EAST BAY CITIZEN. EVERYWHERE SINCE 2009

Tuesday, March 1, 2011

Shutting Down Government Ain't A Bad Idea



A shut down of the federal government set for this Friday was averted with an extension to March 18.
By Nicholas Terry

Government. Shut. Down. Those three words, together, excite many. They are scare tactics for others.

We are now two weeks away from a possible government shut down. That's up from three days from now as House Republicans and Democrats agreed Tuesday to an extension of funding to March 18 in exchange for $4 billion in spending cuts.

The right sees it as a good idea. The left sees it as an opportunity to point the finger, again. But who loses and who benefits from a, wrongfully termed, government shut down?

A little history lesson for most on the left and a few on the right (and anyone honestly in the middle).

Between 1977 and 1980 (the era of the other economic illiterate, Jimmy Carter), the United States government had six, yes SIX, shut downs, lasting between eight and seventeen days. That said, Republicans weren’t absent from sitting in the White House during nine shut downs from 1981 to 1995 (Reagan, Bush 41 and Clinton), but they didn’t last more than two to three days.

The most famous shut down was Dec. 15, 1995 to Jan. 6, 1996 when the Republican Majority & President Clinton shut down the government for 21 days, even though most of that time was during the Christmas holiday and New Years.

However, unlike shut downs of the past, Democrats this time are really taking the opportunity to do what they do so well…scare the pants off people.

“Never let a good crisis go to waste,” said former White House Chief of Staff turned Chicago Mayor Rham Emanuel. The same was true about so many things of the past few years, most recently the shootings in Tucson, Ariz.

Bay Area Congresswoman Barbara Lee went on MSNBC (MSLSD?) just recently to talk about how the most vulnerable will be affected. How government employees will have to take furloughs and a shut down will effect people who don’t have money in the bank.

Scare tactics.

Other morons on the left are trying to scare the elderly and those who depend on social security checks each week. Someone told my mother that very thing, and I had to inform the asshat, that social security checks will still go out. Pay no attention to the idiot from New York, Rep. Chuck Schumer.

And for the record, it should be comforting to know that national security will continue, as will any contracted obligations. Medical care will be provided. Public safety and health practices will remain, planes will not go astray because air traffic control will remain. Border and patrol of the coast will still (attempt) to protect our borders. Federal prisons will still “rehabilitate” pieces of trash that are rotting away. Emergency an disaster services, the FBI, the CIA, military and the like will all remain active.

That is just a short list of what WILL remain active during a government shut down. Yes, some parks and museums may close temporary, and yes, some benefits for travel to veterans may stop. Processing passports and visas may stop. Applications processed by the ATF may stop as well. But the most vital things will remain.

Don’t get scared.

The Congress and President, most importantly, will not be able to spend, er, sorry, invest your money. The President MAY have to fly all over the country campaigning for his second term, I mean…the President may have to fly all over the country to speak down to us citizens and tell us what the Republicans are doing is wrong. He may say it’s even unconstitutional (which it’s not).

Whatever the President says or does if there’s a government shut down is a direct result of his continuing George W. Bush’s third term; outrageous spending (not investing), unaccountability and lies.

You’ve been lied to enough…there is no change and the thought of real hope is dwindling away, until campaign 2012 season, of course.

Nicholas Terry is the co-host of the East Bay Citizen Radio Program and former independent candidate for the California assembly in the 18th District.

100 comments :

Besides the typos, a good read.

Most on here will attack this which is to bad, he's just saying what most common sense person would say and think.

Paul

Why does Mr. Big Shot now refer to himself as "a former Independent Candidate for the 18th Assembly District" like we're supposed to be impressed by that? Why didn't he also included; "former Hollywood talent agent"?

I don't. Steven wrote that part...nice try. At least try to attack my column.

Then why don't you tell Steve to quit inflating your already inflated ego.

Why doesn't Mr. Big Shot make reference to his being a "brilliant pundit" with "fabulous hair"? Are you wearing your hoodie and shorts you slob?

You people really are bored. I hope you believe in abortion.

Many of us see the Republican agenda in both their policy agenda and statements and are fearful of the extremely radical direction which they wish to take this county. It doesn't take Democratic leaders to make us scared.

The House Republicans passed a budget which cuts Federal spending in such a way that two prominent financial analyst firms estimated that, if enacted, the House budget would cause Americans to lose between 750,000 and 1 million jobs combined between the private and public sector. When asked about the jobs which would be lost in the public sector by passage of this budget in the midst of a terrible recession, the Speaker of the House said, "So be it."

The Governor of Indiana, Mitch Daniels, considered a likely candidate for President in 2012, answered a question from a reporter last week:

INSKEEP: I want to ask something that a lot of people are confronting right now, as they deal with the federal deficit as well as state and local deficits that need to be closed. Are budget cuts — government budget cuts — worth it, even if they end up seriously costing a lot of jobs right now?

DANIELS: The answer is yes.

Anyone who isn't scared of sociopaths like these should ask themselves if their ideology is overwhelming their common sense.

You want to talk "economic illiterate"? How about George W. Bush? Taking into account how long he was in office, his Presidency shows the worst track record for job creation since the government began keeping records. (See the Wall Street Journal blog "Bush On Jobs: The Worst Track Record on Record.") It's also notable that the jobs that were created under Bush's Presidency were notably poor in their median level of compensation, and the division between the mega-rich and poor was made ever wider, to the point that now the 400 wealthiest Americans make more money than the bottom 50 percent of Americans.

In comparison, Barack Obama's Presidency has a much better record in job creation.

Doug Jones...get over George W. Bush...its very useless.

Under Obama, we are at a 15-16% unemployment rate. How do you make that George Bush's fault, intelligently and factually? Oabama IS just continuing Bush's Presidency...wake up.

What qualifies Doug Jones to call Mitch Daniels, who will not run for President, a sociopath and why wouldnt you call the President the same?

George Bush was more economically literate then Barack Obama; Mr. Obama cant even stack his team with the right people. Obama stutters as much as Bush when it comes to talking money.

You're love affair with Mr. Obama and the left is what must change in this country. Right and Left are both wrong on certain issues...its time to speak the truth, you sir, only speak what the left brain washes you with.

Washington's spending will not create jobs; we've been proven that. Please provide us with the links that PROVE what you say. You can't just accuse Republicans will be responsible for cutting jobs; you sound ridiculous...because you'd have to blame the President for signing the bill the House Republicans want...so hes just as responsible. Accusing the Republicans of causing job losses is an out right lie. It's the same lie as "passing the stimulus will save or create (x amount) of jobs."

Paul

Is Doug Jones a sociopath? Has he forgotten or is he just ignoring that in an independent analysis, the CBO concluded that the Presidents budget would rack up massive deficits even AFTER the economy recovers, forcing the nation to borrow nearly $9.3 TRILLION over the next decade?

Does Doug Jones think it makes any sense at all to in crease transportation spending, 62%?!?!

We are told to live within our means. Yet, the President, along with the former President, pushed a $814 billion FAILED stimulus bill, paid for by deficit spending.

Doug Jones is ok with growing the national debt $20 trillion dollars in five years, under this Presidents push.

The only investment is one of failure by investing in the radical and poor judgments of a man with no economic experience and a Congress willing to ignore the will of the majority.

Doug Jones claims the President is a better jobs creating compared to Bush; hard to compare a man in office for three years compared to a man in office for eight...but, then again, Doug Jones likes to insult, bully and call people sociopaths. Truth is...at one point, Americans lost 1.2million jobs since the President took office, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, even though the President said they saved or created 150,000. Bush's unemployment numbers have always been lower then Obamas. I am sure you'll say that the President created...and you're wrong, he didnt personally create any jobs...for every job gained, there are still unemployed folks.

Stimulus Fun Fact of the Day: $1 Million to Renovate “The Sunset Strip.”This is just part of the $7 million that is being spent to give the 78 year old strip a facelift. I spent many years at comedy clubs and restaurants on Sunset Blvd...it does not need a face lift!

Barack Obama tripled the national deficit in his first year in office. In his second year the deficit was again a record $1.29 Trillion. This year the deficit will be even higher.

And of course, this is all George W. Bush's fault (even though no one can prove this).

But don’t worry…democrats are willing to cut a .28% from their record budget.

Most people care more about jobs, and decently-paying jobs, than the defcit. In that way, most people are quite sane. Check the polls. When employment rises, so will revenues; that's the way economics work.

We didn't get out of the Depression by having the Federal government reduce the right kind of spending. Only when the Roosevelt Administration got Congress to fund broad public works and social projects did we begin to reduce the 25% unemployment at the end of Hoover's term.

Remember, Social Security was launched in 1935. It wasn't that we couldn't afford it, Roosevelt figured out; we couldn't afford not to have it. Only when the Federal government went on a brief austerity kick in 1937-38 did the economy dip again, picking back up again when austerity was seen to fail.

Not everyone is told to live within their means these days. The mega-rich and corporations are not made to share any pain whatsoever, while the astroturf campaigns their excess incomes fund fool a small, well-publicized section of the public into deciding that greedy kindergarden teachers are to blame for the budget crises. It's quite literally crazy.

Guys, face it: the rich are stealing more money every day, while they have 90+% of the public angry and resentful of each other.

That last line is another lib flat out lying. Prove it.

Who are the wealthy...most members of Congress, the President, his friends...most corporate officers that vote Democratic, union rank and file. Is a 50 year old retired public employee, wealthy? Many would say. And at others expense.

Being rich is not bad. Success is not bad. And don't vomit that crap about "at what expanses.". Don't be jealous.

That rich getting richer bull is tired. Get a new lie to try and spread.

From "Profile of the Sociopath" in the DSM-IV, published by the American Psychiatric Association:

"Callousness/Lack of Empathy
Unable to empathize with the pain of their victims, having only contempt for others' feelings of distress and readily taking advantage of them....Rationalizing the pain they inflict on others."

In these portions of the profile, how could one deny that Boehner and Daniels are displaying sociopathic behavior? A reporter asks them if they would continue to push for reductions in spending even if it costs Americans hundreds of thousands of jobs, and they entusiastically say Yes. They do this at the same time that they advocate cutting all aspects of the safety net while reducing taxes for the rich. What awful people.

Responding to a Republican Senator's complaint about the noted rise in needed transportation spending, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) countered the Senator by saying, "I think improving infrastructure is more important than tax breaks for billionaires. My colleague may disagree, but that is my view."

When the megarich and large corporations are greedily insisting that the government provide them welfare through ever more favorable tax, trade and labor laws and policies, that is bad. It is particularly bad for our country, bad for our small businesses, bad for the entrepreneur.

Here, we'll "prove it":

In 2009, the total net worth of the Forbes 400 was $1.27 trillion.

The best information now available shows that in 2009 the bottom 60% (yes, now it's 60%, not 50%) of U.S. households owned only 2.3% of total U.S. wealth.

Total U.S. household net worth -- rich, middle class and poor combined -- at the time the Forbes list came out was $53.15 trillion. So the bottom 60% of households possessed just $1.22 trillion of that $53.15 trillion, less than the Forbes 400.

Thus the Forbes 400 unquestionably have more wealth than the bottom 50%.

By contrast, in 2007 the bottom 50% of U.S. households owned slightly more wealth than the Forbes 400; the economic meltdown has hurt the bottom more than the top. (And in fact, in 2010 the net worth of the Forbes 400 jumped to $1.37 trillion.)

SOURCES:

1. Total net worth of Forbes 400, 2009: Forbes

2. Total net worth of bottom 60% of U.S. households, 2009, by percent of total U.S. household net worth: Edward Wolff, "Recent Trends in Household Wealth in the United States: Rising Debt and the Middle-Class Squeeze—an Update to 2007," p. 33

Edward Wolff, Professor of Economics at New York University, is the top academic expert on economic inequality in the U.S. He writes:

"A somewhat rough update, based on the change in housing and stock prices, shows a marked deterioration in middle-class wealth. According to my estimates, while mean wealth (in 2007 dollars) fell by 17.3 percent between 2007 and 2009 to $443,600, median wealth plunged by an astounding 36.1 percent to $65,400 (about the same level as in 1992!) ... Trends in inequality [from 2007 to mid-2009] ... show a fairly steep rise in wealth inequality ... The share of the top 1 percent advanced from 34.6 to 37.1 percent, that of the top 5 percent from 61.8 to 65 percent, and that of the top quintile from 85 to 87.7 percent, while that of the second quintile fell from 10.9 to 10 percent, that of the middle quintile from 4 to 3.1 percent, and that of the bottom two quintiles from 0.2 to -0.8 percent." (emphasis added)

Note: a "quintile" is 20% of U.S. households, so the the middle and bottom two quintiles include 60% of U.S. households.

3. Total net worth of U.S. households, third quarter of 2009: Federal Reserve, p. 1

4. Total net worth of bottom 50% of U.S. households, 2007, by amount: Arthur B. Kennickell, Federal Reserve, "Ponds and Streams: Wealth and Income in the U.S., 1989 to 2007, p. 35

5. Total net worth of Forbes 400, 2007: Forbes

6. Total net worth of Forbes 400, 2010: Forbes

Thanks for posting figures from Forbes...what does this PROVE about anything that we're talking about here?

Doug Jones ignores most of whats asked of him and sticks to copying and pasting definitions. You say that Boehner and Daniels are displaying sociopathic behavior...can you find ANY Democrats that do that? Until a medical professional can diagnose either of these two mean, keep your fact less attacks to yourself because they make you sound like a moron.

You quote Sanders...an admitted Socilist...give me a break. Improving infrastructure in this country will never end...wear and tear is one thing but new projects that benefit the pocket books of fat cats, unions and friends, is not the way to go.

Doug Jones...some day you'll admit that you're not always right, that the left is not always good for the country...you say that about the right...

Typical lib...attack when wrong.

Doug Jones probably wants to continue to fund NPR...(point is...we fund a lot of BAD...things)

If you've got 12mins, give this a watch...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xd9OYJMX9t4

UnFund NPR...

http://stopbullying.gov/

Another example of government waste.

Doug Jones must think that money grows on trees. And yes, Doug, Obama is an economic illiterate.
Manuel

It appears the problem is that the rich can pay the politicians to give them all the money trees they don't already have.

It's funny how determined the conservative commenters are to ignore the facts that don't work for their hostile arguments. Our Federal and State budgets would be fine if the wealthy and corporations were paying the same amount of taxes that they were at the end the term of that raging socialist, President Eisenhower.

A Fortune 500 CEO, a Tea Bagger and a unionized nurse are sitting at a table with a dozen cookies. The CEO takes 11 cookies, points his finger and says to the Tea Bagger "Hey, that union goon wants to take your cookie."

Yeah. The damn rich are the only reason are budgets are shit. Well said' Sarah.

(I just lied! That was flat out stupid.)

Give me a break. Lunatic Liberals share in the blame as they are the majority that give in to union and these so called rich. The rich pay a good share...just ask one since you can't really fathom the truth and resort to lies.

Anonymous 9:04--You sound like that idiot tea bagger republican Paul Vargas, that posts under the name Manuel. When Reagan came into office the millionaires and billionaires were paying at a top tax rate of 91%. The corporations were paying about 35% of all taxes collected. Now the super rich are paying a top tax rate of 35% and 25% of the fortune 500 companies are paying NO taxes at all thanks to off-shore accounts! Thanks to an ultra right-wing supreme court we have become a corporation controlled nation with low wages and a disappearing middle class. Get a clue. The Robber Barons are back!

Oh look, dumb@$$ above doesn't know his head from his @$$ from a hole in the ground. When Reagan came in the economy was in the craphole, exactly where you libtards put it. Reagan came in and cut the top rate down to 28%, got rid of most of the stupid deductions and let the creativeness of American industry take over. This resulted in 28 years of peace a prosperity A disappearing middle class? Going where? Oakland, Cleveland, Detroit, St. Louis et al were ghettos in 1969 when Nixon came into office. It wasn't Reagan who created them.
Manuel

Sarah, you're an idiot. I am quite a gentleman, but you mame are an idiot. The State and Local governments would be fine if we weren't being taxed into oblivion to pay for lush pay and benefits for the sloths who work for government. 30 years and full pay and benefits??? Ridiculous! It can't continue and she should all applaud what happened in Wisconsin this week. Someone finally told the "lazy government workers to shove it, you're not going to bully others into paying for your laziness".
Manuel

Manuel--Your real name is Paul Vargas. Why do you post under Manuel? I live in San Leandro and voted against you every time you ran. You belong to the lunatic fringe of the extreme right and I'm glad you never came close to winning. The voters saw right through your fact-less bullsh--!

Someone get Sarah out of a tree so she can respond, please...

Bernie Madoff is in jail for doing pretty much the same as re-elected politicians do.

Madoff took money from investors with the promise that the money will be invested and made available to them later.

The government takes money from wage earners with the promise that the money will be invested in a "Trust Fund" and made available later.

My, my, such manly men who insult a woman while hiding behind anonymous identities. Why the hostility?

It would be delightful if we could have a fact-based discussion of top tax rates and the budget defcit. Let's see if that can happen. First question to my pen pals: Can we agree to place the top marginal tax rate at the level it was during the first six years of Reagan's Presidency? I'd encourage my President and congressional representatives to take that deal.

You know why? The top tax rate for our 1981-1986 budgets was 50%. To my conservative friends: does that mean Reagan signed "job killing" taxes? (It wasn't until the last two years of his Presidency that the top tax rate was reduced to 28%.)

Of course, my buddies don't want to talk about the fact that the budget deficit and federal debt skyrocketed: debt grew from 33.3% of GDP in 1980 to 51.9% at the end of 1988 and the deficit increased from 2.7% in 1980 to more than double in 1983, when it reached 6%; in 1984, 1985 and 1986 it was around 5%.

To finance this, Reagan borrowed massively, raising the national debt from $997 billion to $2.85 trillion. The United States went from being the world's largest international creditor to the world's largest debtor nation.

At least unemployment went down steadily after the third year of Reagan's Presidency. Now we have nearly twice the level of unemployment that we had in Reagan's last year, thanks to the financial crisis brought on by Bush's policies. The last three months of Bush's term, we were losing over 700,000 jobs a month for three straight months. Now we've gained jobs in eight of the last twelve months. It's not good, but it's better.

As others wrote here, the Republicans currently in Congress don't care at all about creating jobs, openly saying that if jobs are lost "so be it", even though increasing employment would be one of the very best things to reduce the defcit.

That's because these Republicans don't care at all about reducing the defcit. We can see this by noting that they opposed Obama's proposed budget policies at the end of last year and pushed for a massive tax reduction for the wealthiest Americans. That tax cut blew a big hole in the budget.

That hole is much, much larger than the tiny savings that would be gained from defunding programs that Shock Doctrine Republicans hate, like Planned Parenthood, NPR/PBS and the EPA.

"We're broke" is a truly silly thing to say, but it's made even sillier as an argument when we see that these Republicans believe we've got enough money to increase Defense Department funding, which took up 20 percent of the U.S. budget last year, more than any other portion of the budget except Medicare/Medicait/CHIP. More than Social Security. More than all other Federal safety net programs combined.

Sarah...a lot of your cohorts on here talk big games behind a mask...call them out on everything, not just when people go after you.

You said, "As others wrote here, the Republicans currently in Congress don't care at all about creating jobs, openly saying that if jobs are lost "so be it", even though increasing employment would be one of the very best things to reduce the deficit (I corrected your misspelling)." Yet, you have still not proved this.

Your side said the stimulus will create jobs, meanwhile a local "green" company is laying people off. Do you even listen to the plans of the other side or are you so jaded and uptight that you think everything they say is bad?

You're out of your mind; do you really think anyone (besides me) read what you copied & pasted.

Someone once brain washed you that the left is ALWAYS right and the RIGHT is always wrong...one of these days you'll think like so few actually do.

FYI....your identity is anonymous as well as all the others.

Dan, is it appropriate to sling around insults in our discussions? Do you think questioning the mental health of others is a persuasive way to put forward your case to readers?

I don't know of a Republican plan to create jobs. They haven't put a plan forward in this Congress, even though they control the House. It's hard to respond to a plan that doesn't exist.

People who are employed supply payroll tax revenue, which helps fund both the Federal and State governments. Unemployed people do not. People who are employed with decent wages and benefits also help the economy, because they have disposable income which can be spent at local businesses. That keeps more businesses solvent. Those businesses also provide revenues to the public sector, and keep our neighborhoods more vital. Is it necessary to "prove" these things?

Dan, under Bush's Presidency there was a net loss in jobs, with horrendous losses at the end of his term. We lost 673,000 private sector jobs under Bush. Even though Obama's term began with many months of very bad job losses caused by the Bush financial crisis, in 2010 we had a net gain of about 1 million private sector jobs. That is evidence that the stimulus plan passed under Obama's term has created jobs.

I'm glad you read the figures for Reagan's tax and deficit records; any response? I also think you give your cohorts too litle credit. Aren't they open to debating based on factual information?

Sarah...why are you JUST now talking about insulting others on this blog?

Present the Democrats VIABLE plan that has been proven to work...I'll wait.

And for the record, I am a union Democrat...which doesn't mean I think like a loony liberal and think Union is king.

I can't argue with you; I am just a community college educated laborer on work related disability.

I have noticed that NO ONE posts links to their facts on this site. Why not be the first, starting with your attacks on Bush and his job less record.

Thats all the evidence you can supply...words that are trying to make us believe the stimulus lie? I want to see stats. You stand by what the media tells you...that wont get us far.

If the stimulus worked, why is Solyndra, in our backyard, laying people off after receiving A LOT of money from the government? Explain that, Sarah. Explain how pumping money into cleaning up the Sunset Strip in LA will stimulate the U.S. economy (I lived in LA...theres nothing wrong with the strip that LA can't fix).

Are you aware that (you must be) that the first two years of Obama's stimulus cost more than the entire cost of the Iraq War under President Bush, or six years of that war.

Had the “stimulus” actually worked, we’d see unemployment at or below 8% like Obama read from his teleprompter...not 16-17%!

Employment info is found at the Bureau of Labor Statistics website. Their March report has a handy graph showing month-by-month employment losses and growth for Obama's Presidency. It shows a very favorable trend; look at it and try to deny that the stimulus was effective in reversing job losses:

www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf

I'd also keep in mind that the stimulus passed with Barack's signature was a bipartisan bill. The monetary amount was reduced from the President's original proposal by Republicans' demands, even though many economists said that that stimulus was not large enough to do the best job. The Democrats have not been able to pass their own jobs plan, because the Senate Republicans blocked them. An extensive history is shown here:

http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/u/united_states_economy/economic_stimulus/index.html

Regarding Bush's awful job record, someone referenced this report earlier, from the Wall Street Journal staff:

blogs.wsj.com/economics/2009/01/09/bush-on-jobs-the-worst-track-record-on-record/

The extensively footnoted info on Reagan's tax/deficit records are found here:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reaganomics

We have unions to thank for the fact that disability and other related benefits exist:

http://books.google.com/books?id=vW6rXFvm4sQC&pg=PT546&lpg=PT546&dq=disability+benefits+fought+for+by+unions&source=bl&ots=MHDZzesXoe&sig=CnTpr862nvn70amJOzKot_NrAn0&hl=en&ei=3vd_TdOTELS80QGgoL3wCA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CCIQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=disability%20benefits%20fought%20for%20by%20unions&f=false

Our country currently has an 8.9% unemployment rate, and anecdotes do not represent a comprehensive economic analysis.

The claim re. stimulus v. war costs does not check out well:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/aug/25/mark-tapscott/did-stimulus-cost-more-war-iraq/

By the way, I'd rather have our tax money spent on jobs instead of foolish wars any day.

I wonder what my new friends think about this form of government spending:

"McCain....and Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) introduced a resolution that would, if approved by the chamber, place the Senate in favor of a U.S.-led no-fly zone mission (over Libya).

Administration and Pentagon officials have said a no-fly zone would be operationally complicated and expensive. The Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, a defense-focused think tank, last week estimated the mission could cost up to $300 million a week -- or around $15 billion.

McCain and other no-fly zone proponents in Congress say the situation in Libya is more important than dollars and cents.

“Our window of opportunity to support the Libyan people is closing quickly,” the veteran senator said. “And this country has a choice to make: Are we going to take action to support the people of Libya in their fight for freedom? Or are we going to stand by, doing more than nothing but less than enough, to achieve our stated goal of [Gadhafi] leaving power?”

Remember, McCain and almost all other Republicans just voted for a budget which one of McCain's 2008 campaign advisors said would destroy our recovery from the Bush financial crisis:

"A Republican plan to sharply cut federal spending this year would destroy 700,000 jobs through 2012, according to an independent economic analysis set for release Monday.
The report, by Moody's Analytics chief economist Mark Zandi, offers fresh ammunition to Democrats seeking block the Republican plan, which would terminate dozens of programs and slash federal appropriations by $61 billion over the next seven months.

Zandi, an architect of the 2009 stimulus package who has advised both political parties, predicts that the GOP package would reduce economic growth by 0.5 percentage points this year, and by 0.2 percentage points in 2012, resulting in 700,000 fewer jobs by the end of next year."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/28/AR2011022802634.html

Do tell.

You're officially...a moron, Sarah. And I'm being...polite.

AlCo Board Sup admits foolish spending in AlCo...you must hate him now!

Sarah, people like Dan and Manuel have to sling insults because they have NO facts. They didn't refute any of your facts that you posted yesterday or today--Keep up the good work.

1980 to Date Totals
A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P
1 SAN LEANDRO PART 1 CRIME TOTALS
2 1980 THROUGH 2010 TO DATE
3
4 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec YTD
5 Year
6 1980 430 429 468 389 396 421 380 465 398 418 382 452 5028
7 1981 435 489 496 436 403 405 465 476 415 431 466 498 5415
8 1982 443 405 437 438 440 406 404 468 334 410 413 463 5061
9 1983 361 376 402 366 321 369 379 379 317 395 350 375 4390
10 1984 388 330 371 371 346 404 391 400 404 382 384 486 4657
11 1985 409 407 420 401 439 393 450 427 355 346 337 426 4810
12 1986 424 380 438 389 426 474 501 485 442 413 426 504 5302
13 1987 463 445 499 462 504 482 526 483 383 441 416 473 5577
14 1988 420 475 476 398 451 429 493 459 449 463 433 379 5325
15 1989 445 448 472 429 484 445 494 444 407 408 407 409 5292
16 1990 381 365 376 322 373 357 361 403 382 388 426 422 4556
17 1991 422 357 421 361 407 403 445 468 447 511 439 470 5151
18 1992 444 417 544 426 467 513 413 439 447 446 451 423 5430
19 1993 482 463 515 574 513 498 475 647 576 543 487 564 6337
20 1994 565 422 512 493 618 512 651 570 472 549 528 520 6412
21 1995 558 491 580 479 499 539 577 578 519 516 458 497 6291
22 1996 520 469 526 506 518 454 451 475 450 451 418 477 5715
23 1997 469 393 514 464 451 417 446 431 466 405 412 445 5313
24 1998 406 351 404 384 427 411 450 419 388 421 357 395 4813
25 1999 441 373 387 375 381 394 389 333 373 339 376 365 4526
26 2000 378 320 350 392 410 375 388 375 266 326 331 400 4311
27 2001 374 328 369 360 402 442 472 413 450 478 407 448 4943
28 2002 392 355 379 458 409 406 481 510 400 453 415 415 5073
29 2003 399 392 473 454 421 401 437 404 403 438 414 434 5070
30 2004 414 382 434 341 421 405 427 378 447 382 323 385 4739
31 2005 428 370 413 458 452 350 399 378 398 415 407 484 4952
32 2006 477 365 410 377 488 423 462 436 413 426 398 440 5115
33 2007 393 349 380 442 415 379 413 420 422 414 412 409 4848
34 2008 424 463 435 478 407 380 408 334 370 351 365 415 4830
35 2009 353 301 402 353 397 340 355 369 303 362 331 371 4237
36 2010 375 318 327 306 292 285 313 340 306 368 331 329 3890
37 2011 371 371
38 Average 428 394 440 416 432 417 442 439 407 422 403 438
39

Once again, the poor little Baboozes can't argue with the facts that Reagan set into motion the greatest peace time economic expansion in American history. If you listen to Sarah and all the other loons you'd think this country was Portugal, Spain, Brazil, Argentina or any other flea ridden, mud hut living cess pool. Why is it that all the crazies end up in the Bay Area? Is it because the railroad ended in West Oakland?
Manuel

Sarah, did you live in the USA in the 1980's? I did and when there were 20% interest rates where was the Carter Democrats? When inflation was double digits where were the Carter Democrats? Once again you prove your lunacy. Are you also from New Bedford, MA like what's his name, I forgot, who is from there and spews socialist nonsense on here? It doesn't matter, because the facts of Ronald Reagan far outweighs your little fantasies about Obama and Carter.
Manuel

Sarah...you do realize the current President is fighting two wars still and possibly a third, right? You do realize he's just continuing the policies of George W. Bush, right? You do realize that you have joined the ranks of the lunatic fringe that come here because they are bored and have nothing better to do then try and sound like the intelligent elitists they are not, right? Sarah...wake up!

You guys still haven't refuted her facts-I just love to see the right wing whine and cry and call people names.

Dan,

You have Unions to thank for your disability insurance. This includes both the coverage you likely have in your contractual agreement with your employer and the disability insurance provided by Social Security.

"The issue of Social Security disability insurance pitted organizations that favored it against those who were opposed to it, with each coalition attempting to influence Congress and the President. SSA administrators and organized labor favored a disability insurance program, while private insurance companies, the Chamber of Commerce, and the AMA opposed it. However, when the disability freeze was again proposed, the Eisenhower Administration supported it, and it was included in the 1954 Social Security Amendments."

http://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/ssb/v66n3/v66n3p1.html


Someone pointed out this article earlier re. Bush's horrible jobs record. It's reported by the Wall Street Journal staff:

http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2009/01/09/bush-on-jobs-the-worst-track-record-on-record/


The heavily footnoted information re. Reagan's tax/deficit records are found here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reaganomics

A handy graph showing the month-by-month for all months of Obama's Presidency is on the first page of this Bureau of Labor Statistics report. See the trends and try to deny that the stimulus passed in the second month of Obama's Presidency helped create jobs.

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf


The claim regarding stimulus v. war costs does not check out well:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/aug/25/mark-tapscott/did-stimulus-cost-more-war-iraq/

It also excludes the fact that we're spending piles of money in Afghanistan as well. In addition, Republican leaders are trying to get us involved in a third war. If "we're broke", what do you think about proposing to spend billions on Libya?

"Administration and Pentagon officials have said a no-fly zone would be operationally complicated and expensive. The Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, a defense-focused think tank, last week estimated the mission could cost up to $300 million a week -- or around $15 billion.

(Senator John) McCain and other no-fly zone proponents in Congress say the situation in Libya is more important than dollars and cents."

http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/149429-mccain-calls-for-immediate-no-fly-zone-over-libya

Dan,

You have Unions to thank for your disability benefits, both the ones you likely recieve in your contract with your employer and those guaranteed by Social Security. They're guaranteed as long as we continue the successful fight to keep the right wing's hands off our SS.

"The issue of Social Security disability insurance pitted organizations that favored it against those who were opposed to it, with each coalition attempting to influence Congress and the President. SSA administrators and organized labor favored a disability insurance program, while private insurance companies, the Chamber of Commerce, and the AMA opposed it. However, when the disability freeze was again proposed, the Eisenhower Administration supported it, and it was included in the 1954 Social Security Amendments."

http://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/ssb/v66n3/v66n3p1.html

Sarah...get off your horse and stop acting like you know anything about me, you dont know what I do for a living, nor why I am on disability, etc...you can only speculate...which continues to make you look like an arrogant elitists. You dont know me. I hate being in a Union...with a passion.

Sarah...another thing...you just sited PolitiFact...another reason I'm done trying to have a conversation with you.

You are against war but support a war President who said he'd end it, early. Doing MY homework is not worth my time because you'll just respond with more crap that doesn't make your case.

You continue to support a President who is doing much of what Bush did. Congrats.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/03/15/cbs_chip_reid_to_whs_carney_isnt_it_time_to_make_a_decision_on_libya.html

Dan,

In one of your first posts here, you wrote, "I am just a community college educated laborer on work related disability."

By that, I learned something about you, and responded. A reasonable person infers from your statement that you recieve disablity benefits. Do you?

Back to the subject of the post. We have a definition for the author's point of view- Tea Partier who is way out of the mainstream. Not a surprise. You've got a whole lot of people to convince, Nick. Keep insulting those with a different POV, it's a sure-fire winner.

"Most Americans say that a federal government shutdown would be bad for the country, according to a new national poll.

But a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey also indicates that Democrats and Republicans don't see eye to eye on the issue....The poll's Tuesday release came just before the House of Representatives voted to continue funding the federal government for three weeks, a major step towards temporarily avoiding a possible government shutdown.

Nearly six in ten people questioned in the poll say that it would be a bad thing for the government to shut down for a few days because Congress did not pass a new spending bill, with 36 percent saying it would be a good thing for the country. And if a government shutdown lasted a few weeks, that figure would rise to 73 percent....

Nine percent of Democrats, 26 percent of independents, 39 percent of Republicans, and 52 percent of Tea Party supporters say a shutdown for a few weeks would be good for the country."

Shut the government down...I'm not going to argue this point anymore with you folks. Go ahead and say I waved the white flag...shut the god damn thing down and no one will suffer but the parasites and leaches. Yes, I said it!

John Eavans...you have to take into account what people have been told. If they don't educate themselves, they are certain to believe shutting it down is a bad thing. This is why I wrote the piece. These poll numbers do not reflect Americas approval rating of Congress: 18%

If you want the government to further screw up but vote to say they are, in other words, good at screwing up...then you're a moron.

(I know I said I'd stop but you asshats love to waste your time pushing buttons)

"The Quinnipiac University survey of nearly 2,000 registered voters found 46 percent said a government shutdown would be a good thing versus 44 percent who said that it would be bad."

"The Quinnipiac poll found 42 percent of those surveyed thought government workers were paid too much, 15 percent thought they earned too little, and 35 percent said pay was about right."

-Reuters (see, I post where I copy/paste from)

Direction of Country
Rasmussen Reports
Right Direction 22, Wrong Track 72
Wrong Track +50

Meanwhile, President Big Ears says it'd be easier to be the President of China, his confession carries a dose of self-pity that means Obama has hit a wall. He is in over his head, and he knows it.

A lot of libs here like to bash people who make a lot of money, obviously they are jealous because if they made a lot of money too they'd hide it in an offshore account like most wealthy people (including many liberals). Lets look at Obama's top contributors from 2008 (many of which are BIG BAD RICH BANKERS, people that Obama has personally attacked and probably called later and said, "I didn't mean it."):


University of California $1,591,395
Goldman Sachs $994,795
Harvard University $854,747
Microsoft Corp $833,617
Google Inc $803,436
Citigroup Inc $701,290
JPMorgan Chase & Co $695,132
Time Warner $590,084
Sidley Austin LLP $588,598
Stanford University $586,557
National Amusements Inc $551,683
UBS AG $543,219
Wilmerhale Llp $542,618
Skadden, Arps et al $530,839
IBM Corp $528,822
Columbia University $528,302
Morgan Stanley $514,881
General Electric $499,130
US Government $494,820
Latham & Watkins $493,835

Obama is attempting to give tax dollars to large corporations owned by his contributors. These tax dollars are being worth less because he continues to print money and devalue the dollar. Some think he's doing it on purpose, others think he's just incompetent. Judging by those who defend this worthless jackass I tend to lean towards the incompetent, but he does hate this country.
Manuel

For that last statement....Fuck you, Manuel.

The only people who "educate themselves" are the ones who agree with Big Shot Nick's view .

Now, that's funny. Hubris much?

I never told or asked anyone to agree with what I have to say, thats up to you to take the information and go with it as you will. If I am wrong, then call me out, but you can't say shutting down the government is wrong...its the only hope. We have "conservatives" who vote with Democrats to further ruined the country financially...if you dont think thats wrong, then so be it. I am not the end all, and I never said I was. Mr. Evans, you're free to do what you want. And you can guess what I suggest you do.

Anonymous 7:01PM... obviously a fan of the Presidents...such anger is frowned upon by your side (unless you're trying to make a violent point). You stay classy!

Here's a look at big corporate raises...friends of Mr. Obama. They are up a median 30.5% over last year.

Disney’s Robert Iger earned $13.5 million in 2010.

Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz earned $3.5 million.

General Electric CEO Jeffrey Immelt received a $4 million cash bonus for 2010. (We all know the love affair Obama and Immelt have).

Oshkosh's Robert G. Bohn collected a $2.4 million bonus in the year ended Sept. 30, 2010.

My point? Many on here speak of the big bad rich...yet, those big bad rich people are donors to the President or are friends with the President...a President who wants YOU to believe he's on your side, not theirs. Don't be fooled.

Holy smokes, Big Shot Nick made two diametrically opposed statements in two consecutive sentences.

"I never told or asked anyone to agree with what I have to say..." does not square with "...but you can't say shutting down the government is wrong...".

He claims he's not with the Democratic or Republican parties, but he supports someone who says of our current President "he does hate this country". He advocates for policies that are straight out of the far right-wing playbook. He's to the right of the Republican Party- like I said, Tea Partier who is out of the mainstream.

In calling for a govenment shutdown, Big Shot Nick seems to know no one who provides or recieves Federal public services. Hundreds of thousands would be put out of work during a shutdown, which hurts the economy because those workers would have less money to spend. Veterans, passport applicants, users of National parks, and many others would have their services disrupted. Who's the elitist?

Where was Big Shot Nick when W. Bush had a Republican Congress and ran up the debt by billions of dollars? I highly doubt he was in the streets or at Town Halls protesting. Cutting taxes while executing wars of choice is an absolutely insane policy. That and many other forms of corporate and megawealthy welfare is what has run up the debt.

A big tell was when Big Shot Nick brought NPR's funding into the discussion. NPR recieve no direct funding from the Federal government. They do recieve competitive grant money from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. Those grants comprise only a portion of CPB's expenses.

Annual Federal budget funding for CPB: apx. $450 million

http://www.cpb.org/annualreports/2009/images/stories/docs/CPB2009financialsFINAL.pdf

Addition to 2011 Federal budget deficit from extensions of Bush tax cuts and other tax provisions: apx. $354 billion

http://www.ombwatch.org/node/11475

Tax cuts' contribution to the 2011 Federal deficit is about 787 times greater than the Federal contribution to public broadcasting, a fraction of which is spent on NPR funding.

We had a budget surplus just eleven years ago under a Democratic Party president.

Some "small government conservatives" we have in Congress these days. They respect women, too.

"In testimony to a House taxation subcommittee on Wednesday, Thomas Barthold, the chief of staff of the nonpartisan Joint Tax Committee, confirmed that one consequence of the Republicans' "No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act" would be to turn IRS agents into abortion cops—that is, during an audit, they'd have to detemine, from evidence provided by the taxpayer, whether any tax benefit had been inappropriately used to pay for an abortion.

The proposed law, also known as H.R. 3, extends the reach of the Hyde Amendment—which bans federal funding for abortion except in cases of rape, incest, or when the life of the mother is at stake—into many parts of the federal tax code....

"Were this to become law, people could end up in an audit, the subject of which could be abortion, rape, and incest," says Christopher Bergin, the head of Tax Analysts, a nonpartisan, not-for-profit tax policy group. "If you pass the law like this, the IRS would be required to enforce it."

The proposal, which House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) has declared a top priority of the new Republican Congress, has 221 cosponsors and is expected to pass the House easily. The bill caused controversy and sparked a national protest campaign in January after Mother Jones reported that it would limit the Hyde Amendment's rape exception to cases of "forcible rape." Experts told Mother Jones that move could prevent Medicaid from paying for abortions in many rape cases, including statutory rapes. Despite the presence of many other controversial provisions, the bill regained momentum after its sponsors promised to strip the "forcible rape" language."

The budget surplus 11 years ago was caused by a GOP Congress and a Democrat President who knew there was not going to be any runaway spending by the GOP Congress. The budgets under Clinton and a Democrat Congress were projected to run into deficits for many years. The GOP winning the Congress in 1994 put a halt to that.

The deficits under Jr. Bush were caused by two things; the War on Terrorism and moderate GOP Congressmen and Democrats. After Bush's close 2000 election, he, under the advice of Karl Rove, took the Nixon path of increased domestic spending in order to keep the Congress in GOP hands. Finally in 2006 the spending was so grotesque that many people lost faith in the Party that just 6 years earlier had brought budget surpluses. Ergo many GOP voters refusing to re-elect someone who voted against their principles.

The current state of economic disgrace was caused by Obama and the Democrats who view the Treasury as an ATM machine/printing press and went hog wild.

The GOP in the House need to stand firm against Obama. If a government shut down happens, big deal. That will mean more money in the pockets of the private sector in the end, not lost in the black hole of Washington D.C.
Manuel

Nice use of the "F" word. The low level of intelligence by those who can't back up their arguments is disgusting.

Anyone unpatriotic and blindly hate-filled enough to claim our President hates his county crosses a bright red line and has earned an epithet. Are we clear?

This comes from someone who disagrees with many actions President Obama is taking.

So you're saying that Obama is patriotic? That his holding his groin during the playing of the National Anthem is patriotic? Someone who goes around the world apologizing for the USA is patriotic? Don't insult us.
Manuel

Little Nick posts:
"The Quinnipiac poll found 42 percent of those surveyed thought government workers were paid too much, 15 percent thought they earned too little, and 35 percent said pay was about right."
That means 50% thought the pay was just right or they needed more pay. Only 42% thought they were paid too much. Nice try Mr libertarian!

Obama has apologized to no one. Another BS Teabag talking point. Name one speech where he uses the word "apology" or "apologize".

American exceptionalism is dangerous to our futures. A patriotism that swims in arrogance will be our doom.

His Cairo speech was an apology. Don't try to lie to us, we're not some dope on the street. American exceptionalism is what has created the greatest nation in the history of mankind. So take your arrogance and go live in Cuba. Very few of you who hate this nation, Obama included, leave.
Manuel

To call out Obama for his lack of respect and love for this country is in no way "unpatriotic" afterall, it is Obama who disgraces this nation by his actions. "Are we clear?" again, another response by those who lack enough information to engage in intelligent, philosophical discussions concerning the matters at hand and have to resort to name calling, vulgar language and empty rhetoric behind a nameless post.

Manuel certainly has a way of bringing out the true motives and beliefs behind Obama and his supporters as is evident by the second anonymous poster who wrote "American exceptionalism is dangerous to our futures". Keep up the good work.

No, Cairo was not an apology; never was the word "apology" in there. In fact, a lot of people on your side have criticized Obama for having thrown Mubarak under the bus in that same speech. Make up your damn mind, people.

Our Constitution, its amendments, and the Bill of Rights is what has created the foundation for our great Nation, not the arrogance that expresses itself in Manifest Destiny-style "nation-building" elsewhere.

Manuel and Mr. Sousa, how would you feel if leaders from another country told us how we should run our government, and used their spy services and military to enforce their demands? Would you put up with that? Why should we expect that people from another country should do so? It simply doesn't make sense.

The American exceptionalism I have in mind is one that respects our best values: life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Insisting that we always get our way does not represent those values.

The American exceptionalism you have in mind demands comes from an deep insecurity. Insisting that everything the U.S. does is not only OK but perfect, and that people in other countries must be forced to agree with that premise, is irrational and will never work. This is particularly true when we insist on this even when we kill and exploit people in those same countries.

We know that no person, government, or nation is perfect and that we all make mistakes. To insist otherwise is past immature; it's infantile.

This "if you don't love it, leave it" argument is ridiculous. If we held everyone to that standard then it would be neccesary to demand that many on this comments thread leave town. That's equally ridiculous.

You and Manuel are disgracing our Nation with your empty and vulgar posts attacking all who disagree with you, including our president. I fought for our Nation, and though I don't agree with everything he does, he was elected fairly, which is more that I can say for the previous president. I'd be willing to bet Sousa and Vargas never served in our military at all. You both sound like chicken hawks to me--served proudly

Obama won fairly? What a joke. That's why he allegedly got 70% of the vote in metro Philadelphia, where there is evidence of voter fraud and intimidation yet the black president and the black attorney general refused to pursue the matter. Obama and the Democrats stole that 2008 election and only idiots like you would think he won it fairly.

Jackasses like you can't get over the fact that G.W. Bush won the 2000 election fairly and squarely. The Electoral College is in the Constitution and Bush won so shut the hell up.

Obama associates with terrorists; Bill Ayers, he sat on his ass while Daniel Ortega went on a tirade against the United States, he wamrnly hugged Hugo Chavez and you've got the gall to say this guy doesn't hate America?
Manuel

Manuel--you're looking more desperate and foolish with every post--If you have medical insurance try and get some help.

Manuel,
Don't try to engage in intelligent conversation with those who are painfully less educated than yourself. You've not said anything they can refute and they know it, so they resort to name calling and falsehoods. If someone "fought for the country" and is so damn brave then why doesn't this guy use his name instead of hide?

Sounds like you and Manuel never did anything for this country except call other people names.

Some small government conservatives we have in the House these days. They really respect women, too.

"Under a GOP-backed bill expected to sail through the House of Representatives, the Internal Revenue Service would be forced to police how Americans have paid for their abortions. To ensure that taxpayers complied with the law, IRS agents would have to investigate whether certain terminated pregnancies were the result of rape or incest. And one tax expert says that the measure could even lead to questions on tax forms: Have you had an abortion? Did you keep your receipt?

In testimony to a House taxation subcommittee on Wednesday, Thomas Barthold, the chief of staff of the nonpartisan Joint Tax Committee, confirmed that one consequence of the Republicans' "No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act" would be to turn IRS agents into abortion cops—that is, during an audit, they'd have to detemine, from evidence provided by the taxpayer, whether any tax benefit had been inappropriately used to pay for an abortion.

The proposed law, also known as H.R. 3, extends the reach of the Hyde Amendment—which bans federal funding for abortion except in cases of rape, incest, or when the life of the mother is at stake—into many parts of the federal tax code. In some cases, the law would forbid using tax benefits—like credits or deductions—to pay for abortions or health insurance that covers abortion. If an American who used such a benefit were to be audited, Barthold said, the burden of proof would lie with the taxpayer to provide documentation, for example, that her abortion fell under the rape/incest/life-of-the-mother exception, or that the health insurance she had purchased did not cover abortions.

"Were this to become law, people could end up in an audit, the subject of which could be abortion, rape, and incest," says Christopher Bergin, the head of Tax Analysts, a nonpartisan, not-for-profit tax policy group. "If you pass the law like this, the IRS would be required to enforce it."

The proposal, which House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) has declared a top priority of the new Republican Congress, has 221 cosponsors and is expected to pass the House easily. The bill caused controversy and sparked a national protest campaign in January after Mother Jones reported that it would limit the Hyde Amendment's rape exception to cases of "forcible rape." Experts told Mother Jones that move could prevent Medicaid from paying for abortions in many rape cases, including statutory rapes."

http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/03/gop-bill-irs-abortion-audits#

Big deal Sarah. You're article is that of an idiot.

Anon.5:59--Yours was a well researched and intelligent post? NOT
Sarah--keep posting. Only Tea Party extremists can't handle the truth! I find your posts helpful and well researched.

Sarah is a fool and so is the idiot who thinks she's intelligent. Two jackasses chewing on the some blade of weed.

SOME COMMENTS ARE BEING SENT TO THE SITE'S SPAM FOLDER. I HAVE EMPTIED IT AND REPOST ALL OF THE COMMENTS AND I'M WORKING ON FIGURING OUT WHY THIS IS HAPPENING. NOBODY IS BEING CENSURED. I APOLOGIZE AND THANK YOU FOR READING THE CITIZEN

Here's California's future, it already is San Leandro's present. Take notice Tavares, you and our ancestors don't know squat about economics...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704076804576180522989644198.html?mod=WSJ_hp_LEFTTopStories

Manuel

Anonymous 7:51 pm, what do you think of H.R. 3?

Here's a very good quote from the article;

Education long was an afterthought here. "The southern countries like Portugal and Spain and the south of France and Italy, we have always had some problems related with education," says António Nóvoa, a historian who is rector of the University of Lisbon. "That's been like that since the 16th century."

The repressive dictatorship that ruled Portugal from 1926 to 1974 had the idea "that people should not have ambition to be something different than what they were," Mr. Nóvoa says. The result was widespread illiteracy and little formal schooling; just three years were compulsory. Huge leaps have been made since the 1970s, he says, but "it is not easy to change a history of five centuries."

Tavares, you fall right into this description.

Manuel

Manuel/Paul Vargas, you seriously need professional help!

You can't refute the truth? Seems you need professional help to deal with your insecurities. Professor Novoa is right on the money in his assessment of Southern European mentality.

Manuel

I read the story "Manuel" refers us to. The story points out that the United States has among the top high school graduate rates in the world, with our government, public schools and all.

Maybe we should respect these institutions of ours, which have served us comparatively well. Our future requires a strong public school system.

"Sarah" you are missing the point of the story. The point of the story is that high government spending, welfare programs and an entrenched bureaucracy is what is bringing Portugal to it's knees. Also a centuries old mentality of slothfulness and no ambition. This is what we are up against with people such as "Sarah".
Manuel (Pronounce it correctly; it's Man-yule not Man-well!)

What does any of this have to do with San Leandro? We have a superior school system. That's another point of the story.

"In a little-noticed economic report distributed by the office House Speaker John Boehner last week, the Republican staff of the Joint Economic Committee attempted to refute criticisms that the GOP’s economic agenda would deliver too much pain too fast....

But in making that case, the Republicans may also have given Democrats some political ammunition.

For example, the (Republican) paper predicts that cutting the number of public employees would send highly skilled workers job hunting in the private sector, which in turn would lead to lower labor costs and increased employment. But “lowering labor costs” is economist-speak for lowering wages — does the GOP want to be in the position of advocating for lower wages for voters who work in the private sector?...

To establish that spending cuts can lead to near-term growth, the study looks to the experience of several small European countries. Some economists say the nations cited don’t provide a useful model to the United States because those countries took steps to blunt the impact of cuts — such as devaluing their currency to promote exports — that are improbable in America, especially with monetary policy already stretched to the limit...."

Funny. The Republicans, using the experiences of European countries as a guide? I thought they use "Europe" as a slur.

http://www.nationaljournal.com/economy/gop-prescription-spending-cuts-and-lower-wages-equal-more-jobs-20110325

Proud, once again you use circular logic. Keeping people on the public payroll is a good thing? Keeping people on the public payroll regardless of ability to pay is a good thing? Keeping people on the public payroll but taxing businesses to oblivion is a good thing? You have an elementary view of economics.

Manuel

"... the (Republican) paper predicts that cutting the number of public employees would send highly skilled workers job hunting in the private sector, which in turn would lead to lower labor costs and increased employment. But “lowering labor costs” is economist-speak for lowering wages — does the GOP want to be in the position of advocating for lower wages for voters who work in the private sector?...".

Does the American middle class make too much money? Republicans know that their preferred policies would lower our compensation.

They're fine with that.

"John Evans" you're like a roulette wheel where the balls always lands on "black" as in "Black Hole of jibberish".
Manny

"highly skilled government workers"???? bahahhahahhahahahhahaa Yeah it takes a lot of skill do nothing all day but make yourself appear to be busy.

"Manny" hates firemen, nurses, the police, those who keep our food and workplaces safe, and every other public servant. I feel otherwise.

Note that "Manny" avoids confronting the fact that the Republicans intentionally wish to pursue policies that reduce wages and benefits for private sector workers by flooding the job market with skilled workers laid off from the public sector. All that is from the Republican House's own paper.

"John Evans";zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Manny

John, only a man with no backbone or concern for others would make such a spurious and baseless statement. Do you have no shame?

"Manny" considered the statement so noncontroversial that he fell asleep on us.

"In the event of a shutdown, all uniformed military personnel would continue to work but would stop receiving paychecks, an official familiar with the government's planning told The Cable. As April 8 falls in the middle of the Defense Department's two-week pay period, military personnel would actually receive a paycheck totaling half the normal amount. A large number of Pentagon civilians would be furloughed without pay for the duration of the shutdown. Support structures for military families, such as military schools, would remain open. When the shutdown ends, the soldiers would get their back pay but the civilians might not."

http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/04/05/government_shutdown_would_mean_soldiers_stop_getting_paid

Just imagine a life where no one was allowed to make over $30,000 a year and all additional money was given to government workers and the poor. We could all retire at age 50 and have anything we wanted.

Just imagine a world in which radical conservatives chose to address what is actually happening in our country, instead of uselessly setting straw man after straw man afire.

Imagine if they stopped letting their hatred, ideology and paranoia place scales in front of their eyes, and if they allowed themselves to see the world we all live in.

Post a Comment