And they're all unemployed because business has been rewarded with tax cuts to send those jobs overseas!

Its already well proven that businesses don't create jobs in the US with their US tax cuts, and that tax cuts for the wealthy don't create jobs either. Why are the repugs allowed to say this crap unchallenged?

Actually this is a very good idea.

If corporations and other large businesses are sending jobs offshore, then that should make them ineligible for subsidies, credits, and tax cuts.

I agree Cynthia. Plus if the Corp. is headquarters overseas, they shouldn't be allowed to file a tax return and get large billion dollars refunds.

Two changes I would make that would affect corporate hiring and tax payments:

1. Deny protection of the U. S. courts, especially patent protection, to corporations headquartered offshore. If an American firm wants to make the same product with American workers, they will be contributing to THIS society and should be given preference.

2. Eliminate the "two sets of books" that allow businesses to report one profit/loss number to their shareholders and another for tax purposes. Align tax laws with accounting rules so that firms report one number to both. If they want to report great earnings to shareholders, they pay taxes on them. If they report big losses every year, the shareholders will become dissatisfied and toss the management.

Cynthia_K.
Actually this is a very good idea.

If corporations and other large businesses are sending jobs offshore, then that should make them ineligible for subsidies, credits, and tax cuts.

Actually this was already attempted. Republicans filibustered and blocked the bill's passage.

(Reuters) - U.S. Senate Republicans blocked a Democratic bill on Tuesday to end tax deductions enjoyed by companies that close their U.S. plants and move overseas.

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2010/09/28/usa-democrats-offshore-idUKN2818912620100928

No. There is no incentive for any business owner to add more employees unless there is demand for the business' goods or services. Government continuing to lay off thousands of employees continues to stifle demand. Tax breaks do not provide a job growth incentive. Increasing the nation's ability to borrow does not provide a job growth incentive. Only demand (or the expectation of increasing demand) provides that incentive. Without action to stimulate demand, we should not expect employment to do anything but stagnate or decline.

Well how do these companies expect anyone to buy their products/services, if no one has any money? If they would pay average employees a reasonable rate, and stop sending all the jobs overseas, maybe people would be able to buy their crap. But no, they have to sit on billions in profits, pay their CEOs insane amounts of money, accept big tax breaks, and still lay people off. Wages have been steady or declining for more than a decade, what did they think was going to happen?

Chandra, wages have basically stagnated for the last 30 years. I can have the same administrative job at 10.00/hr today that I left 30 years ago to try making more money elsewhere.

Actually, yes they are. Mr. Mark Zandi has stated as much in one of his many interviews on this topic.

Corporations are holding onto 2 trillion (with a t) dollars in cash at this very moment. All because they want to be able to speculate more rather than less.

Kinda makes me sick, frankly.

Yes, let us pin the unemployment increase on "uncertainty" regarding the debt ceiling being raised. We should all pity the poor corporations that are so afraid of "uncertainty" because of the failure of republicans to support increasing our nation's ability to borrow to pay our obligations. Before this it was "uncertainty" over whether the Bush tax cuts would be extended that was causing corporations' panties to get all in a twist. We can see how much hiring took off after the administration removed all uncertainty and caved on that issue.

Uncertainty, my ass. Corporations are holding on to their billions in cash because they can. And because there is no incentive to expand and hire without demand.

one of the incentives for increasing demand of american products and american workers is to change import rules...along with tax breaks on opening new factories to return producing back in the american hands.

Here`s something to look at---How many of our great senators and reps were the principle of a failed business?Next step,how many were the principle of two or more failed businesses?It`s not a good scenario.I`m having a hard time drawing any comfort from these people trying to fix the economy......................

Great idea! It works for ME! -- "Andrew Carnegie"

Well, yes. That's the GOP's "job creation" scheme right there. Siphon even more money to the already-wealthy. Do nothing that is actually stimulative. That is just what Romney would do, and it would make things worse.

The major problem with Obama's efforts regarding the economy was to water down the stimulus to the point of impotence in a futile effort to win Republican support. And there's the reason why things are still so bad: Democrats trying to compromise with Republicans whose only real interest in the economy right now is to tank it to improve their chances in 2012.

Its impossible to compromise, or even reason with, a small child throwing a tantrum.

If the repugnicans were a screaming child in a restaurant, and Obama were the parent, we'd be seeing all kinds of placating behavior and apologetic smiles at the room, but no actual removing-the-offender-until-self-control-can-be-reestablished behavior.

We the People are being held hostage to an epic tantrum, and I truly resent it! I want my president and the democratic party to grow a collective spine and stand up to these miscreants: give them a time out in the corner! Send them to bed without supper! Why are they earning money from our tax dollars for behaving like this?

Don, you hit the nail on the head, so to speak. So who, exactly, has the most influence on the economy?

Tied for 1st place are the federal reserve chairman and the secretary of the treasury. By setting monetary policy: lending rates, bank reserve rates, bond issues, monetary printing, etc. they have direct influence on the availability and value of money in the economy.

2nd place, banks. A shrinking population dominated by ever larger, international conglomerates who answer primarily to stock-holders and operated on a global scale. Corporations that, through the use of virtually unlimited funds, influence (and in some cases control) politics and law making to their own benefit. (E.g. The last 3 fed chairman and sec. of treas. have ALL been previously employed by international investment firms or banks, like goldman-sachs. E.g. GE gets huge tax breaks for it's overseas banking "branch".)

3rd place, government. Through tax policy, primarily, the government influences the employment and business environment of the nation. Note, INFLUENCE, they can neither create or destroy jobs, but merely create a stable economic environment for jobs to be generated (or not) by businesses. THIS is the primary business of government, creating a stable economic climate, and THIS is where the government is failing miserably. As someone points out above, businesses are waiting for the debt ceiling fight to end, and who can really blame them? Would you buy a car if you didn't know how much it cost?

4th place, businesses, the people that actually create or eliminate jobs, are nearly completely at the mercy of the 1st 4 agencies on the list.

In a lot of ways, from a systemic perspective, we are experiencing what in aircraft terminology is called "pilot-induced-oscillation." Crappy tax policy, legislated on behalf of banks, causes the fed to lower rates or weaken the dollar, which impacts the economy, which causes the banks to tighten lending, which causes business to cut jobs, which causes government to enact more bad policy, and around and around we go. The people that lose in the short term are you and me, and the 14-20 million unemployed...in the long term, everyone loses.

Yes, John. Exactly. This would be a self-inflicted wound, except its the wealthy wounding the poor and middle class, while remaining unscathed themselves.

How does one go about bringing charges of Treason? The repugnican lapdogs and their owners needs to be tried and severely punished!

This cycle has been going on for 30 years, at least, with plenty of people, presidents, and congresses both democrat and republican on whom to place blame.

Much is made of the 90s "balanced budget" but most of the damage to the economy we are experiencing today are a direct result of monetary and government policy from that decade. Alan Greenspan's policies, the "everyone should be able to buy a house" policies, the overreach by Fanny May/Freddy Mac, the "borrowing" from the SS Trust Fund, not acting on health care policy, the national defense policies, unchecked bank consolidations, deregulation of banking ... I could go on and on, but I won't.

Plenty of that was supported or defended by politicians in both parties, so single out the current crop of republicans if you want, but there's plenty of blame to spread around.

If anyone finds out where one files charges of economic treason, let me know. I'll co-sign that in a heartbeat.

Is this perhaps the result of thousands of government workers losing their jobs as Republican governors lay people off?

Yes. Read the report.

Oh, but government jobs aren't real jobs! Republicans all say so, so it must be true!

The Republican Party really just needs to die.

It`s looking more and more like Rome every day.Unfortunately,all we can do is TALK about it................

Isn't this a good thing? Wouldn't we want to grow the private sector?

By robbing the private sector of 57,000 customers? Businesses aren't hiring because people aren't buying anything. Those 57,000 public sector employees will not be buying goods and using services that they would have been otherwise...the market is shrunk by the loss of those jobs.

No, its not a good thing.

I don't think it is a good thing. I am trying to point out that the GOP logic is govenment=bad, corporations=good.

You would think they would celebrate this as good news.

Do you have a link to this report?

AYE!

I wish Obama were not a closet invertebrate.

As time goes on he does look a lot more like Chamberlin than Churchill.

He needs to realize that a one sided compromise is called appeasement.

adawnrae - you made me snort my beverage! Lovely turn of phrase.

Now how long have I been saying that. He was an appeasor from the moment he gave legal cover to the previous Administration. He was an an appeasor when he allowed BP to dictate Martial Law over Louisiana and usurp the EPA OSHA and NOAA. When he unilaterally discarded Public option and Single Payer. When he gave two years of Bush tax cuts in return for 9 months (!!!) of unemployment insurance coverage. Either his head or his heart is not in the right place. I'm outraged that there is no-one better for the job. Personally I think the Republican like him just fine and that is why they are fielding nothing but the brain dead and the criminally insane against him. That's called "throwing a fight, taking a dive."

hear, hear

Obama has to run against the do nothing Congress. That would be the only road to surviving reelection. As soon as the debt ceiling is resolved, the Obama can demand Congress do something about unemployment. If the Republicans propose more tax cuts, he needs to show resolve and tell the people that tax cuts have created any jobs. He should push for infrastructure spending that can be approved posthaste.

Not happening. He will still find some fundamental Progressive principle to compromise as a show of "bipartisan support." Roughly the equivalent of demonstrating bipartisan support with Vandals by helping them dismantle your house. I would bet on it.

Great idea but unfortunately a little to late, unless you feel like living in a log leanto wearing a rabbit fur loin cloth.

I have never entered a Walmart and never will. I own all american made cars but if you take the foreign made products out of your house there would be more out than in.

For instance where was your keyboard made? I just looked and mine was made in China.

I wonder how many of the components in our military gear is made in China.

Politicians, especially but not exclusively on the right, like to blather about how much of our debt China owns. What should be of more concern is how much of what used to be our manufacturing infrastructure is now "owned" by China.

Imagine getting into a war with China. They cut off trade and suddenly the military can't replace computer gear as it breaks down or is damaged, can't get essential parts for aircraft, tanks and other vehicles, etc. How can the US possibly defend itself, for reals, when manufacturing is handled for potential adversaries?

The time will come when we're in a real fight with an enemy which can really fight back on the same level as us. We can't count on being able to pick our fights with with weaker opponents forever. It can't always be our choice. There is a strategic component to were jobs are located, and so-called American corporations are undermining national security by outsourcing jobs. Outsourcing jobs does not simply hurt American workers and the American economy, bad as those two things alone are.

This is a specious over-simplification of the huge, complex, problems faced by the economy and the nation.

1IndependentNumbNuts...yeah, the economy should have been left in freefall until it crashed into a fireball at the bottom of the Abyss in a New Great Depression. Brilliant!

The govt should default on its obligations destroying its good faith and credit rating forever. Great!

Until government stops spending we're not going to see any new jobs and in fact will see worse job numbers.

Did you read that on the side of Fox News Tea Party brand Flavor-Aid? That is ignoring the massive deficit spending that the federal govt engaged in during WW2, investing in infrastructure and manufacturing, which pulled us completely out of the Great Depression and into the greatest economic expansion the world had ever known.

No, you are right. We'd be far better off pursuing the policies that crashed the stock market AGAIN in 1987 and led to savings and loans bail-outs during Bush the Elder's Administration and lead to multi-trillion dollar deficits for the first time in American history. Millions of people being turned out of their homes and criminally toxic derivatives choking the markets is what WINNING looks like. A million jobs created during the Bush/Cheney Administation vs the over 20 million jobs created during Clinton Administration is what WINNING looks like.

Dumbass.

The economy will do better when government stops spending:

www.swifteconomics.com/2009/09/23/how-government-spending-hurts-the-economy/

I've had a college American History class that tells me that you and whoever you are citing are full of crap. Newsflash GENIUS, when the government quits spending, AMERICA IS DEAD! Businesses that quit spending are DEFUNCT. Families that quit spending are HOMELESS.

If you'd like to debate me on factual grounds I would be more than welcome. Insults, however, won't get you where you want. I haven't insulted you or your President, so one would hope you'd extend the same curtsy.

No debate can be had with someone who fabricates statistics and 'facts' upon which to base their thesis. You have no legitimate position to defend.

I'm curious because it seems so evident- did either one of you even listen to the website I listed? You must do that beforehand before I will realize what it is you're trying to talk about- sorry. Otherwise I can't read your mind.

Saw the video. Funded by the Koch Brothers and narrated in a snarky, sing-songy voice as if talking to very young, very average children. Propaganda and lies, plain and simple. I've also read the bible. Doesn't mean I have to take leave of my senses, renounce my ability to think and believe the contents.

I say again: No debate can be had with someone who fabricates statistics and 'facts' upon which to base their thesis. You have no legitimate position to defend.

Here 1KochsubsidizedVoice. Have some more Flavor-Aid. If you don't start feeling sleepy in five minutes, have some more. Take an American History class dumbass! History did NOT begin with Reagan!

If that video is the basis of your initial claim, you fail to understand it and/or place it in an appropriate current economic model. As such, I maintain that your initial statement is a specious over-simplification, and as such merits no particular discussion or argument.

Put bluntly, I refuse to have a conversation with a person that doesn't understand the complexity of global micro and macro-economics about the merits of the size and scope of government spending.

The economy is stagnating because of the stimulus package and the bailouts.

No. The economy is stagnating because of a lack of demand. Even the short-term impact of the stimulus (which was over 40% tax cuts--a non-stimulative approach) has all but washed through the system at this point. I would agree that bailing out the big financial corporations without instituting a tax on financial transactions to pay for it was not a good idea. However, based on the information we had at the time, there didn't seem to be much of an alternative. Much of the money went to bail out Goldman Sachs, which we could certainly do without.

By increasing government spending Obama has done the very thing that inhibits job growth and prevents the private sector from hiring new workers.

Lack of demand is inhibiting job growth and private sector job creation. Nothing is keeping private industry from hiring--except that they can't identify anyone who would buy whatever it is the additional workers would produce.

The debt ceiling arguments exist as a means of forcing the government to cut back spending, thereby ensuring the economy will actually start growing.

Again, no. The phony "debt ceiling argument" is another cynical ploy by the Republicans to cut social programs. Funny that the same Republicans didn't give a rat's patoot when Bush was driving up the deficit and needed to raise the debt ceiling seven times. Their real goal is to do just the opposite: by cutting more government spending and laying off more workers, the Republicans want to drive unemployment up and facilitate an economic decline. They think that will ensure their success in 2012.

Until government stops spending we're not going to see any new jobs and in fact will see worse job numbers.

You want government spending to be zero? Your web site theorized that too much government spending causes a lack of economic growth. The question before the house is, "How much is too much government spending?" The private sector is either unable or unwilling to produce enough jobs to cover those entering the workforce (note that there were 57,000 private sector jobs created last month). Government spending for infrastructure or other programs would be stimulative, and would lead to a decline in the unemployment rate--as it did over much of the last two years. That's why the Republicans don't want more of it. They want high unemployment and an economy performing poorly.

The information you cite comes from the Cato Institute. You might ask (though I know you won't) what their agenda is. That should (again, it won't) make you suspicious.

townhall.com/columnists/johnboehner/2009/01/28/creating_jobs_through_fast-acting_tax_relief,_not_slow-moving_government_spending

townhall.com/tipsheet/michelebachmann/2010/01/12/stimulus_is_not_creating_jobs

townhall.com/columnists/jeffjacoby/2011/06/11/slash_spending_and_the_economy_will_bloom/page/full/

You can post urls to worthless right-wing propaganda all you like. It doesn't matter. Why should we engage a tool? This country has been captive to right-wing policies for decades, and the result has been a disaster. I am inclined to simply reject your framing, your arguments, your fictional facts, and you as well. It's time this country stopped listening to the right and just pushed forward regardless.

Come on, RobDon/1IndependentVoice or whatever monicker you're using this week. Don't bring that weak stuff in here. Townhall.com is a radical conservative website whose postings are, to say the least, suspect. Facts are seldom a part of their game. You'll need to find something better to refute my well-founded arguments than conservative Republican fiction.

You're going to use Michelle Bachmann, with her tenuous grasp of history and economics, as a source? You've got to be kidding. I could quote a posting from "The Onion." I'd be more likely to have a credible source.

And anybody who believes that tax cuts will generate jobs more quickly than direct government stimulus spending isn't drinking economic Kool-Aid; they're into the hallucinogenics. Go grab an economic text. You need one.

The more you tax businesses the less capable we'll be in competing with the other countries out there. We have the highest corporate tax rate of any industrialized Democracy in the world. We also have the most regulations and are the most anti-business (what with our union prescence and all). Until America rids herself of these infestations she will never have high employment again. That is how the business game works. I do not understand why liberals have such a hard time understanding this concept: the more money you take from a business the less money that business has to spend a. employing people, b. paying higher salaries, c. paying better dividends to it's shareholders, and d. paying money back to the government. This is basic economics. If we don't take it upon ourselves to compete with the rest of the world the free market will collectively dispose of us as it sees fit. In regards to the stimulus (my initial premise) the more government spends and regulates, the more it must tax and invade on business practices. Which makes companies far less willing to house offices here in America which costs us jobs. Additionally the more spending occurs the more inflation raises which means a worse economy. This is basic economics about our future stability. I really would think liberals would be on board with this concept, considering how vital it is to our future sustainability.

The idea that we (the US) are "competing" with the rest of the world (other countries) to be the "home of business" is no longer a valid concept. Corporations view the world as "flat" today the way they used to look at a state or a continent. Until US policy recognizes and adapts to this new reality, we won't ever be able to "compete."

RD/UJ/1IV ... There are so many errors with your post; I only have time to correct a few. First, many industrialized nations have higher actual corporate tax rates. (Not to mention the fact that individual income tax rates and taxes on such goods as gasoline are much higher in many of these nations.) There are so many credits, deductions, carrybacks/carryforwards, etc., that no corporation of any size pays the actual rate here. For far too many, the rate is zero or very close to it.

Second, unions are stronger in most industrialized countries. That's why workers have better benefits. Their societies are often oriented more towards a better lifestyle for all, rather than great wealth for a few--as ours is. In most of these countries, union reps actually sit on corporate boards as stakeholders. Most of those nations are doing better than we are right now.

Third, despite the conservative dogma, government does provide jobs (good ones, with benefits). That's where corporate and other taxes go--towards providing various services society wants (or at least needs). Right now, if we eliminated corporate taxes completely, private business wouldn't create one new job. If anything, what we've seen in the last few months as we've laid off teachers, police, and other public sector workers is that the economy will slow as the additional unemployed have less purchasing power. Without customers, businesses aren't going to hire anybody.

Fourth, too much regulation?? Seriously?? Like the great overregulation of the financial industry over the last couple of decades? Yeah. How'd that work out for us? There are places (especially with state and local government) where there is excess red tape. However, the function being performed usually is based in some problem that private industry didn't address well enough.

Fifth, there's virtually no inflation now, despite high levels of spending. That's why this is such a great time to borrow. Interest expense is at historic lows. We should be borrowing for long-term infrastructure projects that will set us up for economic growth shortly down the road, while providing jobs that help get the economy back on its feet right now. Strangely enough, if we had a Republican President, that's what Republican leaders in Congress would be implementing--because they'd like to be re-elected.

The government lies about inflation:

frontpagemag.com/2011/04/29/how-the-feds-hide-inflation-2/

To produce fresh blood cells you have to open a vein and bleed out the old tired blood. The reason that didn't save George Washington is because they were too cowardly and didn't BLEED HIM ENOUGH!

You're advocating that George Washington should have been tortured and bled to death? Now who is abandoning the liberal ideology?!

Watch Rachel's interview with tonight's guest Robert Frank, professor of economics at the Johnson Graduate School Of Management at Cornell University. Everything he said makes perfect sense.

1Koch****ingVoice. Look up the death of George Washington.

That is what you and all the other Kochzombies want to do to the nation.

Voice ... When it comes to interest paid on government borrowing, there's no way to "lie." There's a simple measure: the rate on Treasury Bills and other government-backed short- and long-term instruments. It's right out there in the open. Right now, it's just a little above zero percent.

You need to take off the tinfoil hat and back away from the conspiracy theories and other far right-wing blather.

The fed ignores things like gas prices and food costs all of which contribute to the cost of living. The current interest rate (i.e. inflation rate) is a sham. The fed knows this but keeps it low because the fed is hoping that, in doing so, the public will stupidly buy assets thus empowering the economy. If the fed did not exit we'd be better off.

Right right right. "If the federal govt collapsed, I'd be richer that God." I've heard that argument before from another defective. Of course you would not be troubled by the fact that if the govt fails America would be DEAD. Ignoring the fact that all of the nicities of cilivilized living, law enforcement, basic regulations that keep our food and and drugs from killing us, our air fit to breathe and our water not combust when exposed to open flame all hinges on govt spending.

Gas and food costs are all subject to stock market speculation which raises the cost of living for EVERYONE for the immense profit of a tiny few who are protected from their share of the tax burden because of useful idiots just like you.

Speaking of which...you protest people getting free handouts from the govt? What are tax cuts but people keeping money which rightfully belongs to the govt? None of the Bush tax cuts were ever paid for. If the tax cuts disappeared, so would a huge chunk of the deficit. But clearly its not THAT important is it?

The actual inflation rate and the interest rate on T-bills and other government securities are certainly related. The T-bill rate reflects buyers' expectations about monetary conditions--even over a period as short as 91 days. If general price levels were increasing as your suggest, the interest rate on these securities would reflect that factor. Obviously, these very sophisticated purchasers aren't seeing what you see.

If your claim were correct, nobody who buys these securities in any worthwhile amounts would purchase them without getting a much higher interest rate, because purchasers factor in "real" inflation. Even in the short run, they would be losing money if they did so.

Now, are there goods that we buy (gas, corn, wheat, medical care) where price inflation is higher? Of course. Currently, much of this has to do with commodity inflation, driven by speculators. (Deregulation of commodity trading over the last decade, resulting in unwanted and unnecessary effects on prices.) In general, however, inflation is low. In late 2008/early 2009, we were actually more worried about deflation. Much of the hype over "government lying about the REAL rampant inflation" and the "coming crash of the dollar" is being generated by a few far right-wing nut jobs, usually in the business of selling gold or some other product that benefits from fear of inflation.

I'm not seeing what you seem to see, either. Housing prices are steady or are falling. Staple grocery prices aren't rising rapidly (though package sizes seem to be getting suspiciously smaller--an alarming and annoying trend). We certainly don't see rapid escalation in the price of home electronics, household soft goods, clothing, or most other things people buy regularly. Do you have specific examples of things other than the cost of gas (caused by unregulated speculation in the commodities market) and medical care (a problem which we could solve through a single payer system) rising quickly?

And, no, we'd be a lot worse off without the Fed. No industrialized nation has, nor will it ever, be able to function without a central banking system that includes control over monetary policy. The Fed, under Alan Greenspan, made many wrong moves over the course of about 20 years from the mid-'80s to the middle of the last decade. However, even accounting for whatever overreaching and stupidity the Fed was guilty of--and continues to be--strong central control over the banking system prevents wild swings that would lead to recurrent depressions. You wouldn't want to live in THAT world, believe me.

I really fear that is where we are headed. Its not necessary. None of it is. With enough deficit spending, infrastructure investment, clawing of manufacturing jobs back to America defrayed with smart corporate welfare we wouldn't just be flush, we would have excellent social services, security, and be out from under China. But is any of these things going to happen? I sincerely doubt it. America is done. It is inevitable. It doesn't HAVE to be, but I would be shocked as hell if anything was ever right again. During the Clinton Aministration, I remember the absolute dumbfoundment I experienced when I realized that the multi-trillion dollar deficit left by the Reagan Administration was no longer hanging over our heads. I recognize now how THAT was the abberation. The plane of State has sucked an elephant into its engine and we are going DOWN!

America needs to return to supply-side economics; ending the fed and returning us to the gold standard would be best. The thing is the market will eventually stabilize to one global standard if governments stopped getting in the way. Then we would no longer have depressions or recessions nor would we have massive fluctuations in the rate of employment. This is what the rest of America sees that liberals, for whatever reason, seem to be incapable of understanding.

Oh and yes food prices are rising and will continue to rise. The American dollar is weak and it is eventually going to collapse due to our debt. Our money and America's credit has been downgraded on the international market- none of which are positive signs. Eventually we are going to end up in a situation where American money is essentially useless and people will have to bring cartloads of money just to purchase simple items like bread. It has happened in other nations and it is happening in our own now. Government spending must be stopped or America will collapse.

Lastly Don the government is not entitled to the money I make, you make, or anyone makes. Your argument makes no sense. That money belongs to the person who worked for it, not the government.

America needs to return to supply-side economics; ending the fed and returning us to the gold standard would be best.

We never left supply side economics! On the supply side things have NEVER been BETTER. Businesses are making record profits all over the place. But you know what the deficit is? It is prosperity FAILING to Trickle Down.There was no bigger champion for it than Bush the Younger. He blew through what little surplus Clinton had accrued and rewarded the wealthy with unprecedented tax cuts and waged two wars and expanded Medi-care. It was the Reagan play book on steroids. So just how many jobs did Bush create with this supply side orthodoxy? About a million, give or take. How many did Clinton create? Over 20 million. Over 20 for every job Bush created.

"But wait" you say. "Maybe Bush did it wrong." When Reagan did it, he created the first multi-trillion dollar deficits in American history, crashed the stock market in 1987 and in the early years of the Bush's daddy's Administration Saving and Loans had to be bailed out because they were clogged to ruin with junk bonds. THAT is how supply side economics works.

We are squarely on the path of Japan in the 1990's. Japan was pro-business, anti-union, anti-worker, anti-regulation. Their financial and investment sector destroyed their economy for a full decade. There is one crucial difference between us and them. They were not stupid enough to close their factories and off shore all of their manufacturing.

...ending the fed and returning us to the gold standard would be best. The thing is the market will eventually stabilize to one global standard if governments stopped getting in the way. Then we would no longer have depressions or recessions nor would we have massive fluctuations in the rate of employment. This is what the rest of America sees that liberals, for whatever reason, seem to be incapable of understanding.

According to the end time theologens, the creation of a one world currency and one world govt is the mark of the end-times. That's why darling Micele Bachmen tried to push legislation forbiding America from ever adopting another form of currency than the dollar. New World Order headed by the Anti-Christ yeah? Secondly...THE DEATH OF THE FED IS THE DEATH OF AMERICA. Okay, I understand that you are a woman and therefore incapable of thinking clearly for more than a few thoughts at a time, but what you are suggesting is, by definition, TREASON.

Oh and yes food prices are rising and will continue to rise. The American dollar is weak and it is eventually going to collapse due to our debt. Our money and America's credit has been downgraded on the international market- none of which are positive signs. Eventually we are going to end up in a situation where American money is essentially useless and people will have to bring cartloads of money just to purchase simple items like bread. It has happened in other nations and it is happening in our own now. Government spending must be stopped or America will collapse.

Hitler's solution to just that problem was to use deficit spending to open factories to produce arms for World War 2, driving unemployment down to zero...taxes from the factory workers paid back the investment. Same as here in America a few years later...after Pearl Harbor.

The wonderful successes enjoyed by the supply sider today is the same as was enjoyed by the speculators during the Roaring Twenties. The eminent and inevitable collapse that is coming is the same as what caused the Great Depression, just like what happened to Japan during the Clinton Administration. If bleeding the patient isn't making them better, then bleed them some more.

Lastly Don the government is not entitled to the money I make, you make, or anyone makes. Your argument makes no sense. That money belongs to the person who worked for it, not the government.

Christ, if I had a dime for every time I've heard that argument. Taxes are like rent, like utilities, like mortgage. If you enjoy all the amenities of not having to live in the stone age or like they do in Somalia, then you are the beneficiary of govt spending. Taxes are the price of doing business in the absolute greatest nation in the world. But understand this. Unless you are a millionaire, you are paying the taxes that the really rich bastards don't have to. You are defending your right to pay THEIR taxes. That's what tax cuts mean. That's the govt's money in THEIR pocket, and YOU make up the difference.

You are such a useful idiot. Do yourself a favor, quit listening to the right wing propaganda. Turn off the radio. And crack open a history book instead. Yes, I know you are a woman and lack the ability to understand things well, but do it anyway. You'll be doing yourself a favor and I won't expect you to thank me.

The Republicans are engaging in economic Treason. The economy IS our National Security. Anything, anyone that weakens our economy destroys our nation. It is THAT simple.

Good point except that the only thing standing part. Another thing standing in the way of recovery is the far right stigma on government jobs. The gov is in a great position to create jobs, but the right has successfully brainwashed the many into believing that the gov either does not or should not create jobs.

Facts say otherwise - the gov has created great jobs in the past and could again except for the repub resistance to that idea and any other idea that might, even in the slightest, help American citizens more than banks, corporations, or economic and political vampires like the Koch Brothers.

Actually, given that in order to "break even" on jobs (to account for emergent workers), we must add 150k/month, even if there were no government layoffs, this would still not have been a good report. One third of the jobs necessary to just maintain the current abysmal unemployment levels can only be a negative.

But indeed, governments around the country are making it worse by laying off public sector employees, thus placing a drain on the entire economy.

When we find ourselves in the deepest depths of a New Great Depression, maybe we will finally quit hearing from Republican about how we are going in the wrong direction as a nation.

No we won't, Don. The more wrong Republicans are, the worse they make things, the more they insist that we just need to do more of the same crap that got us into this in the first place.

[pounding head into wall] I know I know. The only way you can stimulate fresh blood production is by opening more veins. The only reason it failed to save George Washington was because they didn't bleed him ENOUGH.

A good (if literally gory) analogy. Nicely played.

Cotton uses HALF of the pesticides that are dumped into our atmosphere on a yearly basis. One crop not only uses HALF of the yearly pesticides, it does real damage to the soil.

Hemp is a better fiber for fabric, and the biomass can be used as fuel in our cars and factories (oh sure, we still have factories!), and the crop itself not only doesn't need pesticides, it grows in marginal areas (weeds), breaks up and improves the soil to a depth of about 6', and breathes in CO2 while exhaling O2, so it would actually help with environmental cleanup instead of adding to the problem. It would be far better we were growing hemp than corn.

George Washington grew hemp. Hemp was a very popular crop, pre-1880!