hmmm 500 million or billions over the decades in oil subsidies........I think I'm smelling fake outrage.

GOP says rich are job creators and that isn't true so it's obama's fault

Rusty,

Do you know George Bush signed the Energy Policy Act of 2005 into law and that part of the purpose of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 was to provide funding for developing new energy technologies?

Do you know that Bush tried to push thru the Solyndra loans before leaving office?

The Obama administration wanted to and did look into the loans more before committing. If the Chinese govt. subsidized solar panel industry hadn't dumped unrealistically cheap panels on the market Solyndra probably would still be in business.

cc- you'd be correct. Just making the point about how asinine the entire premise is.

Fore- lol- gotta love the thought process of liberals. Let's take you concepts at face value and not argue over a couple of your oversights. 1) it would be natural for a conservative President to think that capital structure would be helpful in creating jobs. 2) liberals on here are seemingly making the point that capital is irrelevant- only consumers. 3) You make the point that Bush created the capital infusion process. Now- this would indeed be consistent with beliefs as in 1). Finally, 4) Obama must also reject the entire premise Ed has laid out in this blog- capital being irrelevant and consumers driving the bus.

Do you agree with Ed? And if so- would you join in repudiating Obama ove this loan on the basis that it was wrongheaded? Or do you agree with Bush, that capital formation was important, and with Obama because he obviously didn't uy into Ed's goofy concept? Meaning you disagree with Ed.

Rusty- what are you talking about, are you trying to make a connection between government subsidies and venture capitalists? The Chinese government is heavily subsidising the solar panel industry, so by your way of thinking the U.S should just pack it in and give the solar panel industry to China. Your whole premise is off, your what the educated call an idiots idea of a smart guy.

maybe you should also ask why over 7 billion has been funneled off to Lockheed during the bush presidency to establish a virtual fence at th emexican border that to date has never worked and they are still asking for more money......

RCB- no- you are not reading the premise. This has nothing to do with whether Solyndra failed, and whether the Chinese subsidizing their industries caused it, etc. Whole different argument.

This is about whether capitalization can create jobs. Ed's article says capitalization doesn't create jobs- only the consumer does. The funny argument by fore that Obama was merely mimicking Bush (funny in several ways) goes to show that Bush was a believer in capital formation. Therefore- Obama, either because he followed the same path as Bush, or if you choose to believe that he was the opposite as Bush in every way, but for some reason he chose the same investment, would suggest Obama rejects Ed's article's premise.

To the entity getting the capital, green is green. Doesn't really matter if it is privately placed or from the government. The question is whether Obama, or even whether you, believe capital is important to the formation of jobs. Ed's article says it isn't. If you concur- then you should be peeved at both Bush and Obama for making investments of capital.

Goose- Are you spoofing liberals? If so- then I understand your point. You are sort of making the point that Bush is following Ed's article. Your example shows Bush as a consumer, making large purchases (vs supplying capital) and thus creating jobs. If you're a liberal trying to make Bush look bad- then I just have to laugh because the actions you describe are the actions Ed would seemingly advocate.

I am always shocked by people's refusal to hear the facts. Especially when they are articulated so clearly and intelligently by a "venture capitalist" just trying to be honest. Hate to say it, but it starts to sound like racism. And, I know that intelligent, well educated, people could never miss something so blatantly obvious. That is, unless the value of money has become more important to them than the value of people. I can only speak for Christians because it is my faith, but Christians certainly have a different set of moral priorities. God Bless.

Rust

It seems like whenever someone clearly states some facts that prove your argument is wrong you try to change the argument.

President Obama wanted to fund Solyndra to further the alternative energy technology. He was right to do that because that is one of the reasons the Energy Policy Act of 2005 was enacted. Part of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 clearly states that it was intended for funding technology that would be too high a risk for the typical private investor.

fore,

and did you know that in the 2005 energy policy that bush signed into law, is the "halliburton loophole"?

karl rove told the natural gas industry leaders in pittsburgh in dec. of 2010 that the newly elected gop house would make sure that the EPA will not be able to regulate fracking, and would assure that the halliburton loophole stays open.

fracking is not subject to the restrictions of the Safe Water Act, and we know that fracking has tainted/poisoned well water in areas where this procedure is done, also responsible for earthquakes.

remember the video where running water is lit on fire?

OK Fore- back to the basics. Forget about how the law came into being, or who initiated it, or who finalized it.

My question to you is: Do you think giving funding to a startup company with a good concept is a way to go about creating jobs?

Well after 34 years and counting the republicans said tax cuts created jobs so we should be up to our necks in jobs where are they. Always whine about the other guy yet the guys you support have done even worse.

rusty,

are you saying that GWB and the repub party has never done what you propose in your question above?

or are you saying that if repubs do it, it must be OK, because repubs have done the very same thing they accuse the President of doing. this is just another example of a repub calling a democrat out for the very things they do themselves,

giving money to a "startup" company might not be THE way, but it is A way.

As I've already said "President Obama wanted to fund Solyndra to further the alternative energy technology." No doubt putting people to work is a huge and valuable plus for the project.

suzette,

It does seem like they just can't pass good legislation without some nitwit mucking it up with crap like the "halliburton loophole".

Rusty,

To your specific question.

My question to you is: Do you think giving funding to a startup company with a good concept is a way to go about creating jobs?

Yes, don't you? Everything isn't black or white.

As a result of the loan guarantees it's my understanding that the country now owns the Solyndra technology for non-silicon based solar panels.

Bottom line ... without a prosperous middle class there won't be demand to fuel the supply lines. If we keep funneling money to the rich they'll just horde it. They've already bought what they want.

Thank you, fore. I also agree with that premise. You seem to indicate that everyone should believe that. I, as well, am dumbfounded that Ed and his guest are claiming the opposite. That capital has nothing to do with creating jobs, just consumers. Once again- Ed is just being goofy, but I'm glad that others are seeing it that way as well.

Suzette- I'm sayig the opposite of what you are saying I'm saying. I'm saying the Republicans are for adding capital into the system. Also- the presumptive nominee for the GOP this year has made quite a living doing just such. I think most thinking people would agree with that if they would just think about it and get past the rhetoric, and I would expect you would not be the person who would call Republicans out for taking that stance. About the only people who seem to disagree are Ed, his guest, and the members of the 99% club.

The difference is republicans think they can keep funneling money to the wealthy and stepping on the middle-class. Without a strong middle-class there will be no recovery. The division of wealth in the country will continue to go to the already wealthy. Political power will continue to go to the corporate rich. Our democracy is quickly fade away. Ed's guest is 90% correct.

No- actually Republicans don't think that way at all. It makes for great rhetoric for people to listen to and repeat. We have Rush on our side who is god at creating that, and Ed and others on the Left do the same. No real fact, but it is a marketing point.

Now- if Ed's guest is 90% correct, then shouldn't Obama have abstained from investing $500M into Solyndra and spent the $500M buying solar stuff from them? Then Obama would have been 90% correct instead of 10% correct?

As far as Solyndra is concerned you keep forgetting the investment in developing alternative energy technology. Buying $500m worth of panels is nowhere near as valuable to a start-up as the investment in the company itself.

As far as the republican agenda is concerned we'll never agree. I see you as totally duped by the idea that trickle down economics actually works. Unless you're very wealthy republicans will do nothing for you.

Investment is apart of it there is no number you can apply but the backbone is consumer spending. You can't just blame Obama for indulging the trickle down investment economic messages the GOP demands.

But this not about invesment this about tax policy the guest never claimed investment doesn't have a place in the economy just that the money the average consumer invests by buying things is more necessary than a rich person investing in a some economic venture. The bottom line is consumers, the middle class, are primarily responsible for economic growth if there is not policy to give them the income to do that than no other parts of the economic cycle can operate and add to the market.

The congress should be fighting for keeping the middle clas taxes low at all costs instead of not willing to humor any slight increase on the rich. The GOP whether they like it or not have painted themselves into a corner on various issues like the payroll tax that they will entertain raising taxes on anyone who is not rich. It should be the other way around.

fore- Let me type slower. My point is capitalization is important. First, you disagreed, then agreed, then said the premise that it's 90% consumer and only 10% capitalization. So, I asked why Obama didn't just buy $500M instead of capitalizing them. You respond then that capitalization (investment) is so much more important than just buying the product.

You are talking yourself al around in circles, trying to defend Obama and trying to defend Ed's theory, and they are on opposite ends of the spectrum. Which was my point- Liberals can't have it both ways. What is it? Consumers buying the stuff or the investment in the technology? You've flipped flopped more than liberals accuse Romney. Ed's clear that investment isn't imporatant, only consumers. You sound part Republican (when you talk of how important investment is), then you sound liberal in suggesting capital investment is maybe only 10%.

CC- liberals like to point to Bill Clinton balancing the budget. He raised taxes significantly on the lower and middle class- in fact, google Al Gore and Social Security vote. He cast the deciding vote to raise taxes on recipients. In your opinion, should liberals brag about Clinton while at the same time spouse your position that taxes can't be aised on said income levels? Isn't that a little inconsistent? Clinton also reduced the capital gains tax, thereby actualy increasing the level of revenue brought in by investment gains.

I've often said I support Clintonesque moves- increasing revenues by using fre trade agreements, lower capital gains taxes, increased payroll taxes, reduced welfare expenses, etc. If liberals brag about Clinton's results, shouldn't they also espouse his methods? I've yet to figure out why conservatives didn't like his economics. Some of his other policies- I understand- but his economic were well founded.

Now- you can also answer, if you believe in the consumption factor being more significant than investment- why didn't Obama just buy $500m of solyndra products? At least, the government would have had something more than a bag of worthless IOUs? What matters where the purchase comes from (consumer or government)? According to Ed- Obama blew this one (Ed hasn't admitted this- just his story would demand that explanation). Just above- fore is getting so confused he is trying to argue both sides of the equation and doesn't even realize it. He just knows he is suppose to support anything Obama did and anything that is on the Ed show.

Balancing the budget and a healthy economy don't have as much to do with one another as anybody wants to pretend a balanced budget does not lead to a vibrant economy their related but their isn't casualality. I'm not a liberal so I don't liberal say about Clinton. Remember under Clinton everyone's rates were higher the GOP says only the middle classes rates can be allowed to go higher. They will not entertain that argument in refference to the rich. This may lead to a better budget but not the kind of economy we want, it's not a sustainable arc.

So rates were higher for everyone. The GOP wants rates lower for high brackets and higher for low brackets. So they're not quite using "his" methods.

Solyndra is an unimportant and the answer was something I previously addressed. I thought I made clear that investment has a role but that without consumer spending that role becomes increasinly meaningless. I have no desire or intention to defend Obama or anyone else for Solyndra or all subsidies since well everyone is responsible. Both sides.

500 million dollars is also less than a single penny of government spending. Solyndra was a waste would it have made much of a difference if it hadn't happend? Hell no.

Obama has failed on many things civil liberties are one such failure. The GOP is also on that particular issue wanting to keep and defend the patriot act. So Obama doesn't have the guts to pull it but does he is responsble entirely? No plenty of blame to go around.

Rusty

You persist in trying to to make this a black and white issue with no middle ground. Your question asked if providing funding was a way of creating jobs.

So it is a way. I suspect you don't believe the funding should come from the government.

You say I'm talking in circles, but that's because you only think it has to be one or the other. That's not how things are in the real world.

I'm a very old fashioned liberal. I don't like the 2 party system. Right now I feel a need to get involved because the republicans are destroying democracy.

Actually, CC- the Republicans are against raising taxes on anyone. BTW, I'm not defending that position, and I don't agree with it. Just clarifying what their position is. My position is- as a society, figure out what is important to us. Then, make sure your revenue stream supports what you decide is necessary. Further- everyone pays into this revenue stream. If everyone pays in, then the demands of what is provided tend to be less. Economics is the study of how to supply unlimited needs with limited resources. The more transference and deltas betwen what you pay for and what you get means that more is demanded by some. If we want nationalized health care, then figure out what it is going to cost, divide the total commerce stream into it, and if it is 15 cents per every dollar spent, then have a sales tax of 15%. Adjust that up or down as cost go up or down, anually. If every time anyone buys something, they realize they are paying for health care, it tends to limit the needs for health care, and causes people to be better consumers (doctors office versus emergency room, etc). It could also mean peope would do more logical preventative care (now- some are all in on everything, and some do zero- both extremes can be very costly. The other benefit of this type of revenue is that it doesn't penalize manufacturing by forcing them to provide health care, when manufacturers who are either located off-shore don't have the same costs. In this way, if someone imports goods, when they get sold, it funds health care. When we manufacture something on-shore, then it can be sold abroad without the health care costs absorbed. Think of the advantage that would give companies to manufacture within the 50 states. But- that solution would be shot down by both parties. The Democrats because of their dieing need to make businesses pay and to punish anyone wanting to make a profit, and the Rpublicans because, well, they would figure out some reason to not like it.

Fore- Please get involved, but the Republicans are not destroying Democracy any more than the Democrats are. Lines like that are only used to sell airtime by blowhards on either side of the spectrum.

Rusty " but the Republicans are not destroying Democracy any more than the Democrats are"

You can easily go back thru the years and time when democrats were "destroying democracy". Like when the southern white democrats fought against civil rights. Even today many on both parties are doing the bidding of lobbyists.

But, at this point in time republican appointees to the supreme court have inflicted upon us the citizens united decision. That is a serious blow to democracy. Then of course there's ALEC's republican agenda driven laws. Legislation fed to republican lackeys in state legislatures from ALEC and not from the citizens of the states is simply not democratic.

I'm not saying the democrats have everything right. I'm saying the republican agenda is seriously damaging our democracy.

Like wtf? The Norquist pledge? Now those pledgers are afraid to break that pledge because not only will they lose Norquist's support, Norquist has sworn he will see them defeated. It's like they made a deal with a crime boss.

Yeah- there are a lot of negatives going on. People on the opposite end of the spectrum would point to ACORN and other groups like that as well. They would point to Supreme Court decisions that moved social policy far left.

But- it is not the intent of either side to destroy Democracy. CC is correct in pointing out things like the Patriot Act. Passed under Bush, liberals hated it and swore it was going to destroy democracy. Then, Obama pushed to get it extended.

I am convinced that the biggest threat to democracy would occur when the majority would feel as if they deserve more, and that they should get it at the behest of the minority. It's why I say above- decide what you want as a society, then figure out a way to have everyone pay for it. I may not like what happened with the co-founder of Facebook any more that you do- but if we decide the the rich should pay for everything, we will find ourselves without any rich.

but if we decide the the rich should pay for everything, we will find ourselves without any rich.

And that is why we have a progressive rate tax system. This is not about punishing the rich this is about dispelling the myth that they primarily fuel job creation.

Also even if the rich did pay for everything although no one wants that the rich would still be the wealthiest in society at least for a time.....

Nah- all you have to do is read a little bit on these liberal based blogs or listen to Ed for a short period. There is no interpretation possible except that the liberals want to punish the rich. The hatred is venomous and transparent. They have a need for retribution- how dare they invent something / do something special / etc and get rich? Your last sentence is equally wrong- Again- watch this show or listen to Ed. They do want the rich to pay for everything.

I seriously think that your average liberal believes that if only they would adopt the Buffett rule- our budgets would be balanced and sunny skies would be here again.

Is anyone naive enough to believe that John Boehner, Paul Ryan and Mitt Romney weren't well aware of this fact? Of course the wealthy don't create jobs, the wealthy INVEST.

My father was a Republican and a businessman. He'd be the first to tell you that he never hired five people when he could get by well with three or four! That's common sense, the less employees you have to pay, the more profitable your business; the more money you make. The wealthy people know all about this and they didn't get wealthy by over-hiring!

I hope this video goes viral everywhere. People need to wake up to the truth. The Republicans don't want to raise taxes on the rich because, guess what: That's them! The lying blackguards are preying on the ignorance of the American people with their "Job creators" B.S.!!! They have no shame and are the most self serving bunch that this country has ever seen.

Get them the hell OUT!

Raise taxes on the wealthy. Make them pay 45%. No loopholes.

Keep in our president who is fighting to restore the middle class before it is too late.

under obama there has been actually fewer regs and FYI those regs have been in place since reagan and if I remebre right we did pretty good under those same regs during the Clinton years......your angst against regs is really unfounded....the only regs that have been created are the ones that have protected us from credit company abuse and to hopefully stop what just happened at JP morgan,,,

LOL first its there are to many then its there isn't to many they are just bad. Then to make his point he talks about fracking that has been proven to be dangerous, but gosh darn it who needs water why we have bottled water we can buy.

if we're all dead or sick, what good is oil?

see my post #1.9 above.

Suzette, That is Obama's point and that is why we have the EPA which Romney and the rest want to dismantle.

I live near Marcellus Shale and we've always had to use filters on our water. For one thing, I've used filters for years as GWB refused to remove the arsenic from America's water. YES, it is true. It has only recently been removed, but I'd have to look up who did it and when.

Most city water is unsafe for you and your children to drink. How sad is that. They sit on their asses in congress instead of allocating money for safe, good water. How much are the bottled water lobbyists paying them for this?

Vote all of them out. They're ruining the country.

When I was a kid you could drink the damn creek water that ran by the golf course! I never thought I'd see the day when you had to buy bottled water or put filters on your sink. There's NO EXCUSE for this!! Our country is being run by a bunch of shameless whores. It makes me so angry I could spit.

Here's some info about the water, but I can't find out which president had it removed.

http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/rulesregs/sdwa/arsenic/index.cfm

I'll keep trying. If someone knows, fire away!

It is because Reagan claimed that the economy worked best with a service economy instead of an industrial economy, he believed many workers working low wage service jobs could create a stronger economy then living wage industrial jobs in the belief their were less high wage jobs due to the auto industries problems of the 70's and 80's of CEO's building large vehicles they couldn't sell and the crappy small cars that the big 3 started making when the demand for small cars was high which caused the big 3 to start laying off workers. Then to add to the problem Reagan weakened the Unions power which allowed the big 3 to start closing factories and out sourcing production parts they used to make themselves, which created even more laid off workers. The unions had been staving off out sourcing since 1970 when the steel mills started running into a problem with trade tariffs were taken off cheap Japanese steel, which is why cars made in 69,70 and 71 had problems with rusting out often before the warranty ran out.

Anyhow Reagans "supply side economics" said that with people working on low wages could get credit to buy things they wanted. What Reagans economists never factored in was what happens when the credit dried up, if you trace the market crashes in 84, 92 and 2008 you can clearly see how credit is tied to the economy. There are a few tea bagging republicans who insist that Reagans economic policies work but they also fail to admit that credit lines are needed to make it work. Not an easy thing to explain with a short post.

Right and then there is reality. NAFTA was going to be the law of the land weather Clinton signed it or not, Clinton used NAFTA to get something he wanted or thought he was going to get. No long longshoreman were not happy with NAFTA because it had nothing to do with sea shipping, Shipping would be done over land not by sea. Why would anyone ship goods to Canada and Mexico by sea when it was cheaper to do it with trucks and the rail. Clinton believed NAFTA would open the borders to US exports, not Factories or jobs.

And lets quit blameing NAFTA. North American Free Trade Agreement. Whendid China become part of NORTH America?

Lets not forget the original author of Nafta was Bush sr. He actually signed it before he left office. It was ratified by the house and senate with more republicans voting for it than democrats.Clinton came in and made a few changes before signing it into law.

Absolutely I give Clinton credit for NAFTA and China, and I give Obama credit for the Columbia, Panama and South Korea. I'm don't blindly give credit to any Republican idea and blindly blame Democrats for everything.

The trade agreements have been very possitive. I just read in this morning's newspaper that Exports from Illinois reached record levels in the first quarter. Export driven jobs tend to pay more as well. Democrats would be well served to take credit for these agreements and stop rationalizing them as being creaqted by Republicans and only signed by Democrats.

Definition: Most Favored Nation status is when a country enjoys all the lowered tariffs and reductions of trade barriers. It is conferred between two or more countries that have a trade agreement. All members of the World Trade Organization (WTO) receive the Most Favored Nation Status. This means they all receive the same trade benefits as all other members. This is critically important for smaller members, because it lowers the cost of their exports and makes them more competitive. This, in turn, increases their exports and their country's economic growth.

http://useconomy.about.com/od/glossary/g/Favored_Nation.htm

Tisk tisk tisk slacker whining about something you have no clue on what it means. So slacker when is mom and dad moving in with you so they can give back their government handout. Just think slacker you could start a trend that will stop wasteful government spending.

The various trade agreements the US has entered into have been great for the countries that are not us. These trade agreements suck and most republicans will tell you that as well.

Unless it is the trade agreements that out source jobs that is then they find all kinds of excuses why it should be allowed.

CC- this is one of those times we will just have to disagree. I work in an industry that heavily exports. 90% at times from our factory goes on a boat, to Mexico or Canada.

A year ago- a customer in Columbia would have paid a 30% premium to buy from us- now we are the favored supplier. We're talking many thousands of well paying jobs. Take a trip to our ports. You'll see lots of high priced stuff being shipped out, and lots of cheap trinkets being shipped in. I'd rather ship out jet planes, farm tractors, earth moving and mining equipment and let them continue to supply us with t-shirts and socks and dollar store tools and toys.

So you are basing everything on 1 company and what they did. The problem is no other country consumes as much as the US and that makes exporting limited unless it is a commodity like oil. Also unlike the US other countries protect their businesses with tariffs. But hey that is to complex for a conservative mind to understand because they are still under the belief that its still 1950 and the US is still exporting like it was in the 1950's. Funny how when a wealthy vulture capitalists tells it the way it is instead of refuting him with fact the right always goes with trying to discredit the person.

Whomitmay, I have always believed Clinton was one of our better Republican presidents.

I never liked him. I actually like him as an ex-president, though. He does a lot of good now. His record was really leaning to the right when he was in office.

Plus, he desecrated our house and hurt his wife and daughter and totally embarrassed the American people. That was beyond low life behavior. I mean, I could give it a name...but I don't want to be banned.

Well actually Clinton really didn't desecrate the white house, GWB had a gay hooker going into the white house after hours. If the white house could talk we would the US would be shocked at what has went on behind the closed doors of the white house.

Thank Reagan for that it was one of the new ways to tax children. As far as the rest of your nonsense those red tape things you mention is what keeps the food service industry from feeding stray animals to their customers as beef.

That isn't how government works don't know much about government do you. Here is a clue the president does not make laws or passes bills that is what congress does. I suggest you go to youtube type in school house rock and watch the videos so you have a 3rd grade level of understanding how the government works.

No you are abusing yourself seems to be a bad habit you tea bagging republicans picked up. So slacker whens mom and dad moving in so they don't have to live on a government handout. After all it is your responsibility to take care of parents and relatives when the government won't.

Done deal..

The top richest people are Democrats

Where did you get that bit of info from? Or did you just pluck it out of thin air like most Repubs?

You actually have to ask that?

And exactly what does that have to do with anything? It just shows you righties are wrong about Liberals being lazy and just wanting handouts.

I wasn't talking to you little Larry. I was responding to Eduardo saying all the Rep want the money for themselves.

Well actually you tea bagging republicans want all the government handouts for yourselves all others must meet with your approval for their government handout.

Actually, Larry- that in no way proves what you are saying. It doesn't prove the original assertation, and if it were to be true, then it doesn't prove it.

How do you folks come up with theories like that, then get a bunch of non-thinking followers to agree?

Ah no that is the GOP policy and has been since Reagan first started using peoples bigotry to get GOP elected.

I agree

xxx ooo~ They don't just do these shows ad lib. They have a schedule they have to keep that is timed down to the second. I'm sure Ed would liked to have heard what the guy had to say, but someone is standing there making motions to wrap it up. So he has to stop the guest.

Ed doesn't like surprises or unexpected segways.

Watched again.....

I guess he really wanted to say something more just ran out of time, But Ed didn't like hearing he misunderstood,Ed does have a BIG head! Just the way he is it his show and he's boss. Poo poo.

And we get the tea bagger who hasn't a clue how TV works but gosh darn it he heard about editing he just doesn't know you can't edit a live show.

And you have no sense of reality. We keep hearing you tea bagging republicans saying these doom and gloom BS events that have never happened. Yeah $3 dollars a year in taxes is just going to be a hardship the wealthy can't endure. $3 dollars a year is going to cause all that doom and gloom.

$3.............HUH?

Hmm, I wonder why repubs always try to tell us companies are going to leave because of taxes. What a joke. If some company left the number one economy with all of it's tax loopholes the CEO should be fired.

If the country moves closer to what California has done, that is what will happen.

And we get the usual nonsense comparisons.

California does have an immigration problem, and all those people on food stamps working part time at Staples and Sports Authority why don't they get another job and get off the government payroll???

xxx ooo they are a lot of people now work full time and are on food stamps. When people don't have the money what else can they do. And some of these people do have a second job and still not enough money.

See what I mean Polovs dogs, they hear tax increase on the wealthy and right away they start drooling and foaming at the mouth that the government is robbing the rich when reality is its just a few dollars to the wealthy who throw away more then the tax increase will cost.

You're not going to believe this. For the first time in months, I clicked open whom's entry. I've had him on ignore because everything he said over a significant period of time was a combination of idiotic, unrelated, and basically non-value added to any discussion. Like the guy at the end of the bar that jumps up periodically and yells, "Tadpoles is the winner!". Anyway, I click it open just to see if he has taken any smart pills. No so, I am afraid. Still goofy- now wondering about Polovs dogs. Wonder what kid of dogs Polov had?

Back to "IGNORE"

Poor little rusty once again king of projection. Here is a clue rusty when you get done posting read your post and tell me that it isn't just rewrote Fox news reports.

And you are fact free. Prisoners can keep their 45k's, what did a over worked government employee over look that 1 person didn't get cut off when he was in jail and you make up that the whole state prison population is getting what that 1 person got. Gee you seem to not to know much must be watching Fox news.

Right the GOP way of running government give away all the money in tax cuts and start spending on borrowed money, has been the GOP policy since 1980.

Rex- not for sure what your thoughts are concerning Ed's premise? If you are advocating investment in Solar, then you are opposite what Ed is suggesting. His, and his guests, point, is it is consumers who do the good things for the job markets, and no jobs or opportunities are created by investments.

A lie made up in rustys own mind yet again after CC laid it out for him, but typical rusty tactic back off wait a few posts then repeat what he just got his head delivered on.

They have been trying to prove that Hoover and his economists were correct on how a economy like Hoovers will benefit all in the country since that insane doddering old fool Reagan thought he was playing Hoover in a movie. One fact about conservatives they are incapable of learning from their mistakes, they just keep repeating them in the hope that it will work this time.

34 years of republican tax cuts where are all the jobs that they said would be created. Show me when tax cuts produced jobs, a chart a graft or a fact. In fact tax cuts have always produced high unemployment, if they created jobs then we should be neck deep in jobs. But no all the tax cuts have done is destroy the budget and caused deficits sky high. Reagan 1 trillion, Bush 41 3 trillion, GWB 11 trillion and still rising. Those are the facts and they have been shown as fact whereas yours is just talking point nonsense.

Just goes to show that you have no clue on how businesses run. Here is a clue for you to chew on. How did the big 3 in the 80's manage to make record profits while laying off employees and not being able to sell autos. In fact the big 3 CEO's were given huge bonuses while the auto giants were running in the red from 1982 until 1994. Mittens made millions without products as well buying up businesses and firing people then selling the businesses. Over your head I see.

So they had no employess at all?

How did they still make cars with no employess?

Talking to you is like talking to a dining room table with pretty much the same result, I have no desire to do so.

Hard to make cars with no emplyoess so saying you dont create joBs would be a flat out lie. Just got to call it like I see it, somebody has to write the checks.

That you made up in your own mind. Gee imagine that guess its time for you to answer this question.

How do you keep a tea bagging moron in suspense?

Talking to you is like talking to a dining room table

See, that dictionary makes a world of difference (even though your analogy is still lame.)

Grammar is the difference between knowing your s**t and knowing you’re s**t.

IF you dont create jobs then you have no employes. If you have 1 employee then you have created 1 job. If you have 100 employess you have created 100 jobs. That is just fact, believing that a billionaire doesnt create jobs makes you a complete idiot. Nobody with at least a tiny bit of common sense is stupid enough to think that a billionaire doesnt have any employees. Its the poor people who signs your paycheck, come on people use some common sense.