Fundamental question: Is economy really OK?

"Life Sciences and Pharma saw a 36% increase in margins, alternative energy saw a 25% increase, Aerospace and Defense saw a whopping 42% increase."

Oh yes, more money for death in a 42% increase in Aerospace and Defense. Not to mention Life Sciences and Pharmaceuticals 36% increase.

Nothing like keeping people doped up and killing them off through war.

If we only saw the advantages of insuring a better life for all, not just for the few and invested our money in those areas instead. Although I must admit the mere 25% in Alternative Energy increases is a benefit for all. But then again this is the future of making millions and that just couldn't be passed up by those who would insure their own well being regardless of the suffering of millions. Too bad that they didn't have this foresight sooner, but then again there was so much money to be had in oil wasn't there?
All hail the God of capitalism. We follow it blindly and stupidly, and it's always "Hands Off" our God, and ignore the God of Humanity. You all know, the God that Jimmy Carter followed. the God that helped him in the Camp David accords that perhaps prevented an explosion in the Middle East which could have possibly lead to another world war. The God that put mankind first and personal gain and wealth second. the God that the right wing Christians don't follow in their quest to save future generations not yet here and in their willingness and complicity to exterminate generations that already exist.

Russ answer me one question-Who started the sub-prime mortgage mess that is causing all the problems? Jimmy Carter and than further supported by the famous Willy Clinton. You damn democrats are the blame for all this mess.

Pat why did you skip right over regan? and again, congress makes and shapes policy in the country.

president either signs or vetos it.

The economic growth experience during Clinton was because of the foundation the Reagan administration did. As much as I am not a Bush fan, the problems we have to day were caused by Washington as a whole. We have a serious crisis in government and whoever is elected is not going to solve the problem. Focusing on McCain and Obama is like focusing on the radio not working in a car when the brakes and engine need repair.

Right on Pat. Bill Clinton thought every yahoo should own a house . He is the one who is directly responsible for this mortgage mess.
Phil Gramm is also right. This country is full of whiners.

HAHA....its all Carter's fault for deregulating the Airline Industy. That cracks me up...the movement for deregulation goes much further back than that. Carter appointed Paul Volker to the Federal Reserve and HE is the one responsible for tightening the money supply and finally supressing the inflation monster. However it was Reagan's policies of tax cuts, deficit spending, and pump and prime the economy that started us on this downward spiral. I will give credit to HW Bush for raising taxing and starting us on the path to "pay as you go." And I know Bill Clinton raised taxes and rode the Economic Tidal wave to immortality as the savior of the "new economy." HOWEVER

This isn't just about Bush and his policies...its about capitalism as a way of operating and running human civilization. Bottom line is grow or die....How can the economy grow when we have resource depletion, global climate change, and excessive greed.

I'm not adovating communism because that won't work on a mass scale. They better figure something else out soon because the wheels are flying off the speeding freight train.

Let us not forget who is in charge of the Senate and House banking committees, and who has had the majority in congress all these years. America's free economy, with freedom and innovation in it's grasp, will always be strong. Where the government has meddled, therein lies the weakness.

Pat maybe you should take a look at this

http://www.lafn.org/gvdc/Natl_Debt_Chart.html

This is a thought about how "BAD" the economy is. Ronald Reagan won the election in a landslide, mainly because the Jimmy Carter economy was really bad. ( My 1st house interest rate 14% on a 1 year adjustable , and about 18% for a fixed rate) Houses were flying off the shelves back then. lol Paul Volker is now Barrocks econmic adviser by the way. My point is that if things are really THAT bad why is this election so close?

good question....my gut feeling is that the media is making close otherwise why would we be caring and watching. If it wasn't close, they'd have no ratings.

KC-350730
Thanks for the link, it tells everything in a nutshell. Republicans don't want any middle class worker to know what is really happening, we are supporting them and their rich friends, they are getting a free ride on us. It is time for the American people to wake up and see the degree of corruption coming from them.

Russ,
Regarding the 'educate yourself' part of your post.
The Democrat controlled Congress is in charge of this mess.

Congress' current approval rating is 9%.

Allow me to put that into perspective for you.
13% of the population thinks we purposely blew up the Twin Towers.
6% Think we never landed on the moon.

There are more whack jobs who think 9-11 was an 'inside job' than there are people who approve of congress.

If you want to know about corruption, read the book "The Case Against Barrak Obama".
After that, talk to me about corruption, socialism. etc. After reading this, tell me if the life
of the middle class will be better. I am not saying that most of the politicans anywhere
are not in there to promote their own self interests and not the people but please read this
book.

On May 23, 2006 a little-known regulatory agency in Washington, the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO), released a study with the dryly bureaucratic title "Report of the Special Examination of Fannie Mae."

From 1998 to 2004, the years covered by the OFHEO investigation, it was headed by former Clinton budget director Franklin Raines, whose top management team included former Clinton Justice Department official Jamie Gorelick, sometimes mentioned as a future attorney general in a Democratic administration. During that period, the report says, Raines and his team grossly overstated Fannie Mae's earnings — to the tune of $10.6 billion — for the purpose of paying themselves big bonuses. "By deliberately and intentionally manipulating accounting to hit earnings targets," the report says, "senior management maximized the bonuses and other executive compensation they received, at the expense of shareholders."

Cooking the books was a characteristic of the Clinton years and the fact his people ran Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac into the ground for their own gain is not a surprise to people who actually look at the facts. I wish everyone would at least think about the role of congress in this mess and remember the same leaders will be calling the shots after this election and the great reformer has never bucked his party in any way, shape or form. So is there a lesson to be learned by open minded people, yes indeed. Politicians are power hungry, they usually put their pals in positions to enrich themselves and their pals do exactly that. The power structure and the power brokers are firmly entrenched. A politician who bucks their own party is the only one who might and I emphasize might reform the corrupt system we live under. You can blame the Republicans but its a stretch to say the Democrats will do anything but change the names, oops excuse me they are the names in this mess! So the great reformer than never reformed anything wont need to do anything about anything, his folks are already in place.

"This is pitiful. I was NOT a Bill Clinton fan, but the economy was BOOMING!! We had a National Budget Surplus of TRILLIONS!!!"

Not when he left office we didn't. As the asian fueled technology boom began to slow, this being while he was still in office, his policies began to influence the US economy above the benefits seen from the boom, and that coupled with expectations for the boom to last for a much longer period led to one of the strongest economic downfalls seen in US history. Oh, and for the record, we never even had a surplus. What we had was a stoppage in the deficit rate and subsequent elimination of much of that debt. We had more coming in than going out, but we never actually passed the zero point before turning and heading back in the other direction while he was still in office, in one of the fastest downturns ever seen. People, fueled by Clinton himself spreading the lie, were convinced that a reduction in the deficit was the same thing as a surplus, and then people simply began to believe that we magically saw trillions that weren't even there. When stronger notice came regarding the economic problems created as companies were forced to outsource more (contributed by the single highest corporate tax rate in the entire world, more than double that of the second, something we still are faced with today despite a Republican President that should have been fighting against it's continuance tooth and nail), eliminate jobs, and increase consumer costs, the blame was swiftly put on Bush by Clinton who lied yet again about the dates regarding economic turn of events, convincing people all over again that we had a magical surplus that never actually existed while he was in office. We saw some definite improvements, for quite a while in fact, until his policies took precedent over outside influences, and then the rapid decline was short to follow. Clinton and Bush combined have shown us two of the worst US Presidents in history, NEITHER doing much that positively contributed to the economy (timing as President and outside influences of those times notwithstanding). Switching the roles and imagining Bush in office during the Clinton years, and Clinton in office today, it's hard to picture us being any different. They both have been harmful in the long run, and both qualify to be on the list of the US' worst Presidents. Neither showed us a true surplus, BOTH contributed negatively to the economy, one created one of the greatest negative turnovers of all time even while praising himself for things he didn't even do, both screwed over the military (I saw a thirty percent reduction in pay and loss of about half our benefits while serving under the Clinton administration), and both practice(d) policies that don't reflect the values of their own party (robbing big business and the rich and thus creating our outsourcing problem, such as the world record corporate tax rate that has run through both Presidents, is NOT something that follows either party values system).

KC,

The chart you posted is wrong. Clinton (with a Republican congress) had a budget surplus the last four years. Your graph says the deficit increased. Not a true graph.

First of all the budget was never truly BALANCED. Clinton administration used the funds in the Social Security surpluses to balance the budget and now we are facing bigger problems with SS than we would have been if money was left alone and invested separate as it was originally set up.

Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005- go to gov traks . us look for it and read it. McCain co-supported the bill that dems squashed. McCain warned of the corruption in Frannie Mae and Freddie Mac and the problems it would create. Exactly what we see today. Funny how the media doesn't want to mention this. This is another example of how McCain tried to do right despite the parties differences.

Social Security and Medicare/Medicade are regulated and look where they are

Ah, yes. Raines of FNM. He must have commuted--and shared financial philosophy--with Rangel and the rest of the crooks who control Congress (political affiliation notwithstanding--and with the blessings of many CEOs and Wall Street). Yeah, I'm miffed! (Why am I just addressing Congress? Because the Executive branch "somewhat" changes every 4 or 8 years--and the Judicial branch is 'not supposed' to make policy).

Ah, yes. Raines of FNM. He must have commuted--and shared financial philosophy--with Rangel and the rest of the crooks who control Congress (political affiliation notwithstanding--and with the blessings of many CEOs and Wall Street). Yeah, I'm miffed! (Why am I just addressing Congress? Because the Executive branch "somewhat" changes every 4 or 8 years--and the Judicial branch is 'not supposed' to make policy).

I am not a fan of GWB, but why is he getting all the heat?
Let's put the blame where it really belongs; something that everyone seems to ignore.
WJC:
Repealed Glass, Sherman and Clayton.
NAFTA
Allowed mergers and acquisitions
Allowed corp. to outsource manufacturing jobs without tax penalties.
I could list a few more; but where is the critizitism?

Robert

robert- your absolutely right. The other side is the deficit everyone tries to say dropped in WJC years had a rep. house and senate. Realistically both parties have the blame, dems want to only show the portion that reflects best on their party. I can see where BOTH parties have been at fault.

Amy,
I'm confused by your post. What does the financial sector mess have to do with the office of POTUS, regardless of who is sitting in that seat?

Give credit where credit is due. The mess in the financial sector is controlled by Congress.

Let's not forget Big Brother legally eaves dropping on our chat rooms and telephone conversations without a court order. A war declared based on fabricated evidence for the sole purpose to make BushCo richer through no-bid contracts. Now we bail out Wall st billionaires who used these companys as vehicles to produce as much money possible in the shortest amount of time,regardless of risk. Unchecked illegal immigration crippling the blue collar industry with no end in sight. And yes, we borrow billions of dollars to prop up our failing economy from red menace,China. 40 years ago 50 thousand american lives fought and died in vietnam to keep China from invading our shores through southeast Asia, and now thier our 24 hour ATM! This economic collapse is far worse and deeper than it appears. There's not much democracy left in here, so when the goverment and the 1% who control all the wealth in this country finishes stripping out what's left don't forget to turn the lights out..

Pat, you probably get confused a lot. When the President pushes for deregulation and the Republican led congress are only too happy to oblige for 6 years you leave nobody watchign the store. And while no one was watching the store the kids went in and robbed it. Fast forward to 2 years ago when the democrats got a majority in congress. They have tried to pass bills helping out children without insurance, setting timetables for withdraw in IRaq and host of other bills only to be vetoed by Bush and again supported by the Republicans who still have a seat (for now) by not lending enough votes to override Bush's veto (which requires a super majority which democrats do not have) and therefore there is gridlock and nothing gets done. I'm giving credit where credit is due. Squarly on Republican shoulders for this fiasco called our government. You want an ownership society so own up to the failures of your supposed "leadership" (JOKE).

"Let's not forget Big Brother legally eaves dropping on our chat rooms and telephone conversations without a court order."

Are you being serious here? Let's see, how many employees would the government need to eavesdrop on every single person? Hmmm, exactly the same number as there are people in the country. So unless they have magically cloned every individual in the country so that they can listen to everyone at once, I'm going to have to simply say that you're too paranoid for your own good.
Eavesdropping is conducted (through the exact same practice that has occurred since before Bush, Clinton, or even Bush Sr. served in office, court orders not obtained when time constraints deemed them inappropriate for the situation) against those who are already strong suspects in a current investigation.
NOONE is simply listening to everything you say every second you're on the phone, and nobody is sitting there reading every single blog on the Internet. You can sit there and just type the words bomb, terrorist, assassinate, or kill Bush all you want, nobody is going to come and break down your door in the middle of the night (if I never respond to a blog again, then you'll know I was wrong :P). Phone records can be obtained when needed through a court order, so there's no reason to conduct an immediate eavesdrop without a court order unless there is deemed an immediate threat. It doesn't even make sense to do so without an immediate need, especially with all records simply available to obtain after the fact. If Big Brotheris spying on you, my only question is, what did you do to warrant such emergency surveillance that they felt the need to use resources on you, and how bad is it that they have to do it immediately without time even for a court order? Since I'm sure the answer is nothing, I'm also sure that no government official is sitting there watching you type right now, reading every word.

Amy,
Thanks for starting off your comment the way you did. It helps me to realize I'm dealing with someone more interested in 'grinding an ax' than they are in mature debate.

Next: Banking Deregulation occured under Clinton. Not Bush. And yes, there was a republican controlled congress at the time.

Because of the fact that there was a republican controlled congress, I'm betting you suddenly shift your opinion from "It's the Presidents fault!!" to "It's Congress' fault".

Clinton, Republicans agree to deregulation of US financial system
By Martin McLaughlin
1 November 1999
Use this version to print

An agreement between the Clinton administration and congressional Republicans, reached during all-night negotiations which concluded in the early hours of October 22, sets the stage for passage of the most sweeping banking deregulation bill in American history, lifting virtually all restraints on the operation of the giant monopolies which dominate the financial system.

The proposed Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999 would do away with restrictions on the integration of banking, insurance and stock trading imposed by the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933, one of the central pillars of Roosevelt's New Deal. Under the old law, banks, brokerages and insurance companies were effectively barred from entering each others' industries, and investment banking and commercial banking were separated.

Amy, the government that great equalizer, encouraged banks to loan money for homes to people who couldn't pay for them with little or no money down. It was a program started by President Carter and expanded by President Clinton. It was designed to increase the number of home owners, the folks behind this were greedy callous DEMOCRATS. They got rich and the taxpayers picked up the bill, business as usual in Washington.

Carlos,
I think you just put out the best description of the situation and said it in the fewest words I've ever seen!

Bottom line...Dems wanted everyone to realize the 'American Dream' of home ownership, they loosened loan qualification requirements, people who would never have been approved previous were suddenly getting approved and had low ARM rates and tax abatements on top of that. So these poor credit risks ran out and bought way more house than they could afford. Now...here we are, after the ARM's have expired and the tax abatements are over with and these people can't even come close to making the payments.

Basically, the Dems made it look like they were offering something for nothing and ended up sticking it to the very people they claim to stand up for. The working class.

Thanks, unfortunately many of the folks perpetuating the myths of Washington goodness wont listen.

very well said Carlos

Beckwolf, it's great to hear you trust your goverment. You clearly missed the point of the fact that your leader (the shrub) has flouted the laws of this country to his convenience.Your ingnorance is your bliss,enjoy.

I wonder if this will include Nancy Pelosi and Theresa Heinz Kerry's offshore interests?

all I know is that so far I have lost $5000 from my 401K and it looks like I'll be working til I die!

Of course....the rich will all suffer....i'm sure the rich spouses of government officials will be compelled if they want to win re election in this environment.

Besides do you want me to rattle off a list of all the scumbag republicans who should get taxed?

Obama may have a 'plan', but that 'plan' scares the crap out of me. He is proposing tax cuts for anyone making under $250,000/year AND he's proposing more spending (social programs). I'm still waiting to hear how he intends to pay for everything and improve the economy with this plan.
If you can answer these questions for me, maybe I'll be swayed"

1) He's saying 95% of the American people will get a tax cut. How can that be when 40% don't pay taxes to begin with?

2) Sole Proprietorships, LLC's and other small businesses that make over $250,000 annually will see a tax increase. How will they stay in business?

3) How will his plan spur more jobs? I've never had a poor person offer me a job before.
As taxes go up on businesses, they cut overhead (jobs) in order to remain profitable. Afterall, payroll and benefits administration is the #1 cost for most businesses.

This is what people dont understand...They are so gung ho over this guy and his plan will only make things dramatically worse...He thinks we have unemployment now? If we implement his plan I cant even imagine how much higher it will go..But you cant tell a liberal this..I honestly think they dont have the thought process to understand it..I asked my diehard lib sister this morning (as she went on and on about the republicans and the mortgage foreclosures) what caused the sub-prime mortgage crisis?..Her answer...IRAQ!! ummmm ok I said I will send you some reading material so you can educate yourself..It was the democrats!! Nobody is interested in hearing that though...They just want to continue on with their faile dpolicies and then turn around like Nancy Pelosi does and deny any blame by the Dems...Its really shameful at this point...

"At the risk of being labeled a "whiner" who is in the midst of a "psychological recession" I would like to state that I am seriously concerned (make that "freaking scared") about the state of our economy. McCain says the "fundamentals" are strong, meaning the American worker. I guess they are strong . . .they have had plenty of time to rest since so many have been out of work or exercising in unemployment lines for so long. Is he kidding?"

The fundamentals are very strong, the implementation of those fundamentals has been soundly weak, resulting in individual economic problems and high job loss. Resorting back to those strong fundamentals would correct much of the problem. To start, lower the corporate tax rate to a sustainable value that ISN'T the single highest in the world, and thus decrease the necessity for outsourcing among many companies. The fundamentals are about all we have left that IS strong, McCain was very right to state that the fundamentals of the economy are strong, but the economy itself is struggling. People incorrectly associate the two as the same, and Democrats have pounced on McCain for their own incorrect assumptions, using people's misinterpretations to further their own agenda. Our strong foundation is what we need to focus on, using that foundation instead of skirting its values to focus instead on influencing a single economic class without regards for the impact on all other classes through long term consequences. McCain made a very valid point with his statement, emphasizing one of the main reasons we suffer so strongly today even with a strong foundation to work from.

") How will his plan spur more jobs? I've never had a poor person offer me a job before.
As taxes go up on businesses, they cut overhead (jobs) in order to remain profitable. Afterall, payroll and benefits administration is the #1 cost for most businesses."

Let's not forget how this tax will be coupled on with our already existant corporate tax rate of 35%, which is higher than anywhere else in the world, more than double that of the second highest. Think outsourcing is an issue now, wait until businesses must pay world record corporate taxes AND additional income taxes for their executive incomes. Many corporations are already forced to outsource, it not even being an option in order to see any sustainability, Obama's tax proposal will do nothing but drive them away even more while forcing immediate consumer price increases to meet the sudden increase in business costs, hurting the poor and middle class even as he claims to be fighting for us.

Beckwolf,
Outstanding point. Any company's main goal is profit. In order to attain profit, they will move the jobs to countries less restrictive when it comes to taxes, regulations, etc.

A lot of delusional people seem to think that companies like GE or Merck should operate like non-profits. Make people 'feel good'.

The media is a good example too. All of the news networks are huge corporations. Alot of them are owned by even larger corporations. Like any other corporation, they are driven by profit. What constitutes a profit in the media? Ratings. How do you get high ratings? Play on people's fears and emotions. Hence...all the media coverage of the financila/mortgage crisis...but not a peep about the 100's of industries that are solid and even growing. Much of the 'economy crisis' is media made and reported with a bias.

Pat N --Not that I buy your "maybe I'll be swayed" BS..but I'll answer anyway.

1) Obama is promising a tax cut to the 95% of American working families that make less than $250,000 a year. That's quite different than your purposely misleading statement.

Of the 40%( in case your interested), some are students or young people who make very little money. If you're married with 3 kids filing jointly, you pay no income tax on roughly the first 45,000 of income. And then there are retirees who use Social Security as their main source of income. They also won't pay any income tax.

Some of those who havent paid taxes are the richest Americans.

New IRS statistics show 7,389 federal tax returns with $200,000 or more in adjusted gross income reported no federal income taxes in 2005. That's a 161% jump from the 2,833 comparable returns filed in 2004.

Additionally, 4,224 of the over-$200,000 earners reported no worldwide income tax liability on their 2005 returns, the IRS data show. That represents a 75% increase from the 2,420 comparable returns filed in 2004.

The data are the most recent available from the IRS. It shows a rising number of high-income earners have avoided the alternative minimum tax, which was intended to ensure that tax shelters, deductions and loopholes wouldn't exempt wealthy Americans from paying at least some federal income tax. http://abcnews.go.com/Business/story?id=5058692&page=1

The wealthy are going to lose their precious tax breaks That's how he is going to fund part of this--not to mention stopping the 10B a day bill we are spending on Iraq.

2) There will be a tax increase on small business ONLY on the employees that they pay over $250K annually.
I am a small business owner --Obama's plan will save me money. I will not have to pay a cent more for the employers share of soc sec tax because of his plan. I will not have my ss increased because I make only half of that.

If a business cannot stay profitable under Obama's tax plan they weren't solvent anyway and don't know how to run a business.

It's much better than McCain's "plan" to raise the retirement age (again) and get rid of the AMT so rich people can again loophole themselves out of paying taxes. Giving businesses that already get tax breaks and subsidies galore hasn't produced jobs.

3) It's too bad businesses don't realize the assets they have in labor and instead only list them as an expense.
Tell me, how have Bush's tax cuts spurred more jobs?—the unemployment rate has risen dramatically. I see no investment.

From your hero Bush:
The bipartisan economic growth package that President Bush signed into law is having its intended effect. The Treasury Department has issued more than 114 million stimulus payments, totaling more than $93 billion. The growth package is estimated to return more than $150 billion back to American families and businesses this year. We may be seeing signs that business expensing provisions of the economic stimulus are starting to have an effect – shipments of core capital goods rose solidly in July, and orders have been solid over the past two months. The stimulus package is expected to continue to have a beneficial impact on the economy in the second half of the year.

Apparently even Bush and co admit that stimulation from the demand side works. Reforming the tax codes as Obama suggests will have this affect as well.

Pat N and Beckworth- Pat N #2- We have a small business that will fall into Obama's $250,000 (we are not rich) and we know if Obama gets into office we will be laying off staff. Staff we hate to lose and all have families to feed, etc. We have lots of friends with businesses that have already stated the same.

I guess you don't want to understand if Sen. O'Bama raises the taxes on your boss you will probably be out of a job soon since he will not be able to pay an even greater share of the tax burden AND continue to pay you.

"3) It's too bad businesses don't realize the assets they have in labor and instead only list them as an expense. Tell me, how have Bush's tax cuts spurred more jobs?—the unemployment rate has risen dramatically. I see no investment."

They haven't, because those cuts are undermined by increases elsewhere. For all this talk of tax cuts, we also have the single highest corporate tax rate in the entire world, at 35% this being more than double that of the second highest. This all in itself (ignoring increased property and land taxes) eliminates all tax breaks provided. Of course, the tax breaks aren't even true tax breaks, the rich STILL pay a higher percentage of their income than everyone else, just not as much higher as before. Just as with every sequential income bracket, the percentage (not just the amount) increases, and that includes the wealthy. Actual tax cuts WOULD spur more jobs, a reduction of the world record corporate tax would eliminate much of our outsourcing problems, as this alone is the single greatest contributor to that problem. Why keep jobs here when you can pay a tenth of the taxes to base your jobs elsewhere, especially when businesses are suffering here from poor economic times?
Tax cuts for businesses would undoubtedly not only spur more jobs, they would bring jobs back home that are outsourced. The first step is a reduction of the corporate tax rate, as this is our biggest problem and Bush not once addressed the issue (McCain however has creating a policy to fluctuate that policy and take based on actual profits and economic times, not a flat rate that doesn't factor in costs). The second step is to NOT increase taxes on the rich, as this would undermine the reduction in corporate taxes, same as the corporate tax undermined the tax breaks and made them meaningless. The absolutely worst thing to do, however, is increase taxes on the rich while maintaining that corporate tax rate, there would be no incentive to keep jobs in the states, and those who try would see highly inflated costs, not just for them but in their prices to the consumer as well.

We have a small business that will fall into Obama's $250,000 (we are not rich) and we know if Obama gets into office we will be laying off staff.

If your income is $250K anywhere in the country you are still doing very well. The National median income is $44,389, the median income in New York is $66,498 ( a state with one of the the highest costs of living) but you can't manage to live off 250K? What's wrong with you? What, you have thirty kids?
Unless your paying each one of your staff is being paid $250K a year it really doesn't affect YOU that much does it? But you are going to claim you are unable to pay because heaven forbid YOU should take a pay cut of around 2% to save someone else's job. Yeah, sounds like you really care a whole lot about your staff or their families. That or your clueless on how to run a solvent biz.
here's some FACTS for you .

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/mccains_small-business_bunk.html

...

quote from beckwolf:
For all this talk of tax cuts, we also have the single highest corporate tax rate in the entire world, at 35% this being more than double that of the second highest. This all in itself (ignoring increased property and land taxes) eliminates all tax breaks provided.

OOPS don't look now your bullsh*t is showing again, Beckford.

from Naples Daily News 8/08
Two-thirds of U.S. corporations paid no federal income taxes between 1998 and 2005, according to a new report from Congress.

The study by the Government Accountability Office, expected to be released Tuesday, said about 68 percent of foreign companies doing business in the U.S. avoided corporate taxes over the same period.

Collectively, the companies reported trillions of dollars in sales, according to GAO's estimate.

"It's shameful that so many corporations make big profits and pay nothing to support our country," said Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-N.D., who asked for the GAO study with Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich.

Chuck,
You are sorely misinformed.
Under Obama's plan, if your business makes $250,000 or more, your taxes are going up. It's not just the individual...it's the business too. And darlin'...$250k a year for a small business is peanuts.

Small business owners are the backbone of this country. They employ the most number of people. How is raising their taxes supposed to help them and the people that work for them?

You quote stats from '98 to '05. You DO realize your beloved Clinton was President during a portion of that time, right?
Also...how 'bout some stats from '05 on?

Obama is proposing an increase from 35% to 39%.

A company that makes $500,000 a year currently pays $175,000 of that $500,000 in taxes. Under Obama, it would be $195,000. A company that makes $1,000,000 currently pays $350,000 in taxes. Under Obama it would be nearly $400,000.

After you pay the taxes, pay the employees, pay the rent, pay the utilities, pay the liability insurance, buy supplies and pay yourself...how do you survive? Better question...WHY survive?

Small business owners will be firing the people that work for them, closing their businesses and becoming employees instead of employers. The unemployment rate will skyrocket.

You are sorely misinformed. Under Obama's plan, if your business makes $250,000 or more, your taxes are going up. It's not just the individual...it's the business too. And darlin'...$250k a year for a small business is peanuts.

Yeah right. More repub drivel. How DO you stay in biz with NO brains?

Only if your biz is organized legally in a way that would require you to pay taxes on your business income as individuals, rather than as a corporation. and If you take in enough to where your net income is $250K then you should pay more taxes. If your biz takes in $250K, then obviously after expenses your income is less than $250K and you will get a tax break.
Show me a credible link (not the "Moderate Conservative") that shows Obama will raise taxes on businesses making $250,000.

You quote stats from '98 to '05. You DO realize your beloved Clinton was President during a portion of that time, right? Also...how 'bout some stats from '05 on?

This quote is from the latest data released. What difference does it make that Clinton was prez during a whopping 2 years ? Nice try on the subject change though.

I bet you got all your "info" from some idiotic conservative talking points page.

If we cut taxes for corporations and the rich so they would build factories here. Would it be so bad for those with a job to pay taxes as compared to not having a job and receiving handouts?

The problem is that most corporations don't pay taxes already. The rich have already received tax cuts and it has not resulted in job growth. They just hang onto it--well and then buy grilled cheese sandiwches with a burn that resembles the Virgin Mary.

McCain's idea to cut taxes won't change that...and Obama's taxing them more (unless he can persuade Congress to cover tax loopholes) also won't work --but Obama's plan will be more helpful to the majority of Americans.

AIG despite some of the medias inaccurate reporting is not a bailout. AIG took a bridge loan from the government and the government has collateral in all the subsidiaries and assets AIG owns. Which is more than most people can grasp. AIG has more assets than the 85 billion and is worldwide. This bridge loan was done so AIG could have time needed to sell off assets. So to say it is a bailout is inaccurate since they have stated amount of time to PAY BACK the loan or the government will own them. Another way the media paints the picture they want us to see.

Truth and politics don't mix. The search for a good story doesn't mix well with truth either. As long as the median and the partisans shovel the crap for the party's nothing will change, the whiners will whine and true reformers will be frustrated.

Carlos - how true!

your battin a thousand Carlos, enjoying your posts

Carter started the sub-prime mortgage mess. Do some research before posting. Check to see what slick Willie did to further the problem. Democrats suck!!

Pat: Give it up. Reagan left us with what was then the worst recession since the great depression with his "trickle down economics" - Clinton overturned those tax cuts to the rich and the economy rebounded - Bush put the tax cuts to the rich back in and now we ARE in the worst recession and economy since the great depression - hopefully not the second great depression. WAKE UP and smell the coffee - right now the repubs are smelling pretty bad - GO OBAMA!!!!! And Palin - what a joke - how scary to think that she, with no experience - could become the president. Pay attention everyone you are being lied and lied and lied to by the repubs & McBush.

Dems may suck, but Repubs swallow!!

It's not what was, but what is, and how are we going to fix it. Carter, Reagan, Clinton who cares. We are here now. Forget the finger pointing and let's talk about some leadership that will move us in the right direction. Do we want an old man with the same old tired ideas or a young man with fresh new ideas? Seems like a pretty simple choice. McCain, who has been flip flopping his economic positions more then a fish out of water or Obama who has been consistently calling for mortgage lending and banking reforms for over a year. You decide.

"The Iraq war will cost the US trillions, let alone the current economic mess..."

The war is minor compared to our wasted spending at home. Why look at something that is only a tiny percentage of total costs, unless you're trying to make a point by ignoring the majority of causes? Heck, almost one tenth of the ENTIRE cost of the US war is given to the three major ethanol corporations every year. $10 billion a year, with a war cost of $144 billion, almost one tenth of the cost for just one single wasted expense in this country alone, a wasted expense that is nothing but profit for a business that already sees profit percentages in the double digits higher than oil has ever seen. Now THAT is a real problem, one among many that has contributed to the current economic mess. The war is just one factor among many, and far from being even close to the majority of our costs. You're looking at $144 billion a year, that figure not being the real cost of the war since it takes into account ALL military spending there including soldier and sailor salaries that would be paid REGARDLESS of whether we were at war or not. We spent over $100 billion a year there while Clinton was in office as well, even without the title of war. The military is expensive, with or without the war, the title NOT even being the bulk of military expenses. The war, and the military as a whole, is a strong contributor, but not the strongest, and not the most wasteful at all.

There is plenty of blame to go around, do we solve it by trusting partisan politicians or by reforming Washington? The former will not do the later. If we elect a new president and they are ham strung by the same leaders in Congress nothing can or will happen, these yokels are too invested in the system. Open your eyes and take a look, their family members are lobbyists or find jobs in financial institutions. Staffers go into journalism or electronic media. The system is rigged for the elites who run the party's. You want change, look for someone who will change things, they don't wear a party label and refuse to call their party leaders out when they are wrong. They don't come around very often and they are usually persecuted by the establishment. You see these arrogant lifers think they are the ones who are smarter than everyone else and we are lucky to have them in charge, don't believe me just ask them or their lackeys who pick your pockets while they distract us with catchy adages. Here's the best part, at the end of the day nothing happens and hold on it gets better they blame the other party for not doing enough and once again their blind followers line up and run off of the cliff.

Ah beckwolf is out spreading the BS thick again

You're looking at $144 billion a year, that figure not being the real cost of the war since it takes into account ALL military spending there including soldier and sailor salaries that would be paid REGARDLESS of whether we were at war or not. We spent over $100 billion a year there while Clinton was in office as well, even without the title of war. The military is expensive, with or without the war, the title NOT even being the bulk of military expenses. The war, and the military as a whole, is a strong contributor, but not the strongest, and not the most wasteful at all.

"Defense spending had peaked at just under $500 billion in 1988. The fall of communist Russia did result in a decline to the $350 billion range from 1995 through 2000, and an economic boom ensued. Since 9/11 we have doubled our spending on defense."

http://seekingalpha.com/article/90742-the-economic-cost-of-the-military-industrial-complex

"Ah beckwolf is out spreading the BS thick again

You're looking at $144 billion a year, that figure not being the real cost of the war since it takes into account ALL military spending there including soldier and sailor salaries that would be paid REGARDLESS of whether we were at war or not. We spent over $100 billion a year there while Clinton was in office as well, even without the title of war. The military is expensive, with or without the war, the title NOT even being the bulk of military expenses. The war, and the military as a whole, is a strong contributor, but not the strongest, and not the most wasteful at all.
"Defense spending had peaked at just under $500 billion in 1988. The fall of communist Russia did result in a decline to the $350 billion range from 1995 through 2000, and an economic boom ensued. Since 9/11 we have doubled our spending on defense.""

And this says anything about my comment where? Sorry, throwing out unrelated numbers doesn't magically invalidate mine. Wow, debating skills have really disappeared in today's society.

You are right its awful to get ahead, how heartless. how many long term congress persons limit themselves to 1 house. And for that matter how do they afford to get so much property on their income? It seems Mr Rangel has several houses, writes the tax laws but somehow forgot to pay his taxes, why isn't the great reformer calling for him to step down, sit down close your eyes and think real hard, is your head hurting yet? Think some more, could it be they are members of the same party? Naaaaah, he is the great reformer not a partisan hack never crossing the party higher ups embracing the corrupt politicians of Cook county, of course, they are doing good, yep for their family's and friends on the payroll making six figure incomes while lower level non connected working people are being laid off. yep, he is a great reformer, the agent of change, the man of the hour, he will get it done. Maybe if some of you folks would do a little research into the way things are done in the reformers neck of the woods you wouldn't be so ready to defend his way of doing business, then again maybe you would.

Who exactly is this McBush and how does he figure into the economic problems the country faces?
As far as I can tell there is no one by the name of McBush running

Hey Ben, you know who McBush is. It's a combination of what McCain and Bush have in common. If you vote the same 95% of the time with Bush then your just like him.

Should we then call Obama - Prebama a combination of Present and Obama which is how he voted 95% of the time he was in the Illinois Senate? Present is about as noncommittal as you can get, it means nothing and is useless when you make the final count.

Maybe one of the republicans on here can. They seem to think everything is OK.

"When it comes to universal healthcare, Oh no! We're not a socialist country!! We can't do that! A couple banks are going down, Oh sure, we can help out with taxpayer dollars!!"

Not even marginally related. First, universal healthcare costs the people more than on a privatized system. It forces government costs without options onto the people (thus socialism), whereas a bailout is not a forced continued action with forced costs. Government assistance is NOT socialism, forced cost regulation IS. You're mixing up assistance and regulation, this is assistance whereas government controlled healthcare is regulation. What you're comparing is the EXACT same as comparing work incentive programs for the poor, and social assistance programs. BOTH provide finances for the individual, but one defines forced social assistance (offering no options and no alternative means out, regulated fully by the government), whereas work incentives offer a resume and free choice to move up and out, using that resume to work out of the need for assistance so that more are making enough to contribute to a decreasing number in poverty. In short, socialism is a forced system where costs are regulated by the government and few or no options are provided (very bad and a huge factor in poverty and homeless rates, as well as business layoff and collapse rates, see France, England, etc. for a show of what this does, such as the $6-$8 dollar gas and lower incomes with more homeless and fewer jobs) whereas capitalism is based on an option system that delivers choices with government oversight (versus regulation) and assistance as needed.
We shouldn't be offering the level of business assistance that we are, but it is entirely separate from ANY socialism based system. It's simply a poor method of practicing government capitalism (which does allow for government assistance to maintain it's own sustainability, and to maintain growth).

I would like to explain my view of the Christian thing. Christians don't seize others assets. they believe in charity, Jesus doesn't say if you give to the poor he says when you give to the poor. Christians do not believe they give to the needy to glorify themselves (something politicians don't understand) any injustice to the least effects the entire body of humanity. Here is something to consider, what percentage of tax dollars go to the intended target after it is filtered through the hands of the governing party? Pick one or the other it doesn't matter. Now take a look at well run christian charities, what percentage of the funds get to the needy. With the government you have no choice but with the charity you can choose who will make the best use of your funds. Christians not only pay taxes and obey the laws but they contribute to charity or their church who contribute to mission projects at a much higher level than their government loving religion hating adversaries. If you want to look for hypocrites look at Mr Biden, he wants the government to do everything but I understand he contributed less than 1% of his income to charity, I suppose worshipping government is better so he has an excuse. If you want to help people, there are many ways to do it and almost any of the options are superior to the government. Want to help, get busy make a difference, you can do more than you think a lot more, you can touch someone. If people of good will work together things will really get done.

Yeah, keep believing Osama Obama is going to save the world. We need to clean out Washington, period. Term Limits will go a long way in doing that.

I agree with Chris. The last info. I received, Obama was a lawyer not an economist.
I do not believe anything he has to say about the economy. He has built his campaign on
scaring everyone into thinking that everything in America is gloom and doom. It really is not. If so, what has the democrats been doing since they have taken control of the House
and Senate. Not a damn thing. Find out how many politicians in Washington have taken
money from Freddy and Fannie. Barak got $126,000 from them. I do not care how many
advisers he has he does not know what he is doing. McCain is not an economist either but
he does know that most large businesses are sound and not all are financial institutions tha
have woven in and out of the sub-prime mess. The economy does not suck as one writer
indicates.

Marie and Chris are drinking the KoolAid...someone get them a fresh glass!

Shane

Sounds like you have already tasted it yourself

Shane, I suggest you start drinking that KoolAid, becaues both parties have gotten rich off the middle class, and you are blinded by what the DEMs are selling YOU!

Rather have Obama than the entire NeoCon team that would stay in power during a McCain presidency.

Sure pour me another glass...I'm ready for economic collapse are YOU>?>

"Our economy just plain SUCKS! You people who say other wise are either brain-washed or brain-dead. Our economy hasn't been good ever since Bush got in office."

Our economy sucked before he took office as well. We saw one of the largest economic downward spirals shortly before Clinton left office, his "surplus" ending with the technology boom and all predictions crashed. We went from low jobless rates to losing left and right practically overnight, and Bush simply came into office in the middle of this strong near record breaking downward spirals, and then continued with that horrible trend. Bush and Clinton together make up two of the worst US Presidents in history. Both have damaged us severely from every economic perspective. Clinton took a boom and great economic times, and proceeded to throw it all away before ever leaving office, raking in trillions in deficit again to replace much of what had been eliminated towards the earlier parts of his time in office. As soon as his policies too precedent over outside influences, tens of thousands of jobs disappeared, and this was while he was still in office, NOT after he left. One Republican and one Democrat together contributed to the financial mess we're in today, both contributing almost equally, maintaining near identical policy directions, such as the world record high outsource forcing corporate tax rate that has existed throughout the terms of both.

Chris, you are right nothing will change while the same people run the show. I am glad you get it, maybe someday others will get it too, we can only hope. Shane, you are blessed with enthusiasm but little substance, I am hoping you are young and as you mature maybe you can be a little less reactionary and a bit more analytical. If you aren't young you don't have an excuse. Sorry.

What social security?

"Given the failure of the top banks and the highest-paid professionals to properly manage their investments, tell me again why we should privatize social security?"

Because for all of their failings, there are three things privatized has above non-privatized, government controlled social security...government costs are failing even worse and costing people more (several times worse), with a privatized plan there are options left to the individual regarding their contributions (options not available under government regulated pools), and under privatized systems there is a greater view of (and most times access to) your own money. With worse investment management from the government and less access, control, and regulation of your own funds, tell me why we should NOT privatize social security?

Jim, if the politicians who oversee social security were in the private sector they would be getting fitted for an orange suit and expecting to wear it for 20 or so years.

I did a paper years ago in college on the privatization of Social Security and it would be the best thing for us all. Countries that have a privatized system do not have the problems we are seeing. Biggest plus is people end up way better off from their investment than if the government controlled them. Why politicians are not for it- they can't rob it to manipulate their budget books.

Trivia- In 1965 when Social Security was formed, what was our life expectancy according to the census bureau?

Alittle under 62 years. Now do you see why they picked 65 years of age.

I think medicare was 65 social security was early 30s. The point is well taken no one considered the life span would be so long and expensive, but for the politicians it bought a lot of votes.

Carlos- Sorry meant to type 1935. It's been a long day.

"mikester--- it depends on if you are a republican or you actually would like to help the people that make less than 50k a year"

How about a Republican making MUCH less than 50k a year, choosing to be a Republican for that very reason? You know, wanting more options for people to get out of poverty instead of being thrown bread crumbs while being held down, businesses to not be robbed blind so that they won't outsource all their jobs and increase costs, etc. I fail to see how a Democrat would want to help people making less than 50k a year, while at the same time promising to increase taxes on the rich while maintaining the same world record corporate tax rate that already is the greatest cause of outsourcing. That's either showing NO regards for long term consequences against the poor, or it's a complete lack of common sense. I'm a Republican for the very reason that I want every financial class to do well. Morally, I'm Democrat (pro-choice, pro-stem cell research, pro-gay rights, atheist), but from every economic and business perspective, as someone who used to live out of a car (saved by Republican work incentive programs that gave me a resume and an eventual job outside of government assistance that now allows me to afford a moderate apartment) and now is still lower middle income (I'll just say between $26000 and $32000), I must support the Republican values that help the poor work up instead of Democrat values that keep them alive but held down. It's common sense, help every financial class or hurt them all. You CANNOT attack one financial class without negative consequences for the rest. Robin Hood economics DOES NOT WORK. Republicans fight to reduce corporate taxes and decrease outsourcing for everyone, while Democrats push to maintain our world record holding corporate rates that cause the outsourcing problems and increase consumer costs so high. It's a no-brainer, if you want to help those below $50000, don't screw big business, and thus don't support people like Obama who don't show the slightest regard for actually helping any who are in the poor or middle class, ignoring long term consequences entirely. I'll continue to register Republican for the one and only reason that I AM poor, that I've been homeless, and I can see exactly what screwing over one financial class to pretend to help another does. Being a Republican means that you are standing to help the poor, by boosting business growth and creating jobs and new technologies, giving opportunities and assistance to work up, whereas being a Democrat (political ones at least as many Democrats believe the stereotypes, making them more foolish than greedy) means that you make all sorts of promises, throwing a few bucks around to convince people you're helping them, all the while pushing policies that increase their costs and make that money given absolutely worthless (such as the attacks on big business promised by Obama).

What, you think the wealthy just shovel their money into the mattress? The principle is the same as when you spend your money and it helps a local business only when the wealthy spend it has a larger impact. It is not rocket science and I'm pretty sure that no voodoo is involved.

At what expense???

It's called class warfare, republicans love it. Welcome to the devided states of America,it's part of the new world order and a kinder, gentler country.

Rightofcenter -

You might want to tell that to Bush Sr. since he was the one that labeled trickle-down 'voodoo economics' back when they came up with the whole thing.....

So yes, according to your own party there is voodoo involved. And we all know voodoo doesn't actually work.

That party loyalty is pretty dicey, I am thinking they are circling the wagons right now because right now on the horizon on his white steed the great reformer , the agent of change is riding down to right this wrong. He is going to call his own party operatives who oversaw and orchestrated this in on the carpet and tell it like it is, yep,yep yep or maybe nope. But we all know hes thinking about it wishing he could do it because the leaders of the great reformers party are open minded caring people who realize that accountability is...well anyway he wants help but the truth might be really painful but that doesn't matter, he is the great reformer, the agent of change he doesn't fear crossing the leaders of the party of change and goodness the compassionate caring better than good lovers of the oppressed and abused. things are going to happen, the clock is ticking...tick, tick, tick...and in the distance their is a thin voice saying"we are all waiting"