Lindaland
  Global Unity 2.0
  Job losses mar recovery

Post New Topic  Post A Reply
profile | register | preferences | faq

UBBFriend: Email This Page to Someone! next newest topic | next oldest topic
Author Topic:   Job losses mar recovery
Eleanore
Moderator

Posts: 67
From:
Registered: Apr 2009

posted October 13, 2009 01:33 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Eleanore     Edit/Delete Message
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Job-losses-mar-recovery-apf-1684598011.html?x=0

Job losses mar recovery, create woes for Dems
The recession may be over, yet job losses endanger recovery, create woes for Democrats

By Tom Raum, Associated Press Writer
On 2:18 pm EDT, Monday October 12, 2009

WASHINGTON (AP) -- A distressed economy is widely blamed for President George H.W. Bush's re-election defeat in 1992, and a decade earlier, for the loss of 26 House seats in midterm elections by Ronald Reagan's Republicans. Yet in both instances recession had already ended or was winding down.

It's a point not lost on President Barack Obama's White House or Democrats headed into next year's midterm elections. The stock market may be up, U.S. service industries may be recovering, banks may be lending again and housing prices holding. But one major piece of the recovery puzzle is still missing: a brighter employment picture.

And that's bad news for the party in power, whether the recession is officially over or not.

Job losses are expected to continue at least into the middle of next year, likely driving the unemployment rate above 10 percent from 9.8 percent last month. It could take three or four more years for it to fall to normal levels.

The longest and deepest downturn since the Great Depression has claimed 7.2 million jobs since it began in December 2007. Analysts figure 750,000 more jobs could disappear over the next six months.

If you add in people who have stopped looking for work, or who are working part time when they want a full-time job, the unemployment rate is a whopping 17 percent, according to the Labor Department.


"If you've got an effective unemployment rate of 17 percent and if this goes on for any length of time, a year or more, then everyone's cushion will run out," said Republican consultant Rich Galen. "There are going to be serious implications, culturally and politically."

Galen said it's understandable that Republicans would use the state of the economy to pound Obama and Democrats who control Congress. Still, "it's not something we should either make fun of, be amused by or play politics with," he said.

Republicans already see a "jobless recovery." In a letter to Obama and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, House GOP leaders asked, "Where are the jobs?"

Firing back, White House chief economic adviser Lawrence Summers defended the administration's efforts on the jobs front and wrote to the Republican leaders that Obama was "committed to not repeating the fiscal mistakes of the last eight years." House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, said Monday said stimulus spending and other Democratic initiatives "are the wrong approach."

Another sign of continuing distress: Applications for Social Security retirement benefits are up 23 percent from last year, a much larger jump than in other recessions.

The surge is due to a rush of baby boomers filing for early retirement. Signing up for Social Security benefits as early as age 62 can be an immediate source of income for laid-off older workers, but it's also a troubling sign of the scarcity of jobs.

Despite some signs of recovery, the economy remains fragile. Consumer spending -- which powers two-thirds of economic output -- remains weak. Yet the widespread view among economists is that the recession has ended and that the economy grew in the just-ended third quarter.

So how can it be over if things are still so bad?

A recession is most simply defined as a period when the gross domestic product falls for at least two quarters. It had been doing that since the July-September quarter of 2008, although most economists believe the GDP has now reversed course and rose in the past few months.

The Business Cycle Dating Committee of the National Bureau of Economic Research is generally seen as the authoritative arbiter for dating U.S. recessions. It takes other things into account besides GDP, including employment levels, real personal income, industrial production, and wholesale and retail sales.

It dated the beginning of the current recession as December 2007 -- and hasn't yet called an end.

Economists agree that unemployment is a lagging indicator and can remain high long after a recession is pronounced over, continuing to inflict pain on those still out of work or worried about their jobs. That why it's hard for such workers to understand how the recession can be deemed over.

It's an important political dynamic as 2010 midterm elections approach.

At some point, continued job losses could easily push the economy back into negative territory, for a "double-dip" recession.

Hedge fund manager Doug Kass, founder and president of Seabreeze Partners Management, questions the ability of the economy to mount a self-sustaining recovery under continued elevated joblessness and wage deflation. "The consumer remains the Achilles' heel of the economy," he wrote recently.

Republicans claim continuing job losses signal a failure of the $787 billion Obama-driven stimulus legislation. "That is not what the American people were promised," said House Republican leader John Boehner of Ohio.

White House aides concede they missed the mark with their January estimate that the stimulus package would keep unemployment from rising above 8 percent. But they insist things would be far worse had the stimulus not passed.

White House Budget Director Peter Orszag suggested the stimulus package added 2 to 3 percentage points, on an annualized basis, to U.S. economic activity from April through September. "If the economy remains fragile, additional options will be considered," he said in a recent interview with The Associated Press.

Among measures being studied by the White House and congressional Democrats: extending and expanding a $8,000 tax credit for first-time home buyers due to expire at the end of next month; and tax breaks for companies that add jobs.

Rob Shapiro, an economist who was a top official in President Bill Clinton's Commerce Department, sees "substantial, continued job losses" for some time if the government doesn't take more aggressive steps to foster job growth.

In the meantime, the Obama administration should "prepare the American people to wait a while for real results," said Shapiro, now with a Democratic think tank called NDN.

IP: Logged

jwhop
Knowflake

Posts: 964
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted October 13, 2009 07:46 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for jwhop     Edit/Delete Message

Yes, after totally bungling the $787 BILLION dollar stimulus/porkulus plan, demoscats have plans for another so called "stimulus package".

Apparently some demoscat Socialist friends didn't get their fair share of the lard laden pork the demoscats have been handing out.

All they've done so far is stimulate government hiring...and hand off money to cities and states to keep city and state employees on the payrolls after mayors and governors bungled their own economies.

After driving business out of business...or out of their states, they wonder what happened to their tax base. Socialists are such dummies when it comes to economics...even Econ 101.

So, what happened to all those so called "Shovel Ready Projects" which were waiting in the wings for federal funding? Those "Shovel Ready Projects" which were to re-power the US economy? Those "Shovel Ready Projects" which included bridges, roads and other infrastructure projects, where are they? That's what was promised as an inducement to pass the Porkulus Bill.

What was always missing in that equation is that those jobs...if they ever materialized at all were "Temporary Jobs" which would end when the "Shovel Ready Project" was finished and those very same hired individuals would again be "Jobless".

Jobs produced in the private sector tend to be "Permanent Jobs" subject only to economic realities of supply and demand which ebbs and flows. Little to NO money has been spent in the private sector to produce jobs which have staying power.

Socialists do not understand that somewhere, somehow, someone has to first produce something of value for which the marketplace will reward them. Without that incentive, the house of cards produced by Socialists falls apart. They still don't get it and it's doubtful they ever will get it. Best policy for America is to "dump the dummies".

Perhaps someone here will tackle these questions:

Exactly why should those working for the "people" in city, county, state or federal jobs have their jobs protected at the expense of those who are jobless in the private sector?

Exactly why should those who produce no products, produce no wealth for the American economy but are rather "net consumers of wealth" produced in the private sector; why should their jobs be protected at the expense of the real producers of wealth in America which makes all the rest possible in the first place?

Steve Wynn Schools Jennifer Granholm on How to Create Jobs
October 12, 2009


RUSH: Steve Wynn on Fox News Sunday was interviewed by Chris Wallace. He's the CEO of Wynn Resorts in Las Vegas. He's also on with Jennifer Granholm, the governor of Michigan. And Chris Wallace says, "Unemployment in Nevada is 13.2%. That's the second highest in the nation. Your company, Wynn Resorts, has more than 20,000 employees. Do you see any turnaround yet?"

WYNN: No, in the sense that I think that the priorities of the administration should have been more directly focused on job creation. From the day of the inauguration forward, the priority should have been job creation. And the most powerful weapon and the tool that the government has for that is its tax policy. If the government had used its power to restrain its tax collection they would have given everybody who runs small businesses, large businesses, a chance to hire more people and that could have been done an entirely different way. With eight or $900 billion we could have created four or five million jobs, which would have made a big difference.

RUSH: That's what you call stimulus! That's what you call stimulus. That's what I have been saying. That's what anybody with even a modicum of Econ 101 understands. You have to invest and you have to create the investment. You have to incentivize growth, and this administration is penalizing it! This administration is punishing growth. This administration is doing everything it can to prevent growth. This is all done on purpose. And now, my friends, I finally am joined in my previous one-man crusade: Steve Wynn on board, Charles Krauthammer with a speech he gave on board saying the decline is purposeful. Chris Wallace said, "So where do you draw the line between the proper role of government in all this and the proper role of the private sector?"

WYNN: Government has never increased the standard of living of one single human being in civilization's history. For some reason that simple truth has evaded everybody. The only thing that creates an increased standard of living is giving someone a job, the demand for their labor -- whether it's you and I, Chris, or anybody else. The people that are paying the price for this juggernaut of federal spending are the middle class and the working class of America.

RUSH: Right.

WYNN: And soaring rhetoric and great speeches with or without a teleprompter aren't going to change the truth, and the truth is: The biggest enemy, the biggest obstacle that working middle-class America has is government spending.

RUSH: Steve Wynn, Wynn Resorts, Las Vegas. He is right on the money. "People who are paying the price for this juggernaut of federal spending are the middle class and the working class of America," i.e., these poor people in Detroit. They are in those lines because they have no choice because that's where this administration wants them. "Soaring rhetoric, great speeches with or without a teleprompter isn't going to change the truth." So Jennifer Granholm has gotta get in on this. Wallace says, "Let me bring in the governor of Michigan, Jennifer Granholm. Looks like she wants to come out of her seat at this."


GRANHOLM: It's just so simplistic to say that! With all due respect, I mean, to say that government has never created a job or increased the standard of living. You know, I mean there -- there are a lot of people who are grateful that in this country we have a minimum wage. There are a lot of people who are grateful that they have access to Medicare and Medicaid. And I hope that we get access further to additional health care for those who are un- -- right now uninsured. I mean, there is a balance here. To say that government is all evil... This is a democracy. It's the greatest country in the world.

RUSH: Now, this is the government of the state of Michigan where people in the tens of thousands are lining up for pittance -- a pittance handout from the federal government. The state of Michigan is broke. The City of Detroit, many people who live there, is in recession. She thinks the minimum wage has raised standard of living. The minimum wage is part of the reason unemployment is rising and the fact that Democrats authored an increase of it. Folks, they are just dunces. They're economic dunces. It is just breathtaking. Now, here she is. She's talking to a man and calling him "simplistic." We'll hear in just a second Steve Wynn describe how many health care policies he provides for people and how many employees he has. And not just in Las Vegas, he's been in Atlantic City. In Macau. He was working on an operation there. But he wanted to respond to this "simplistic" business, and this is the exchange that they had.

WYNN: I didn't say that at all. I'm saying that the source of government revenue, the source of well-being in this country is employment. That allows companies to pay taxes, employees to pay taxes. That's the source here and it's gotten out of focus.

GRANHOLM: I... I agree.

WYNN: There's no --

GRANHOLM: I agree with you.

WYNN: Okay. That's my point, Governor. I'm not making any other point. And, believe me, ma'am, I've got 20,000 employees. I've had as many as 150,000 families that I've been self-insuring. There's nothing "simplistic" about my approach to this problem.

RUSH: And, see, in this series of three sound bites, we have the perfect illustration of the problem. We have a man in the private sector who actually works, who creates jobs, jobs that are really well paying. He has health insurance for all of them, as many as 150,000 -- and a government official is telling him he doesn't know what he's talking about, cites the minimum wage to him! He doesn't have any clue in her mind. And this is where we are. These kind of people, with this kind of thinking as expressed here by Governor Granholm are exactly the kind of people running the whole show now, be it in Washington, be it in Michigan or wherever there is a Democrat governor. This is what they believe. And it takes me back to my opening monologue.

For what? For what? It certainly can't... Do you realize, folks, it is... I don't know what the word is! But to sit here and not be outraged over the economic plight of the working class and poor people in this country, to go out and be playing basketball with your staff and then go play golf after you try another church on Sunday, and then to be talking about a second stimulus, and to pile more misery on top of this with two more disastrous plans: health care reform and cap and trade. Both of which are going to create even longer unemployment lines, will create even more destitution and poverty. There's no way to conclude other than that it must be on purpose. It's just shocking. But this is a great series of sound bites here for people to actually learn who it is in this country that are the smart people, but more importantly, who it is that make this country work.

RUSH: So here's the test, folks. The real test is this. How many private sector jobs has Jennifer Granholm created? Just last week, we had the most amazing story. It was a two-page story that took me 30 minutes to fully digest and react to. Do you remember it? In her two terms of governor, which will expire next year, I believe, the state of Michigan has lost 630,000 jobs. In the next 14 months it is expected that the state of Michigan will lose another 370,000 jobs for a grand total of one million jobs lost under Jennifer Granholm's governorship. The story was in the Washington Post, and it was a puff piece pushing the obviously false premise that she has created hundreds of thousands of jobs. But the green jobs are to come, and then she's going to really fix the state because she's gonna convert the state into an all-green technology sector jobs state. And get this. By 2020, 40,000 new jobs will be created. We ought to be creating 40,000 jobs a day in this country. And in Michigan she is bragging in the Washington Post about 40,000 new jobs in 11 years.

I needed the vapors because the Washington Post was heralding this, as tremendous, great progress. Here's the way to look at this. In 14 months, 370,000 more jobs projected to be lost in Michigan. That's a little over a year and yet on the other side of that in the next 11 years, 40,000 green jobs will be created. I know she went to have lunch with laid-off employees, she went home to her husband, "Oh, my God, what can I do for these people?" The real question here is how many private sector jobs has Jennifer Granholm created, how many has Steve Wynn created? That little side by side answer is the difference between statism and capitalism. So here we have a failed governor with a state in a near depression, holding firm to her policies, learning nothing from a man who created a multibillion-dollar enterprise that hires tens of thousands of people and could hire more but for government tax-and-spend policies and whose own city is in the tank right now because the president of the United States, inasmuch has told people the days of getting on your jet and going to Las Vegas are over. Have you forgotten that?

That was early on when he was beating up the Wall Street guys back when the automobile guys had the audacity to fly from Michigan to Washington in their corporate jets to be grilled by members of Congress over why they needed bailout money. So they had to come back with their revised plan some months later and they had to drive, and the president said the days of getting on your jet and going to Las Vegas are over. Guess what's happened to the hospitality business? I'm telling you, this administration has taken a fire hose to the US economy. It's mind-boggling here. Steve Wynn, multibillion-dollar enterprise, hires tens of thousands of people, could hire more and would love to be able to hire more, but because of government tax-and-spend policies, he can't. And on the other side, a failed governor, who's telling him that he's simplistic.
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_101209/content/01125111.guest.html

IP: Logged

katatonic
Knowflake

Posts: 2227
From:
Registered: Apr 2009

posted October 13, 2009 04:18 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for katatonic     Edit/Delete Message
of course jobs are the last thing to come back. people have to get back on their feet before they start with new hires.

personally las vegas could be swallowed up by the desert trollmonster and i would not shed a tear.

also of course - the luxury, frivolous industries hurt the most in a recession. or would we rather that las vegas was booming with people trying to gamble their way back to prosperity?

and here we are moaning because the government - which "doesn't build roads and bridges, etc" has not been doing so?

most businessmen i know take a cut in their own pay first to keep their business thriving in slim times. i somehow doubt mr wynn has done so, nor do the insurance magnates or wall street seem able to live on a penny less than the billions they are used to.

while i understand that jobs come from businesses and businesses need leaders/ management, they also need PEOPLE from the ground up to stay afloat. the business i work for would be closed if it weren't for the employees being willing to bend a little, why can't the bosses do the same?

IP: Logged

jwhop
Knowflake

Posts: 964
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted October 13, 2009 05:41 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for jwhop     Edit/Delete Message
"people have to get back on their feet before they start with new hires."

Huh, what? People get back on their feet by having a reliable steady income...like from a JOB. Businesses get back on track when government stops sucking all the investment capital out of the system to fund grand Socialist schemes.

"personally las vegas could be swallowed up by the desert trollmonster and i would not shed a tear."

I'm sure no one in Vegas gives a rat's ass what you think katatonic.

"also of course - the luxury, frivolous industries hurt the most in a recession. or would we rather that las vegas was booming with people trying to gamble their way back to prosperity?"

Perhaps you should compare the performance of Steve Wynn with the Governor of MI. Going to be a million jobs lost on her watch and the state is near bankruptcy. Wynn on the other hand is supporting 10's of thousands of employees...with full health insurance and he's still there. Your statement lacks any merit.

"and here we are moaning because the government - which "doesn't build roads and bridges, etc" has not been doing so?"

What, huh, duh. Government doesn't build roads katatonic? Well, they sure let contracts and pay for roads which brings up another subject. Just what the hell have the states and federal government been doing with the federal, state, county and city gas taxes they've been collecting...to build and repair roads and bridges?

"most businessmen i know take a cut in their own pay first to keep their business thriving in slim times. i somehow doubt mr wynn has done so, nor do the insurance magnates or wall street seem able to live on a penny less than the billions they are used to."

Who appointed you to oversee what business owners make in salary and benefits from investing their own money katatonic. Typical Socialist nonsense.

"while i understand that jobs come from businesses and businesses need leaders/ management, they also need PEOPLE from the ground up to stay afloat. the business i work for would be closed if it weren't for the employees being willing to bend a little, why can't the bosses do the same?"

Who said the "Bosses" haven't taken less out of their businesses katatonic? You assume a lot as facts which are not in evidence here.

Socialism in any of it's various forms sucks.

IP: Logged

Node
Knowflake

Posts: 336
From: Nov. 11 2005
Registered: Apr 2009

posted October 13, 2009 05:49 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Node     Edit/Delete Message
Kat

well stated.
The only business's that appear to have 'recovered' are the big boy banks. I can smell the bonus monies from here.

Regular peeps will not feel much relief, or easing for at least a year....or so the experts say.

The middle class and the poor will never recover, at least not in this lifetime. Been happening since the 80's, seeded before that. End game

IP: Logged

katatonic
Knowflake

Posts: 2227
From:
Registered: Apr 2009

posted October 13, 2009 06:40 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for katatonic     Edit/Delete Message
jwhop it was you who only yesterday...or maybe as long as two days ago...told me the government had no business building roads, etc. that was the states job. here in california there has been much improvement in the roads in the last few months, dunno about fla! now you think the government should be building roads?

when i said people have to get back on their feet i meant businesses, as customers start spending more, have to get healthier before they can create more jobs.

IP: Logged

jwhop
Knowflake

Posts: 964
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted October 13, 2009 07:39 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for jwhop     Edit/Delete Message
The federal government has no business funding state, county or city road projects. That's a local responsibility and they collect the money to do that from gas taxes.

On the other hand, there is a federal/interstate highway system which should be maintained by the federal government...which also collects gas taxes for that purpose...or they say it's for that purpose. Those federal taxes amount to about 18.4 cents per gallon...which is more than twice as much as oil companies make in profit on the sale on a gallon of gas.

IP: Logged

katatonic
Knowflake

Posts: 2227
From:
Registered: Apr 2009

posted October 13, 2009 08:49 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for katatonic     Edit/Delete Message
oh i see...so when it suits your argument they DO build roads. but when i talk about them doing so the interstates etc don't exist......hmmmmmm.

IP: Logged

jwhop
Knowflake

Posts: 964
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted October 13, 2009 11:24 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for jwhop     Edit/Delete Message
Don't try that with me katatonic. You know very well there's a division of both jurisdiction and responsibilities between the states and federal government.

Both should stick to doing what they're authorized to do. In the case of the feds, they have no jurisdiction or responsibility to spend federal tax dollars on state roads and/or bridges...or erect statues of Senators in town squares...unless it's Washington DC...or most of the rest of what they're actually doing.

The Interstate Highway system is a different matter..as are National Parks and federal lands within states.

IP: Logged

katatonic
Knowflake

Posts: 2227
From:
Registered: Apr 2009

posted October 14, 2009 10:14 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for katatonic     Edit/Delete Message
no don't YOU try that with me. within the last couple of days you tried to shoot down what i said about the government building roads and bridges by saying they didn't and had no right to. no qualifications were allowed at that time, so let your standard be single, pontiff, or it's no standard.

IP: Logged

jwhop
Knowflake

Posts: 964
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted October 14, 2009 12:16 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for jwhop     Edit/Delete Message
Within the realm of the $787B Porkulus Bill, which is a federal expenditure of taxpayer funds...there is no Constitutional authorization to use those funds to build, repair, refurbish or otherwise work on State highways or State Bridges.

I think your problem is that you don't believe there is a division of responsibility and jurisdiction between states and the federal government...or that there shouldn't be.

But, there is and there should be. That's part of the checks and balances built into the Constitution...deliberately. Those in government who violate provisions of the Constitution are no better than petty tyrants...and there's a lot of that going on.

It is always to be assumed that when reading about Federal Spending Bills...one is talking about the Spending being done on Federal projects, under Federal jurisdiction and Federal responsibility on Federal buildings, Federal lands or Federal Right of Ways...like the Federal Interstate Highway System and it's bridges...or on funding the operations of the Federal government.

"So, what happened to all those so called "Shovel Ready Projects" which were waiting in the wings for federal funding? Those "Shovel Ready Projects" which were to re-power the US economy? Those "Shovel Ready Projects" which included bridges, roads and other infrastructure projects, where are they? That's what was promised as an inducement to pass the Porkulus Bill."

IP: Logged

katatonic
Knowflake

Posts: 2227
From:
Registered: Apr 2009

posted October 14, 2009 02:28 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for katatonic     Edit/Delete Message
not MY problem. maybe you are jumping to conclusions? did i ever say i thought there was no division or shouldn't be?

for that matter did i ever say the govt had no right to do something and then the next day complain that they aren't doing it?

i have no problem with you seeing things your way, jwhop. but i have the right to question your LIBERAL interpretations of the facts.

IP: Logged

jwhop
Knowflake

Posts: 964
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted October 14, 2009 03:52 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for jwhop     Edit/Delete Message
The only way your comments make a particle of sense katatonic is....if you believe all those shovel ready projects they were talking about were State road and bridge projects...and also believe those were the "shovel ready projects"...state projects I was talking about.

Otherwise, you get an F for not being able to connect the dots...because it was the Federal Interstate highways and federal bridges on those highways I was talking about when I questioned why they're still sitting there unstarted...with about half the $787B Porkulus funds already spent on everything but those "ready to start projects".

IP: Logged

katatonic
Knowflake

Posts: 2227
From:
Registered: Apr 2009

posted October 14, 2009 07:24 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for katatonic     Edit/Delete Message
and it was the federal projects i was talking about when you told me they weren't the federal government's business. WHO has trouble with dots? not i!

sorry but either way you slice it you can't have it both ways. one or t'other

IP: Logged

jwhop
Knowflake

Posts: 964
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted October 14, 2009 11:38 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for jwhop     Edit/Delete Message
Oh yeah?

Show me your post where you were talking about Federal Projects...that I said were none of the federal government's business.

IP: Logged

katatonic
Knowflake

Posts: 2227
From:
Registered: Apr 2009

posted October 16, 2009 07:19 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for katatonic     Edit/Delete Message
"but government paves the roads, builds the bridges, maintains the loony bins (or used to), funds the schools and most hospitals...
when medicare came in it was to huge opposition. now they're afraid it will be taken away!!" - katatonic


"It's not the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT which is responsible for building the bridges, paving the roads, funding the schools or most of the other imperatives you would list. No authority or jurisdiction is found in the US Constitution for Federal Government incursion into the rights and responsibilities of the States...and/or The People."

actually i didn't mention federal or state, but you brought the distinction into the discussion..

IP: Logged

jwhop
Knowflake

Posts: 964
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted October 16, 2009 07:29 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for jwhop     Edit/Delete Message
"and here we are moaning because the government - which "doesn't build roads and bridges, etc" has not been doing so?...katatonic"

That's right katatonic. The federal government which sold the Porkulus/Stimulus package to America did so using the lie about all the "shovel ready" projects...ready to go right now.

That would be roads and bridges...which were mentioned as refurbishing infrastructure on the Interstate Highway system...BECAUSE, the federal government has no authority whatsoever to spend a penny on State roads and bridges. So far as I know, there aren't any Interstate highways or bridges being repaired. So, they lied to get their pork laden bill passed and that was my point.

IP: Logged

katatonic
Knowflake

Posts: 2227
From:
Registered: Apr 2009

posted October 16, 2009 07:59 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for katatonic     Edit/Delete Message
is that your final answer...?

any more hairs you want to split tonight?

IP: Logged

jwhop
Knowflake

Posts: 964
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted October 17, 2009 12:57 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for jwhop     Edit/Delete Message
Since when is government obeying the US Constitution..."splitting hairs" katatonic?

The more you prattle on here the more obvious it becomes that to you, the US Constitution is an impediment to the implementation of your leftist/Socialist ideology.

Now katatonic, if leftists/Socialists like you, Marxist Socialists like O'Bomber, Pee-Lousy and the rest of the Socialist coven in the Congress...object to provisions in the US Constitution which they find "inconvenient" to implementing their Socialist Gulag here in the United States...there is a provision in the Constitution to change provisions of the Constitution. It's called Amending the Constitution and the ways to do that are clearly spelled out in the text.

There is no option listed to change the Constitution by simply ignoring what it says. That's the beginning of tyranny. That's the very stuff of tyranny, tyrants and treason. Treason katatonic because every one of these Socialist bast@rds and biatches SWORE an oath to "Protect and Defend the Constitution of the United States".

IP: Logged

katatonic
Knowflake

Posts: 2227
From:
Registered: Apr 2009

posted October 17, 2009 03:28 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for katatonic     Edit/Delete Message
i do believe you have completely lost track of your reasoning - or is it just your reading skills?

your debating skills appear to be sacrificed to the desire to tar and feather anyone who points out that you are two-faced. enjoy your "life" jwhop. or should i say witch hunt!? you are a rabble rousers dream.

i see no point in trying to converse with people whose eyes, ears and brains appear to be malfunctioning. maybe some other time - or not.

IP: Logged

jwhop
Knowflake

Posts: 964
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted October 17, 2009 05:29 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for jwhop     Edit/Delete Message
Hardly two faced katatonic but you are.

While mouthing denials about your leftist ideology, you defend Socialism, Socialists and Socialist policies.

Now that's two faced.

IP: Logged

All times are Eastern Standard Time

next newest topic | next oldest topic

Administrative Options: Close Topic | Archive/Move | Delete Topic
Post New Topic  Post A Reply
Hop to:

Contact Us | Linda-Goodman.com

Copyright © 2008

Powered by Infopop www.infopop.com © 2000
Ultimate Bulletin Board 5.46a