by telling them who can't vote for.  The power of elected officials can be removed at the ballot box.  Look what the Tea Party did to some very long-standing, powerful congresspeople.  A lot of people in favor of term limits never vote, let alone get involved at all in the primary process.  There's also a lot to be said for experience in government.

But it is true that it is a lot easier for those with power and money to stay in office.  I think the answer is eliminating gerrymandering and having public financing of elections.  Course with Citizens United that ain't happening soon.

Two terms makes sense for President as it prevents a dictatorship.

C:  Like most things a few are abusing the system ruining it for the rest of us.
Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,422
Reply with quote  #137 
softballfanatic - I believe in most instances Conservatives would cheer the cancellation of COLA's as good step in cutting spending.  Seems the same to me.  But as others said, maybe it's just semantics.  But you missed my larger point asking why Conservatives do not want to just come out and say, "yes, we are cutting taxes for everyone, including larger businesses and wealthier people." 

As to term limits, it's true that I don't see them as necessary.  That said, I have no problem with the American electorate making a voting decision to include them as part of our rules of governing.  I'm just surprised Conservatives encourage our citizens to make this particular decision to limit one of their freedoms relating to choice.  It seems odd.

Finally, regarding tort reform, once again it seems the Conservatives cannot trust the citizens of this Country to make wise and fair decisions and want to place controls on them.  Their unlimited reward philosophy coupled with a push for limited penalties is inconsistent within itself but very consistent when it comes to backing Corporate America at all costs.


Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,422
Reply with quote  #138 
Very soon, millions of Americans will see their unemployment benefits come to an end unless a vote is taken to extend them.

Very soon, the 3.6% tax discount on earnings over $250,000 that President Bush allowed Americans to take advantage of through 2010, will come to an end.

It's disappointing for me to know the Republican Party has just voted against extending these benefits for millions of out of work Americans but now plan to vote on behalf of those with high paying jobs, who would otherwise lose a significant portion of their tax discounts on January 1, an extension to keep their savings in tact.  I think this could be the new meaning of "Tea for Two".
oldscout

Registered:
Posts: 3,492
Reply with quote  #139 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dewey
Very soon, millions of Americans will see their unemployment benefits come to an end unless a vote is taken to extend them.

Very soon, the 3.6% tax discount on earnings over $250,000 that President Bush allowed Americans to take advantage of through 2010, will come to an end.

It's disappointing for me to know the Republican Party has just voted against extending these benefits for millions of out of work Americans but now plan to vote on behalf of those with high paying jobs, who would otherwise lose a significant portion of their tax discounts on January 1, an extension to keep their savings in tact.  I think this could be the new meaning of "Tea for Two".
I think the Republicans said they would be more than happy to vote for extent ions if we don't use borrowed money to pay for them. They suggested using unspent stimulus[Pelosi & Reid said UE benefits stimulate the economy],or they even suggested using some of TARP monies recouped from the GM stock sale or make some immediate cuts to pay for next wave of benefits.

Dewey-some day we have to start paying for things & quit borrowing for all this.
I read an article from CNN & from what I recall,I think it said that UE benefits since the recession started have cost$319 billion to date. Of that about 1/3 has come from Fed & other from states.
Businesses, I think cover the cost of state UE insurance & so many weeks of Fed benefits,like 20 weeks til Fed emergency benefits kick in after the 20 weeks.I think now we are going on our 3rd or 4th level of emergency benefits.
State accounts have been drained & I believe over 1/2 have borrowed almost $40B to date.
After this is all over the employers will be responsible for building these accounts back up  & even before the next extention is ok'ed[& it will be] they project UE taxes for businesses to rise to something like $65B per year in 2015 from current $36B level,almost double.
While companies are asking congress to reduce interest on loans & some of the repayments,I'm afraid employers are going to be a little worried about hiring people & adding to payrolls when their UE taxes are set to double, it is a 2 edged sword.

Sorry for all the writing-BUT WHY CAN"T WE JUST PAY FOR SOMETHING FIRST BEFORE ANNOUNCING WE ARE GOING TO SPEND. 

__________________
Terry Schneider
" Fear not tomorrow, God is already there ".
GoYard

Registered:
Posts: 1,291
Reply with quote  #140 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dewey
Very soon, millions of Americans will see their unemployment benefits come to an end unless a vote is taken to extend them.

Very soon, the 3.6% tax discount on earnings over $250,000 that President Bush allowed Americans to take advantage of through 2010, will come to an end.

It's disappointing for me to know the Republican Party has just voted against extending these benefits for millions of out of work Americans but now plan to vote on behalf of those with high paying jobs, who would otherwise lose a significant portion of their tax discounts on January 1, an extension to keep their savings in tact.  I think this could be the new meaning of "Tea for Two".


I agree, Dewey.  Very disappointing.  But very Republican.  And I think we've only seen the beginning...... 

Similar to AZ's Republican governor cutting healthcare to the indigent, so a man needing a liver transplant is denied the operation, but the County can vote to spend $10 MILLION to defend Sheriff Arpaio from lawsuits, the City of Phoenix votes to pay up to $49K for Public Safety Manager's defense against pension "double dipping", and the State & Cities can contribute millions to the now under-funded retirement plan that pays some retirees in excess of $250K/year and other more than they ever made in salaries.

Better not be poor and/or uninsured in Arizona!  Unbelievable!!!  
Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,422
Reply with quote  #141 

Quote:
Originally Posted by oldscout

Sorry for all the writing-BUT WHY CAN"T WE JUST PAY FOR SOMETHING FIRST BEFORE ANNOUNCING WE ARE GOING TO SPEND. 


oldscout - We can't ignore a short term emergency in order to solve our long term debt problem.  While not agreeing on the precise solution, everyone is on the same page regarding our long term debt crisis.  Question...should these unemployed people sell their homes and quickly become renters to avoid household deficits or should they borrow some funds until they are back on their feet?  Not all spending can be eliminated as easily as you suggest nor should it be.  That said, steps have begun to address future deficits.

Many here think the time is nearing that we'll have to seriously deal with Iran.  I wonder, will we raise taxes to handle this issue, cut more spending, or borrow? 
oldscout

Registered:
Posts: 3,492
Reply with quote  #142 
If you remember the extention before the last one they paid for it before passing,  & got support from both sides. The last extention they just passed on borrowed money, I'm saying why not pay for this one? I'm not talking about the long term defecits,I'm just saying pay for it...Gheez!!! Why not use the stimulus money that is unspent[ it's not Obamas money]? Why not use money from the tarp,heck we've already broke the rules when we gave it to GM.
Face it,you just want to tie-in in somehow to the wealthy or the tea party,I don't get it.It's a no brainer,the money is there already, use it....or maybe it isn't as big of an emergency as you put it up to be.
I think the people have said they are done borrowing.Even Olmypia Snowe one of Republicans that has been in your corner on UE benefits & critical of her own party,siad NO,it's time to be fiscally responsible & pay for things.

__________________
Terry Schneider
" Fear not tomorrow, God is already there ".
GoYard

Registered:
Posts: 1,291
Reply with quote  #143 
CNN poll - only one-third favor extension of tax cuts for wealthy

Poll

Poll also shows majority of Americans favor letting openly gay individuals serve in the military.

Why are our representatives (and our President at times) not listening to the majority of Americans?????

swifty

Registered:
Posts: 941
Reply with quote  #144 
A majority of Americans didn't want the health care bill passed, but I bet that was ok with you.
GoHawks

Registered:
Posts: 483
Reply with quote  #145 
House republicans are using the "we're for the unemployment extensions but pay for them" argument.  But its funny they aren't saying we must find a way to pay for the tax cut extensions.

Using stimulous money for unemployment extensions is reasonable to me as unemployed folks surely will put the money back in the system.  It's just that our infrastructure is in such a sorry state (I know.  I was living in MPLS in 2007), I hate to see it pulled.
GoYard

Registered:
Posts: 1,291
Reply with quote  #146 
Quote:
Originally Posted by swifty
A majority of Americans didn't want the health care bill passed, but I bet that was ok with you.


Well, you're not quite right there.  The majority wanted some type of health care reform.  Not everyone approved of the actual bill as passed, including me.  But it's a start & it will be refined along the way.  Here are the results of a CNN poll just prior to passage of the bill last spring:

The new CNN poll on the health care bill -- conducted in the days before its ultimate passage in the House on Sunday night -- on the surface appears to show widespread opposition to the law. But on the other hand, the exact makeup of that opposition paints an ambiguous picture of just how effective a Republican campaign against it could be.

The initial top-line shows only 39% of registered voters favoring the bill, to 59% opposing it. However a follow-up question finds that 43% oppose it on the grounds that it is too liberal, while 13% oppose it on the grounds that it is not liberal enough. So another way of looking at the data is that 43% oppose it for being too liberal, 39% favor it, and 13% oppose it for not being liberal enough, with another 3% who oppose it for some indeterminate reasons.


oldscout

Registered:
Posts: 3,492
Reply with quote  #147 
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoHawks
House republicans are using the "we're for the unemployment extensions but pay for them" argument.  But its funny they aren't saying we must find a way to pay for the tax cut extensions.

Using stimulous money for unemployment extensions is reasonable to me as unemployed folks surely will put the money back in the system.  It's just that our infrastructure is in such a sorry state (I know.  I was living in MPLS in 2007), I hate to see it pulled.
Good point on stimulus,but very little of the money was or is being used for infrastructure as far as I know. I wish they would have used a good portion of it for that & put people to work. I recall the President saying something like, " We will put our people to work by building our bridges & highways". Why is so much of money not spent with all the people UE? Now that is interesting to me-it was passed due to an emergency?

__________________
Terry Schneider
" Fear not tomorrow, God is already there ".
woody

Registered:
Posts: 10,325
Reply with quote  #148 
So a proposed 6% Federal sales tax to reduce the deficit is suggested, along with increasing the Federal gasoline tax. Talk of a spending freeze of 5-6 years.

Hey, I have a novel idea, leave taxes at current levels, leave the gas tax where it is, and reduce current spending 6% for 5-6 years. 6% of our Federal budget would go a long way towards reducing the deficit. 
39% of our 2009 budget was spent on medicare, Medicaid,  and social security. 23% on defense. 5% on interest. 4%, yes 4% to Tarp.
This left other/mandatory spending of 17% and discretionary spending of 12%. I don't think cutting discretionary and other spending by 1-2% each is unreasonable. Military could give up 1-2% of spending with troop draw downs that will be coming in the next three years.  

I am just a small business owner, and have reduced spending by far more than 6% over the past 2 years. Someone on either side of the aisle please explain to this dumb redneck why the Federal government cannot do the same. 

What is your chosen Ox? What can you afford to give up and what program that you support do you feel could not be cut by an across the board 6% cut? Why is the Federal Government allowed to add employees and not reduce the size of the Federal work force?  IMO the Federal Government is spending money on departments and programs that it have no Constitutional authority to exist, and are the responsibility of the States themselves. What say you? What program is untouchable, and how much debt would you be willing to saddle your Grandchildren with to keep it? I want a smaller Government, not larger.


__________________
Ignorance is forgivable, and correctable with proper study. Stupidity is a way of life.


POV

Registered:
Posts: 2,715
Reply with quote  #149 
It seems that a good deal of Recovery and Reinvestment Act money has gone unspent.  Seems like this was intended in part to create jobs. 
Unspent stimulus billions in Texas causing growing unease | Texas Watchdog

 Stimulus funds for Arizona energy projects largely unspent

Audit: 95 Percent NJ Weatherization Money Unspent « CBS New York – News, Sports, Weather, Traffic and the Best of NY


The deadline to spend these funds is 2012.  Who can you think of that wouldn't want UE to drop......especially in 2012?


Just a thought.......



PatGillickProtege

Registered:
Posts: 4,364
Reply with quote  #150 

Quote:
Originally Posted by POV
It seems that a good deal of Recovery and Reinvestment Act money has gone unspent.  Seems like this was intended in part to create jobs.

Unspent stimulus billions in Texas causing growing unease | Texas Watchdog

 Stimulus funds for Arizona energy projects largely unspent

Audit: 95 Percent NJ Weatherization Money Unspent « CBS New York – News, Sport


The deadline to spend these funds is 2012.  Who can you think of that wouldn't want UE to drop......especially in 2012?


Just a thought.......

If all these unspent funds were intended to create jobs then use the effing money to create jobs. Jesus EFFING Christ unemployment is at 9.8% and with people who came off the rolls and the underemployed we are looking at 17% national unemployment. People in this country don't want a hand out, they want a job. Overregulation & overdependency on the Nanny State has brought this country to where it's at. Why don't you blame the scumbags on Capitol Hill like retiring Senator Chris "Countrywide" Dodd (D-CT) and Rep. Barney Fag (D-MA) who created the Housing Bubble by letting Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac to do whatever they wanted to do.


__________________
Keep 'em moving Colonel, a man that eloquent has to be saved.
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.