Town Square

Post a New Topic

Congress

Original post made by SCUBAMom on Dec 13, 2011

I'm wondering why the republicans keep protecting the rich people stating that they are the ones that create jobs, but there are so many people out of work, and some have even given up looking for a job. Most of the jobs have gone overseas, and I want to know why the republicans don't care about the middle class aka the 99% of the American citizens. Do we have to air a special on 60 minutes every week just to get help for the homeless families?

Comments (43)

Posted by Houston, a resident of Mission Park
on Dec 13, 2011 at 11:18 am

It's pretty obvious. Republicans don't care about people out of work. See their ceaseless efforts to thwart extension of unemployment benefits for the unemployed. See their efforts to protect the rich who continue to move their money-making operations overseas. See their phoney criticisms of Obama for the high unemployment rate (that's out of one side of their mouths); then see them lambast the unemployed who take their case to the streets, as in OWS ("Go get a job!" through the other side of their mouths). They have no conscience. All they want is political victory and continued economic supremacy of the rich. All this and more is becoming increasingly obvious to the masses. It is only a matter of time before the gross injustices in this nation are corrected.


Posted by HH, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Dec 13, 2011 at 11:23 am

You hit it on the nail SCUBAmom. We keep giving the rich tax breaks, which in turn is used to create jobs in China and India primarily.

We no longer are talking tax incentives for businesses that stay in the US and hire americans, and further taxing businesses that are commiting treason and giving work to other countries.

There is also the issue of tariffs. We charge basically nothing for the c*ap that comes from China, and the chinese government, out of the goodnes of their heart, charge around 20% for american products.

We continue appeasing the Repugnants and we continue this trend of economic suicide.

We need to vote all of them out next year!


Posted by radical, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Dec 13, 2011 at 11:24 am

i never got a job from a poor person. everyone i know of who is hiring is, in the eyes of the current democrat in the white house, a "rich" person, ie income over $250k


Posted by HH, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Dec 13, 2011 at 11:33 am

"i never got a job from a poor person. everyone i know of who is hiring is, in the eyes of the current democrat in the white house, a "rich" person, ie income over $250k"

And if the Republican trend continues, unless you move to China, pretty soon you won't be getting a job from a rich person either.


Posted by michaelfox, a resident of Amador Estates
on Dec 13, 2011 at 11:40 am

The plain fact is that we Rich spend hundreds of millions of dollars out of our own pockets to keep congress at full-employment. How many congressmen have you hired SCUBAmom? That's what I thought. So, no surprise that you don't have any working for you.


Posted by radical, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Dec 13, 2011 at 11:41 am

In my opinion, it is just the opposite, like the 2007 economic crisis, the Democrats want to find a way to blame everything on Republicans and rich people, in complete denial that the growth of government and failed policies and failed government oversight had anything to do with our problems.
First, reduce the size of federal government to 18-20% of the US GDP, as it has been for 30-40 years prior to 2007 and you eliminate the need to increase anyones taxes.
Second, take the influence of corporate money out of politics (easier said than done), and you eliminate corporate cronyism, the real problem that exists is the influence of money and lobbyists over Congress, this is an affliction infecting the Democrats and Republicans.
Do these two things and you put the US on the road to prosperity. Fail to do these two things, and nothing else we do will fix our problems


Posted by Houston, a resident of Mission Park
on Dec 13, 2011 at 11:54 am

Hey, "radical" (whose radicalism is convincing only to the ill-educated). Do you have any idea by how much the population has increased over the 40 years? (I bet you're the first one to complain about the length of lines at DMV.) Do you even have a clue as to the size of backed-up cases facing the judiciary? Your math is a perverted fantasy, as is your specious claim that Dems are as susceptible to corporate lobbying as are the Repubs. Look at the Dems' efforts to extend unemployment benefits; look at Dems' efforts to raise the level of taxation of the rich; look at Dems' efforts to develop increased regulations upon corporate rich; look at Dems' efforts to improve the environment. One party is attempting to improve our lot, the other is mired in a refusal to believe in such things as evolution, science, global warming. To place the two political parties on the same plane as you have attempted to do is to live in La-La land.


Posted by radical, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Dec 13, 2011 at 12:16 pm

houston, we have a problem - do you know what happens to GDP when the size of the population increases? Do you know that the size of the federal budget has held steady for a long time, relative to GDP? The math is proven by the facts.
Democrats continually portray themselves as the savior of the environment, the unemployed, the downtrodden, and have to be kept in check by common sense conservatives. The truth is Repbulicans and real conservative within the GOP have supported Democrat proposals in the past . You have offered zero examples of what you say, but I can provide numerous examples to the contrary.
Left unchecked, liberals come up with regulation like AB32 in California, and now we see corporations fleeing California in droves. Corporations will make investments where they can make a profit, and overreach by government in the name of saving the environment discourages capital investment in California and doesn't help the environment. The investment just ends up somewhere else, and in the case of industry that creates pollution, the economic activity just goes to countries that don't have such regulation. The pollution is still created, and it is a small world, after all.
The Sacramento Democrats create bigger government and get more votes from stupid liberals, of which there are many in this state.


Posted by GX, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Dec 13, 2011 at 12:25 pm

Make sure you check out this recent poll from Gallup. It will help put this big/small government debate into perspective.

No matter how much the closet socialists on this site denegrate, call names, etc., it is clear from this poll that they are in the minority.

Web Link

In U.S., Fear of Big Government at Near-Record Level
Democrats lead increase in concerns about big government
by Elizabeth MendesWASHINGTON, D.C. --

Americans' concerns about the threat of big government continue to dwarf those about big business and big labor, and by an even larger margin now than in March 2009. The 64% of Americans who say big government will be the biggest threat to the country is just one percentage point shy of the record high, while the 26% who say big business is down from the 32% recorded during the recession. Relatively few name big labor as the greatest threat.


Posted by Houston, a resident of Mission Park
on Dec 13, 2011 at 12:27 pm

You have no math, "radical," all you have is a bunch of songbirds fluttering in your tiny skull. "The math is proven by the facts." Do you really expect any one to accept this? You need help.

Ah, but suddenly you switch from the "math" of cutting federal workforce to a rant about Democratic regulatory policies in California. Short attention span, I guess. Truth of the matter, they don't come much daffier than you. Come back with something substantial if you want anyone to treat your posts seriously.


Posted by Stacey, a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Dec 13, 2011 at 12:46 pm

Stacey is a registered user.

And when you do come up with something substantial, Jane will be sure to mock you for it, call you names, and divert the conversation away from anything substantial you brought up.


Posted by Stacey, a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Dec 13, 2011 at 12:48 pm

Stacey is a registered user.

GX,

The closet socialists scream so loud exactly because they are in the minority.


Posted by radical, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Dec 13, 2011 at 12:49 pm

Dems good, Repubs bad, wah, wah, you're stupid, pretty much is the response, is that right hou?
and you're the one telling me i have nothing substantive?

you forgot to accuse me of racism, lets make it complete


Posted by Stacey, a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Dec 13, 2011 at 12:50 pm

Stacey is a registered user.

radical,

Republicans against big government are disingenuous when they want to use the power of government to regulate morality.

Democrats for big government are disingenuous when they want to keep government out of private life, womb, marriage, etc.


Posted by GX, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Dec 13, 2011 at 1:10 pm

While I may disagree with all the big government, anti-free market comments that are made on this site, this does not mean I support Republicans over Democrats (or the reverse).

There are good reasons why I'm an Independent. Both political parties are significantly responsible for our current sad state of affairs. And until more people in this country wake up from their dogma stupor, think critically for themselves, and push our leaders for some painfully obvious and critical changes, we will continue down our current path of erosion.

This Republican vs. Democrat pissing contest that many of these blogs devolve into are a waste of time and aren't solving anything. It must be a form of entertainment for many of you as there is absolutely no other value that I can see.


Posted by Houston , a resident of Mission Park
on Dec 13, 2011 at 1:11 pm

You've heard of Occam's Razor? Well, here's an example of Stacey's bowling ball:

"Republicans against big government are disingenuous when they want to use the power of government to regulate morality.
Democrats for big government are disingenuous when they want to keep government out of private life, womb, marriage, etc."

Not the sharpest utensil in the drawer, Stacey is unable to grasp how Dems' pro big government position is quite consistent with protecting the rights of individuals. Without a strong government to protect individual rights, as even the libertarian John S. Mill consistently stressed, private groups will prevail over vulnerable individuals. Thus, for example, without big govt protections, women, racial and ethnic minorities, children, and gays, among many others, would be at the mercy of private employers who would discriminate if govt regulations did not exist. Nothing at all disingenuous about Dems' position. Rather, this is a matter of Stacey once again attempting to score a cheap point with sloppy thinking.


Posted by Stacey, a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Dec 13, 2011 at 1:15 pm

Stacey is a registered user.

Jane,

When you have something substantial to say, maybe I'll take your posts seriously.


Posted by Stacey, a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Dec 13, 2011 at 1:17 pm

Stacey is a registered user.

Wow look, a whole post devoted to showing how stupid I must be. That's _real_ substantial! I guess I get TRUMPED again by "superior arguments".


Posted by Loony, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Dec 13, 2011 at 1:19 pm

Schizophrenic ms. Slippers (Jane), did you not read the link GX provided above? All you have to do is click on it and have someone read it to you. People don't want your big brother, big govt ploys. No one trusts the govt to run the country, based on all the fraud and waste that accompanies the hug outlays of cash these porkers require.
Your big govt theories have failed....You are living in the past and reality has passed you by.


Posted by Houston, a resident of Mission Park
on Dec 13, 2011 at 1:23 pm

The Queen of Cuckoo states: 'Wow look, a whole post devoted to showing how stupid I must be. That's _real_ substantial! I guess I get TRUMPED again by "superior arguments".'

Partly right. Even more to the point, the post was devoted to illuminating the stupidity of a validity claim.

And, what's more, the post showed _why_ the validity claim was stupid.

Double trump!


Posted by Houston, a resident of Mission Park
on Dec 13, 2011 at 1:27 pm

Yes, the aptly self-named Loony wants us all to roll back the protections that large govt gives to individuals. Following his lead, we should go back to pre-Civil Rights era, when women weren't allowed to vote, and children were entering coal mines at the age of ten. Loony is only partially apt. Should be Loony-cum-Hatred of all others (except rich white folk).


Posted by Stacey, a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Dec 13, 2011 at 1:29 pm

Stacey is a registered user.

When you can show why the validity claim is stupid without resorting to misrepresentations or sweeping statements rooted in belief rather than in evidence, maybe I'll take your posts seriously. Until then, it's all fantasy-land attacking of the messenger.


Posted by Houston, a resident of Mission Park
on Dec 13, 2011 at 1:35 pm

And again for the slow-witted ones: Without a strong government to protect individual rights, as even the libertarian John S. Mill consistently stressed, private groups will prevail over vulnerable individuals. Thus, for example, without big govt protections, women, racial and ethnic minorities, children, and gays, among many others, would be at the mercy of private employers who would discriminate if govt regulations did not exist. Nothing at all disingenuous about Dems' position. Rather, this is a matter of Stacey once again attempting to score a cheap point with sloppy thinking.


Posted by Stacey, a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Dec 13, 2011 at 1:49 pm

Stacey is a registered user.

"if govt regulations did not exist."

It's real pathetic that Jane needs everything explained to her. She's unable to grasp that the core mission of Congress is to regulate. It doesn't matter what size government is. In Jane's world, regulations either exist (Democrats) or they don't (Republicans) rather than discussions about their quantity and quality. Can't blame her though as she's under the influence of ideological delusions.


Posted by Houston, a resident of Mission Park
on Dec 13, 2011 at 2:08 pm

And again for the slow-witted ones: Without a strong government to protect individual rights, as even the libertarian John S. Mill consistently stressed, private groups will prevail over vulnerable individuals. Thus, for example, without big govt protections, women, racial and ethnic minorities, children, and gays, among many others, would be at the mercy of private employers who would discriminate if govt regulations did not exist. Nothing at all disingenuous about Dems' position. Rather, this is a matter of Stacey once again attempting to score a cheap point with sloppy thinking.


Posted by Kathleen Ruegsegger, a resident of Vintage Hills Elementary School
on Dec 13, 2011 at 3:45 pm

Hannah/Houston (today is brought to you by the letter H): The difference is BIG Government or just Government. The majority are done with the BIG. And women, children, gays, racial and ethnic minorities, and many others will still be protected.


Posted by Stacey, a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Dec 13, 2011 at 3:53 pm

Stacey is a registered user.

Repeating it doesn't make your argument that I'm stupid rock-solid anymore than repeating "Iraq has weapons of mass destruction" made Bush a truthteller.

God, we gotta suffer through a third round of ideologically delusional statements like "without big government protections ... would be at the mercy of private employers" as if none of that happens today even with big government protections. One thing's for certain: everyone is at the mercy of the big government/special interest complex and there's little ol' Jane worrying over whether her favorite political party is being portrayed poorly on the PW blog.



Posted by Stacey, a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Dec 13, 2011 at 3:59 pm

Stacey is a registered user.

Man, how could I have missed this one earlier: strong government being confused for big government. This is like Jane confusing personal responsibility for individualism. It doesn't take a big government to be strong. Individual rights are enshrined in the Constitution. In Jane's world, the Constitution doesn't exist and we need a big government filled with many, many, many, many unionized public employees to ensure our rights are protected. I feel safer with the TSA strip searching 85 year old women already... Thanks Jane!


Posted by Houston, a resident of Mission Park
on Dec 13, 2011 at 4:30 pm

I try to give the two Cuckoo Queens a bone with my reference to the libertarian theorist, John Stuart Mill, and they call me an ideologue. Do they address Mill's position? No, of course not. Both extraordinarily poorly read in relation to the size of their face needs, the two Cuckoos scrape any and every bottom-feeder "argument" they can in order to salvage face after the paucity of the views has been exposed.

Today has not been a good day for either of the Cuckoos. Both have attempted to establish that some sort of moral parity exists between the right and the left. Both have failed miserably, as I have demonstrated repeatedly. We are left with a clear view of the cognitive-moral deficit that informs the routinely uniform views of the both of them. Somebody said 35 cents per post? I wouldn't give them a plug nickel, though if we want to look at them as entertainment, they are enough to leave the audience dying in laughter.

Not big! just! just govt is enough! ('just' as in justice? or 'just' as in 'mere'?) not big, strong! Houston supports public unions! bad! bad! we're not as dumb as she's made us out to be! she uses different names on different posts (just like 95% of other posters do, including themselves). Cuckoo-Cuckoo.


Posted by FnSuite, a resident of Val Vista
on Dec 13, 2011 at 5:11 pm

it's not a democrat/republican issue - the republicans have a bad plan and the democrats have no plan. shouldn't all the gov't coffers be flush from the years of high employment, property tax and sales tax flowing in? our gov't spent all the money and then some, the party is over, quit your whining.


Posted by Kathleen Ruegsegger, a resident of Vintage Hills Elementary School
on Dec 13, 2011 at 5:23 pm

Ahhhhh Houston/Hannah, it is human beings behaving immorally no matter their politics. I personally would not excuse infidelity be it you, Clinton, or Gingrich. Doesn't really matter what name you use because it's easy to spot the long, convoluted, insult-laden posts where you claim victory in some unknown battle.

As a union supporter, then please answer the question about how you explain to union members being locked out of their jobs and income that you prefer to support your friends, the Occupiers?


Posted by Houston, a resident of Mission Park
on Dec 13, 2011 at 5:25 pm

Read a little bit of recent history, FnSuite. Look at how we were doing prior to starting two wars, the more expensive one being an unjust war, and giving tax breaks to the rich. We lost the Clintonian surplus under whose watch? But, that's right, when your own party is clearly in the wrong, play the 'oh-the-other-side-is-wrong-too-ooo' card.

p.s. We will now take a brief commercial interruption while the two Cuckoo Queens frantically read wikipedia accounts of J.S. Mill.


Posted by Houston, a resident of Mission Park
on Dec 13, 2011 at 5:38 pm

Ooops. I spoke too soon! The Fat Kath finds the wikipedia account doesn't help her, repeats the mantra about infidelity, and then doesn't go near the clear distinction I drew between the moral toad Gingrich and the courageous OWS conscientious objectors.

Oh boy, and now she thinks she's really onto something because some union members have expressed opposition to OWS march to the ports. What she doesn't know (or admit to) is that many OWS marchers are present and past union members. How to explain to the union members who are opposed? she asks. How do you _think_? (Oops, sorry for the question, because right-wingers don't think, they only strategize.) You sit down with union members and explain that sometimes people have to sacrifice for the greater good. That _IS_ one of the planks of OWS, in case you didn't know or, more likely, you're unable to wrap your head around. People take time out of their days, sometimes time off from their jobs, in order to protest as a matter of conscience for the good of all. But here I raise that matter of 'conscience' again. You see, the morally vacuous Fat Kath sees no difference between conscientious objectors and Newt Gingrich. Their both cheaters! What a goof!

I thank you, Fat Kath, for revealing your position for the viewing edification of all of us who read these posts.


Posted by Kathleen Ruegsegger, a resident of Vintage Hills Elementary School
on Dec 13, 2011 at 5:57 pm

"Though the port did not provide a breakdown of specific losses caused by the blockades, Kos-Read said officials estimate the port typically generates about $8.5 million per day in business revenue, _wages_, _taxes_ and _other economic activity_." --Washington Post Emphasis is mine.

Maybe business revenue was the lion's share, but in the course of making that point, wages (of supposed fellow 99%), taxes (used for the greater good), and other economic activity (a good thing, I thought, in a weak economy) were lost "for the good of all." And everyone went back to work today.

I did not compare OWS to Gingrich. Check the other thread. As you were incorrect in your rat hole of logic (a different hole from the Gingrich, Clinton crowd), I guess the lesson is different than you thought.


Posted by Houston, a resident of Mission Park
on Dec 13, 2011 at 6:09 pm

Of course you'll put taxes and other economic activity over conscientious objection that takes place in response to gross disparities in wealth and the impoverishment it creates. All you can think of is money, money, money. It's your only egg, you goose.


Posted by Stacey, a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Dec 13, 2011 at 6:29 pm

Stacey is a registered user.

Anyone who confuses "big" government with "strong" government and then tries to save face on their mistake deserves no response on Mills.


Posted by Stacey, a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Dec 13, 2011 at 6:33 pm

Stacey is a registered user.

In Jane's delusional world 95% of other posters do exactly what she does, post under different names. This is what it's _really_ about! Talk about someone trying to establish moral parity!!!! LOL!


Posted by Kathleen Ruegsegger, a resident of Vintage Hills Elementary School
on Dec 13, 2011 at 6:35 pm

First word, wages. You can't grapple with the notion that union members lost wages and so throw a smokescreen called conscientious objection. People in the 99% lost wages (were at least temporarily impoverished) so others in the 99% could make a point about disparities in, essentially, wages and impoverishment? Chewing your own tail now?


Posted by franco, a resident of Vineyard Hills
on Dec 13, 2011 at 8:38 pm

franco is a registered user.

This thread with this Jane_Houston person is really laughable. Here is her main debate tactic, which heads the list of intellectually dishonest debate tactics: "Name calling: debater tries to diminish the argument of his opponent by calling the opponent a name that is subjective and unattractive..."

Examples:

you goose.... The Fat Kath... the two Cuckoo Queens.... for the slow-witted ones.... the aptly self-named Loony....Loony-cum-Hatred.....Queen of Cuckoo....Not the sharpest utensil in the drawer....in your tiny skull...

Did I miss any? Definitely a lack of self-control!


Posted by SCUBAMom, a resident of Highland Oaks
on Dec 14, 2011 at 12:23 pm

WASHINGTON (AP) — Two-thirds of chief executives of the largest U.S. companies say they don't plan to increase hiring or will cut staff in the next six months, mainly because of sluggish growth in the United States and financial turmoil in Europe.
The Business Roundtable said Wednesday that about one-third of its member CEOs expect to add employees and spend more on large equipment in the next six months. That's little changed from three months ago. More than 40 percent plan to keep their work forces steady. About a quarter expect to cut jobs.
The group predicted in its quarterly outlook survey that the economy will expand 2 percent next year. That's not enough to produce job growth. Instead, existing employees will be expected to handle any increased business.
"We're right at the point where the economy is growing, but not enough to offset productivity and create jobs," said the group's chairman, Jim McNerney, CEO of the Boeing Co. "Everybody's doing things more efficiently."
New and smaller companies, more than the big multinationals surveyed by the roundtable, tend to drive job creation, particularly in economic recoveries. Businesses with fewer than 500 employees have created about 65 percent of jobs in the past 20 years.


Posted by Stacey, a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Dec 14, 2011 at 12:29 pm

Stacey is a registered user.

Demand creates jobs, not rich people.


Posted by Mrs. B, a resident of Mohr Elementary School
on Dec 14, 2011 at 1:57 pm

Stacey....Money, and the willingness to spend it creates jobs. I have several unfilled positions in my little businesses right now not because there is not a demand for them. It is because of a lack of funds to pay the employees. One of my businesses is agriculture based. There are people that want my product. There are people that want to work for me. But,some of those people that want my product have no money to buy it, therefore they go without, unless I provide it pro bono, which I do when I can. Do you see the trickle down side? If I had more funds, I could hire people to work for me to assist in making more product. Not to mention the housekeeper I had to let go, who had to then move in with her two daughters and their families in another state...taking her spending power with her.


Posted by hoops, a resident of Mohr Park
on Dec 14, 2011 at 3:42 pm

Basic math.You cannot cut taxes and then fund 2 wars.It is really that simple.As far as the surplus Clinton created,there were no wars and he happened to be in office when the internet boomed.Bicker and call each other names,refuse to compromise on anything and be beholden to all the special interests....throw in a little greed.That is the basic truth of our wonderful gov't.


If you were a member and logged in you could track comments from this story.

Post a comment

Posting an item on Town Square is simple and requires no registration. Just complete this form and hit "submit" and your topic will appear online. Please be respectful and truthful in your postings so Town Square will continue to be a thoughtful gathering place for sharing community information and opinion. All postings are subject to our TERMS OF USE, and may be deleted if deemed inappropriate by our staff.

We prefer that you use your real name, but you may use any "member" name you wish.

Name: *

Select your neighborhood or school community: *

Comment: *

Verification code: *
Enter the verification code exactly as shown, using capital and lowercase letters, in the multi-colored box.

*Required Fields

Understanding Early Decision in College Admissions
By Elizabeth LaScala | 1 comment | 2,057 views

New heights for NIMBYs
By Tim Hunt | 29 comments | 1,351 views

When those covering the news become the news
By Gina Channell-Allen | 1 comment | 938 views

Earthquake Insurance
By Roz Rogoff | 2 comments | 755 views