Archive for Friday, August 19, 2011

U.S. Rep. Lynn Jenkins says political discourse in Congress reflects attitudes throughout the country

Constituents say compromise is key

August 19, 2011, 11:17 a.m. Updated August 19, 2011, 4:25 p.m.

Advertisement

U.S. Rep. Lynn Jenkins, R-Topeka, speaks Friday with constituents at a town hall meeting in Lecompton.

U.S. Rep. Lynn Jenkins, R-Topeka, speaks Friday with constituents at a town hall meeting in Lecompton.

With public opinion of Congress hitting historic lows, what's it like for a congresswoman to come home and face the voters?

U.S. Rep. Lynn Jenkins, R-Topeka, on Friday got an earful from constituents in separate meetings in Lawrence and Lecompton.

And although the venues were vastly different -- one a high-tech classroom at Kansas University's pharmacy school and the other Lecompton's historic community building -- a similar theme emerged from those attending the meetings: Republicans and Democrats must compromise for the nation to move forward.

At the meeting at KU, Bruce Johanning, a retired Army officer, said compromise "is the American way." He added, "I have seen people on the right and left saying, `I will not compromise.' " He said without compromise, the nation will fall into totalitarianism.

In Lecompton, where nearly 100 people showed up, an elderly man stood and told Jenkins his 401(k) account took a beating after the congressional fight over raising the debt ceiling.

When Jenkins responded that the stock market continues to have problems, the man said, "It is if you guys don't compromise."

To compromise or not

At the KU meeting, where about 60 people attended, Jenkins, who in opening remarks touted the House Republican budget and tax plan, was asked if she would compromise.

Jenkins, whose 2nd district includes the western part of Douglas County, said members of Congress are pressured on the left and right by organizations that tell them not to compromise.

She said Moveon.org lobbies the Democrats and Republicans are lobbied by the Tea Party, which she said doesn't "even like the term compromise. They don't even like the term common ground."

Jenkins added, "I have always been willing to work with everyone."

But earlier this week, Jenkins was criticized by some after she said at a town hall meeting in Pleasanton that her constituents didn't want her to compromise. At that meeting, she said, "The people that I represent have made it very clear to me in the town halls that we've done and the telephone town halls and the polling data that we have, that they do not want any compromise."

On Friday, in both Lawrence and Lecompton, Jenkins complained about the current level of political discourse in Washington, D.C. and said that it reflected what is going on across the country.

"The American people are quite polarized these days and angry and I think you see a Congress that reflects the American people. We are polarized and angry," she said.

Touts Republican plan

She said the House Republican plan, which would cut the highest corporate and individual tax rates and makes changes to Medicare and Social Security, which would reduce benefits for some, is required to get control of the national debt.

Jenkins said the United States has the highest corporate tax rate in the world, but one man at the meeting said the wealthiest Americans and U.S. corporations pay much lower tax rates than average Americans.

Jenkins said that is because they take advantage of loopholes. She said the tax code needs to be overhauled to remove these loopholes.

She also said federal regulations on businesses were also a reason for economic problems. "The regulators are off the chain," she said.

Jenkins also predicted that the federal health care reform signed into law by President Barack Obama will be overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court or repealed "if the landscape in Washington changes."

Comments

Sylvie Rueff 4 years ago

Ms. Jenkins, One can reflect the best of the world or the worst. A leader who reflects the worst of what she sees perpetuates only that. By standing on higher ground, you might be able to see a clearer path to a brighter future.
Please.

4 years ago

Pretty good meeting. Is the congress a reflection of the public divisions? OR is the public attitude a reflection of our public leadership? (Lack of leader ship from top down even to School boards) Leading by example woould be a nice change. Congress could demonstrate a cost cutting attitude by reducing their own inflated salaries and expenses. Small business person takes the first hit on income when business is down. They reduce employees after all other cost cutting measures are implemented. Taxpayers should set salaries of the senators and representatives. Stockholders should vote on the salaries and benefits of the corportate leaders.

Jan Rolls 4 years ago

Did she vote with the tea party? Got a secret lynn it's too late to try and get back to where you do your job of representing the people. We can see right through you. You are done next election.

damnitimpissed 4 years ago

She is in the Tea Party Caucus! It says so on her very own lynnjenkins.com - "Jenkins recently joined the Tea Party Caucus". Michelle Bachmann's site (Bachmann is the chair) also lists her as a current member. So, I am guessing Lynn takes her constituents for a bunch of fools?

Catalano 4 years ago

She should be doing Pepsodent commercials anyway. She should get an agent now.

tbaker 4 years ago

Save this post Gump. You be surprised what happens in the next election.

jhawkinsf 4 years ago

You who choose to lead must follow, But if you fall, you fall alone, If you choose to stand, then who's to guide you, If I knew the way, I would take you home. la la la la la, la la la la

guesswho 4 years ago

How is reducing revenue going to 'get control of the national debt'?

Jimo 4 years ago

The big mistake of the Partiers was forcing the public to pay attention to politics precisely at the moment that their idiocy was most on display.

In just a matter of a few weeks, politicians pledges to "not raise taxes" are now being translated by the public as "destroy Social Security, Medicaid, and Medicare."

Heck, I even read in today's WSJ an editorial excoriating "Doctor" (a Palin-ism) Michelle Bachmann for being timid at the task of destroying Medicare! What????, you say. That's way to flaky even for the Teabaggers? Here: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111903596904576514221791387688.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

Sprinkles 4 years ago

How else are we to translate that?

Cait McKnelly 4 years ago

Just remember, the WSJ is now owned by Rupert Murdoch and is about as trustworthy as a kid left alone in a candy store.

jhawkinsf 4 years ago

"How is reducing revenue going to get control of the national debt?". Let me give you a simple example. Suppose you own a piece of commercial property that is vacant and underutilized. At the present time, the owners of that property pay taxes at the lowest possible valuation specifically because it is vacant, underutilized and generating zero revenue. Someone offers to put a business into that property but asks the local government for a waiver of what hypothetically will become a more valuable piece of property. Should they get the waiver, the business will produce revenue and taxes in excess of what the waiver will cost. So, by granting the waiver, and lowering potential revenue, business is stimulated producing greater revenue than if the local government held firm, did not grant the waiver and the property remained vacant, underutilized and taxed at the lowest possible valuation. Granting the waiver produces a win/win situation while not granting the waiver produces a lose/lose situation. The question is, are we so intent on forcing the property owner into a lose situation that we are will to take the loss ourselves, or are we willing to help private industry, knowing that a win for them is a win for us?

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 4 years ago

And the flip side is that if taxes to run the city aren't going to come from these businesses, it has to come from somewhere else. And the only somewhere else is to get it from residential property taxes and sales taxes.

So you can argue that that's better than taxing these businesses if you like, but don't pretend that it doesn't come at the cost I just described.

jhawkinsf 4 years ago

No, Bozo, The increase in sales will produce increased sales taxes for the city, employees will be taxed on their earning, they will spend their paychecks, producing even more sales taxes. These are taxes that would not have even existed, had the new business not opened. The increase in business activity produces revenue where none would have existed previously. A win/win.

Zac Hamlin 4 years ago

Your example only holds water if the proposed business is unique or innovative. If it is not then it simply has been given a gift at the expense of current business. Total demand is a real thing, re-allocating sales from one location to another may be in the interest of the business owner but not of John Q. Public, it is therefore not a certain win/win. After all, the vast majority of concern is not in supply, but in demand. The erosion of the middle class ensured that.

Now, if the proposed business is creating something, anything of value, the equation improves. But somehow I doubt you were referring to manufacturing. Development for the sake of development is wrong. Growth for the sake of growth... is the business model of cancer.

jhawkinsf 4 years ago

Unique or innovative would be great, but there is another way. That's with a growing economy, or more specifically, a growing demand in that market. I recall when I was growing up, way back in the stone age, we as a family ate out maybe 2-3 times per year. I would think that would be atypical nowadays. I'd guess families eat out 2-3 times per week. So even if the population was static (which of course it's not) demand for restaurants has gone way up. Will that trend continue? I have no idea. That's for consumers to decide. New restaurants may put old ones out of business. Or they may facilitate the trend towards eating out more. One additional point I'd like to make. If in fact a vacant property that is underutilized were improved, it will take dollars to make those improvements. Carpenters, plumbers, members of the trades will need to be hired. Depending on the size of the project, we could be looking at expenditures of hundreds of thousands well into the millions. I know that's a one time shot, but if that money is spent locally, it could be circulated many times, each time getting taxed a little here and a little there.
I've said in this forum many times that I believe an independent bean counter should guide the city and that cities should then make decisions that are in the best interests of the city. Being philosophically in favor or opposed, to the point we're not even willing to make rational decisions that are in the best interests of the city as a whole, and we start sounding like the dogmatics on either end of the political spectrum.

Kendall Simmons 4 years ago

Studies show that two-thirds of Americans eat out once a week or less. This includes families. This includes fast food restaurants.

And a recent restaurant industry study also shows that the only "trend towards eating out more" is that people had drastically reduced going out to eat during the recession, and are now starting to go to eat again.

I don't fault businesses and developers for asking for breaks. Hey...they all want to make as much profit as possible. (Or avoid losing money.)

But it is not the responsibility of taxpayers to guarantee their profits! Or eliminate their losses.

Lowe's is back in the picture because they see a viable market here. The special tax district was only a bonus.

Olive Garden is also looking because they also see a viable market here.

You don't seriously think that the make-or-break reason they are looking to expand in Lawrence is because of that one location and an hoped-for property tax break, do you?

Trust me. Their corporate "bean-counters" certainly aren't that silly. Any more than Lowe's bean-counters were.

The only people who were silly were the private developers who grossly overpaid for that property, and are now hoping to get bailed out by the rest of us.

jhawkinsf 4 years ago

Note I said the bean counters I suggest using are independent one's advising the city. If it's good for the city and it happens to help a developer, fine. If it helps a developer and not the city, then don't do it. But a new business does not necessarily cannibalize an old one. It might, but it might not. I was talking about trends without specifically getting into whether or not something is true in this case or not.

kansanjayhawk 4 years ago

moderation in temperment is good but moderation in principle is not. We need to compromise on some things but when it comes to reducing the debt and getting our fiscal house in order there must be no turning back!

thebigspoon 4 years ago

Of course not!! We must adhere to the plans put in place by the previous Republican administrations that cut taxes (income to the nation), and created a negative number of jobs for the nation's workers. That'll get our house in order.

Kansanjayhawk, I'm going out on a limb here, but I suspect you are not in the top two percent of income in the nation, so I'm wondering why it is that you persist in bludgeoning those of the rest of the 98% who need something to be done to salvage what's left of our dwindling middle-class lives. If you could please explain this so I am satisfied with my rapidly dwindling status, I'd be happy to tote your flag. Otherwise, both you and I will be toting that barge and lifting that bale, and then what will you complain about?

Cait McKnelly 4 years ago

She does it because she's a sock puppet for the Brownback adminstration, parroting things she doesn't even think about. Just the same thing over and over.

overthemoon 4 years ago

Sort of. They are all puppets of ALEC...which also controls the message and strategy of the 'grassroots' tea party.

Pastor_Bedtime 4 years ago

Yes, moderation is especially important when it comes to government intrusion into private lives. The promotion of marriage, restricting abortion, forcing faith-based initiatives on others is hardly exemplary of moderation or compromise. But it's ok because the vast majority of Kansans see through the lies and will throw Brownback and his fanatical Christian cohorts out of office.

tbaker 4 years ago

How do you force a faith-based initiative?

jafs 4 years ago

Well, you reduce funding to state services, and then you get federal money for faith based initiatives.

As people have fewer options for services, they will by necessity gravitate towards the faith based ones.

Jimo 4 years ago

"The American people are quite polarized these days and angry and I think you see a Congress that reflects the American people. We are polarized and angry," she said.

So .....

Looking for example at gov't debt, when literally dozens and dozens of polls show that those who want to cut only spending (the Republican position) is roughly 20% and those who want some balance between spending cuts and tax revenues (the Democratic position) at 80%, Jenkins sees this as "quite polarized".

I detect no sign that Jenkins was joking when she made this statement.

What's more, people overwhelmingly want Congress to enact a jobs program. Jenkins doesn't.

People overwhelmingly expect spending cuts to reduce debt. Jenkins wants it to pay for more tax cuts for the wealthy (while impliedly want to increase taxes on the poor and working class).

People by massive margins want to end welfare for corporations. Jenkins cannot agree with any plan that takes away from the corporations that fund her political campaigns.

The only one who seems polarized here is Jenkins. Most people are reasonable, moderate persons who believe sacrifices must be shared by all. Jenkins is a radical extremist who disagrees that her wealthy supporters need contribute anything more.

Question is: will many of Jenkins' constituents in her Kansas Appalachia district turn off the Propaganda Channel long enough to become unmisinformed?

dncinnanc 4 years ago

"Jenkins added, "I have always been willing to work with everyone." "

That's funny, I seem to remember a campaign event of hers I was dragged to last year ... she was quite adamant that she would always vote against Obama, no matter what he proposed, and that compromising was out of the question as "that's not what her constituants want." Making things easier for the well off was a predominant theme.

Cait McKnelly 4 years ago

I will never forget her telling a single woman with an infant to "grow up and get a better job".

jayhawklawrence 4 years ago

When Congress has a less than 14% approval rating and dropping that is not polarization.

That is almost a unanimous thumbs down.

texburgh 4 years ago

So Lynn suggests we give more tax cuts to corporations and the wealthy, cut back on medicare and social security which benefit regular working folk, and repeal the entire health care act so we can all continue to be at the mercy of big insurance companies. Sounds an awful lot like the definition of insanity - doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.

You may not like the health care reform act but throwing it out with no alternative plan other than to return to the system that is pushing so many people out of health insurance plans is irresponsible.

It is sad to see a once moderate, sensible Republican like Lynn Jenkins succumb entirely to the wealthy corporate and insurance interests that pull the strings of today's Republican party.

Abdu Omar 4 years ago

People, people, look at the facts. Yes, the Congress only listens to the special interest groups. So let's limit the activities of special interest groups or out law them completely. This is the answer. If a member of Congress wants to consult an Insurance company, that is fine, but no insurance company can give the congress money and favors. This is where the people lose their affect on the congress.

Our congressmen and women go to Washington on a shoe string but come home multi-millionaires. How is that possible? Through contact and selling their vote to special Interest groups. This must stop!!!!

jafs 4 years ago

Of course.

The problem is that the people who would vote to stop it are the same people who are profiting from it.

How would we get them to stop it?

Cant_have_it_both_ways 4 years ago

The credit card people write the laws the way they want them also. Ridding ourselves of those who lobby is part of the solution.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 4 years ago

That would mean actual accountability. Republicans don't go any deeper into accountability than the Grover Norquist Pledge (to shrink the government small enough to drown it in a bathtub.) And they'll tell you with a straight fact that there the real "grownups."

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 4 years ago

OK, there's at least one other typo. You figure them out.

Kendall Simmons 4 years ago

The problem isn't that tax loopholes exist. Or that businesses (my own included) use them to reduce our tax liability...often drastically.

The problem is that our government representatives like Jenkins keep putting the cart before the horse when it comes to corporate taxes.

She claims that 'the Republican plan would cut the highest corporate tax rates', and that that's a good thing to do because 'the US has the highest corporate tax rate in the world'.

However, when "one man at the meeting said the wealthiest Americans and U.S. corporations pay much lower tax rates than average Americans", her response???

"That is because they take advantage of loopholes. She said the tax code needs to be overhauled to remove these loopholes."

Uh...does Jenkins truly not grasp what she just said?? Or does she not care? Or is this a deliberate ploy on her part to fool Americans into agreeing with the "Republican plan"?

I mean, it's pretty darned obvious that...if it's "the loopholes" that actually reduce the tax rate of the wealthiest Americans and US corporations...then lowering the tax rate itself - without eliminating those loopholes FIRST...will mean that the wealthiest Americans and US corporations will pay even LESS than they do now as compared to average Americans!!

Cait McKnelly 4 years ago

Well I guess we'll see when it happens, huh? If it turns out to be true then I guess it will be a case of "Obama lies and saves a million people. Bush lies and kills a million."

riverdrifter 4 years ago

I mean, this guy really believes this "bombshell" crap.

Next.

overthemoon 4 years ago

I'm not sure its at all unusual for an administration or cabinet agency to use fart of its funding to campaign or lobby for the policies its trying to put in place. It takes money to provide the materials to educate the public as to what is proposed. Bush sent a small army out to convince people that his tax cuts were a good thing. I'm sure he didn't pay those expenses out of pocket. I'd prefer that the government has a budget for this rather than taking more corporate money to put the lobbyist slant on issues.

overthemoon 4 years ago

HAHAHA! I just checked out 'Judicial Watch'....tilts way conservative. Now its interesting that they didn't jump on Bush spending more than twice the amount in question on advocating for his Medicare Drug plan. Fox 'news' says this is manipulating public opinion (fine folks to accuse anyone of doing THAT!!)....in fact it is educating the public in matters that affect them....and since the media won't tell the whole story, the government has to put out their own information.

mloburgio 4 years ago

How Bush Broke the Government To gain a true sense of Bush’s legacy, we survey the systematic and politically motivated ways he undermined the federal government. http://prospect.org/cs/articles?article=how_bush_broke_the_government

parrothead8 4 years ago

The problem with politicians today is that they think they represent only the people who voted for them.

Crazy_Larry 4 years ago

The problem with politicians today is they represent only the corporations who bought them.

Crazy_Larry 4 years ago

Opps...should have labeled that link Rated R (language)

KS 4 years ago

It's just amazing. If someone has an "R" behind their name or is a member of the Tea Party, all you guys think they are just scum. Amazing! If Jenkins had a "D" behind her name, you guys would be praising her to no end and bragging about her walking on water.

overthemoon 4 years ago

I think not. If she were a Democrat, she would not be a member of ALEC. She would not have signed on to Norquist's pledge. She would not participate in the complete obstruction of the President at the expense of the American people.

If the Tea Party were a legitimate grassroots movement that exhibited at least a tangential awareness of reality, I'd be all for it. Since it is a fabrication of Americans for Prosperity (launched by the Kochs...there's a video of that launch, look it up) as a manipulable voting block controlled and enflamed by lies and emotional scary stuff, it has absolutely no credibility. The tactics and agenda of those controlling that movement are just about as Un American as it gets.

(does anyone know that Norquist is also a strong advocate for a major Muslim organization and his wife is Muslim?? I don't care, but it seems some of his pledger plebes would go a little ballistic if they knew that)

mloburgio 4 years ago

Survey’s surprising finding: tea party less popular than atheists and Muslims

In an op-ed article in the New York Times, Robert D. Putnam, a professor of public policy at Harvard, and David E. Campbell, a political scientist at Notre Dame, say they have collected data indicating that the tea party is "less popular than much maligned groups like 'atheists' and 'Muslims.'" http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/survey-surprising-finding-tea-party-less-popular-atheists-160220531.html

Jimo 4 years ago

I keep saying:the Partiers will be as popular as child molesters on prison release before this is all over.

The real question is: how much damage will they have done before that point? Will the U.S. be reduced to third-world status by them? Look at their accomplishments in the last year: anti-stimulus that has worsened the economy. Job killing spending cuts. Downgrade in the U.S. credit status. Global markets in turmoil. Millions of American condemned to hopelessness. Bankers allowed to enrich themselves beyond precedent. Corporate financiers of the Tea porked up with record levels of taxpayer financed welfare.

jayhawxrok 4 years ago

Jenkins is a crackpot hypocrite. It took several emails for me to get her office to stop robo-calling me. Crazy as a pet coon, this one is.

tomatogrower 4 years ago

The problem lies with the Republicans. Their leader and Jenkins have stated that their main goal is to make sure Obama is a 1 term president. Why isn't their main goal to promote a strong United States? This is evident in Jenkins statement about loopholes for taxing corporations. She said loopholes should be eliminated, but Obama and a bipartisan group had a plan to do just that, and the Republicans fought it, just because Obama supported it. They lauded Romney for his health care plan in Massachusetts, but now they are against it, because Obama borrowed it. Pretty sick, if you ask me.

I wonder if Obama started to support anti abortion laws and giving tax breaks to corporations and rich people, if the Republicans would suddenly change their minds on these topics just to go against Obama. Hopefully Jenkins will be voted out on Brownback's coattails next election. Moderate Republicans, take back your party, or join the Democrats. Let's get rid of these radicals and come together to solve our state and country's problems. Let's find someone whose only concern is raising money for their next election bid.

overthemoon 4 years ago

Agree. These people are the most destructive group of brainwashed apparatchiks this country has ever seen. I'd say even more than the Southern Confederacy given their ability to lie and misinform at lightening speed via the internet and Fox 'News'.

There is a fairly large and active facebook page for 'Republicans for Obama'. I would, and do, support and applaud those few Republicans who have refused to be hoodwinked by the pledges, by ALEC, and by the strange brew of corporate control and religious fanaticism that has overtaken what once was a strong and reasonable voice in our government.

dinglesmith 4 years ago

Ms Jenkins:

I work every day with people I disagree with. Sometimes deeply and profoundly. Yet, we still get our work done and are extremely successful in what we do. We do not seek to get each other fired or seek to make each other look bad. We do not sabotage our organization to prevent others' ideas from being implemented. We discuss, disagree, decide and move forward with the intent of making or organization better and stronger.

People are pissed off because, quite simply, if we behaved like you and your colleagues we would be fired if our businesses did not collapse first. We are tired of brinksmanship. We are tired of selfishness and putting ideology ahead of common sense. Most of all, we are tired of seeing elected officials not do their jobs and face no consequences.

overthemoon 4 years ago

And they say government should be run like a business.....

Jimo 4 years ago

If government were run like a business .... we'd be borrowing every dime we could.

Currently, real interest rates for government debt are negative. The likes of Warren Buffet would borrow cash, at minimum set the cash aside, and then repay it when due ..... pocketing the difference as profit.

How much more profit there'd be in actually investing that money in infrastructure, education, research, and technology.

Instead, during a period of negative borrowing costs, we get Jenkins, who insists that now----right this very minute----we should be repaying debt, foregoing free money, killing jobs by the millions, and wasting our nations future!

overthemoon 4 years ago

BINGO!!!! All major economists, analysts, business experts, and the OMB and CBO agree. But if we followed that path, the President would look good and the GOP would fail at their 'Job 1' so they pretend to ignore reality.

Money invested in THE PEOPLE has a payback/stimulative effect of 1.40-1.70 on the dollar. Money 'invested' in Corporate Welfare only generates 20-40 cent on the dollar. Money cut from budgets has a null or negative effect. Its money lost. But if you told Jenkins this, showed her the reports and graphs and historical evidence, her eyes would glaze over and she'd repeat the talking points she's been directed to repeat over and over again.

tomatogrower 4 years ago

Excellent letter. Did you send it to her office?

Jimo 4 years ago

Lynn Jenkins is the type of person who ends up being eaten by bears.

guess_again 4 years ago

looks like a new hair color for Lynn. Divorced blonds must have more fun in DC.

BruceWayne 4 years ago

as far as stroke victims go, I think she looks pretty hot.

usnsnp 4 years ago

Another meeting scheduled at a time and place to control how many people would attend. How many middle class working people can take off a friday morning from work, how many minimum wage workers can afford to take off a friday morning from work. And for what, just to hear talking points. It does not make any difference if it is a Republican or Democrat doing this, it is just a tactic to limit numbers and who will attend. Why dont any of them spend a morning at the Saturday Farmers Market, or from 4PM to 7PM at the Cottons Farmer market on Thursday, or All Day on a Saturday at Wal-Mart, Etc. The reason is that they do not want to have to face the general public and have to answer questions in an un-controlled setting. In other words they are chicken.

Getaroom 4 years ago

Lynn Jenkins proved herself to be a lier right along with the best of them in the last election cycle. Smile pretty, get the photo ops, talk only with friendlies, sound bites printed and aired and look where we are now - so better off?. She is no leader, she is another mouth piece of the fear mongering network and more table dressing for Brownbackward and the Christian Crusaders bent on getting the LAW of The Land replaced with GOD'S LAW. She's a reflection of everything that is wrong with government. A real Christine O'donnell-Sarah Palin-Michelle Bachmann-a-like who, like them is scrapping for attention to bask in the lime light of implied power. Smile ladies, GOD loves you more -- because? Oh! because you are true believers... in yourselves.

Smile real pretty Lynn and lie out of your teeth! Nothing new there...............

Sparko 4 years ago

The GOP has yawed sooooo far right thanks to constant reinforcement from a compliant media. Here's the thing: Obama has been leading like a Republican from 1980. The GOP have been screaming like Missourians from 1856. The GOP has said a lot of patently false things about science, economics, the Constitution, education, and even most policies they once advocated a few years or even months ago.

And we get this "compromise is needed" drivel. You can't compromise with stupid, evil, or wrong. There is generally a best course and a knowable truth. If you pander to the radicals of the GOP, you get debt crisis theater and a world on the brink of calamity. Clapping louder will not help. The job of the media is to make us confront truth, no matter how uncomfortable. This story is contributing to the debacle. Just thought I would let you know.

Jimo 4 years ago

Indeed. Does the description "Reagan Democrat" not perfectly capture Obama's views on government?

nativeson 4 years ago

One simple question for Representative Jenkins - Will she consider any revenue enhancement proposals in conjuction with budget cuts including Medicare and Medicaid? If the answer is no, than her discussion regarding compromise is hollow.

blindrabbit 4 years ago

Surprised she can articulate so complicated a problem!

George Lippencott 4 years ago

Compromise is wonderful. But to compromise there must be two alternatives. What is the Democratic Party to include Mr. Obama offer as their solution to our escalating debt? All I here is that we must compromise and tax the rich. Do the Democrats offer taxation of at least some of their constituents such as those who are not poor and pay no federal income tax? Are all the proposed cuts by the Democrats in Defense and middle class entitlements?

Jimo 4 years ago

What is the Democratic Party solution?

Growth through investment. Turn off the Propaganda Channel, George, and become misuninformed.

George Lippencott 4 years ago

I agree wholeheartedly. But for me the investment comes from the private sector and not through government manipulation of the tax system or through direct government investment in the market.

A regulatory and mandate moratorium would do wonders for our investment climate.

Our economy has historically functioned quite well when the government was minimally involved. What makes you think that massive government involvement will do anything but pick winners and loser with the former being Democratic voters.

overthemoon 4 years ago

Apparently you haven't read the analyses of the impact of a regulatory moratorium. Its called 'anarchy'. And it could be extraordinarily harmful to the economy, the environment and most of all to people that are a damn site more important than corporate profiteer machines.

And just when do you think the private sector is going to do this magical investment thingy? Their taxes were lowered in 2003 and it didn't spur investment. Their profits are soaring and investment in the country that gave them the opportunity to succeed just isn't happening. They do not take the opportunity for innovation to meet regulatory requirements and so we fall further behind in new technologies and the potential for leading the world once more.

And when was this golden age when government was 'minimally involved'?? Pre-depression years? Actually, the economy has done MUCH better when taxes have been higher and the government has been directly involved in economic growth. There are statistics you can look up to see the clear relationship between tax rates and income and GDP growth and lower deficits. I can't for the life of me understand why people can not get a grip on the facts or reality. I just keep hearing the same talking points that focus on the exact strategies that have failed in the past and which got us into this mess to begin with. .

George Lippencott 4 years ago

I guess we have a very different view of where we are, how we got here, and how to proceed.

Compromise anybody???

tomatogrower 4 years ago

"I agree wholeheartedly. But for me the investment comes from the private sector..."

Ideally that would be great, George. But American companies haven't been investing in the United States; they have been investing where labor is cheap. Then they convince the American people that having lots of cheap, poorly made stuff is better than having fewer more expensive, but much higher quality stuff. Does the teenager with 20-30 outfits bought at WalMart understand that he/she has helped ruin the US economy?

George Lippencott 4 years ago

Actually, IMHO, competing the American Worker against low wage workers in other counties is the problem. Our leaders (both parties) dropped the tariffs.

Article in WSJ this am about one of our new green start-ups going into bankruptcy despite government subsidies. Low wage companies off shore are cleaning their clock.

There is no solution in demanding that executives spend my investment money to hire people here when the outcome (failure) is assured. I am and will invest off shore.

You are all statists. If you can achieve the power to take all that I have so you can have the government run business you would. It failed in the UK, it failed in the USSR, and it failed in China. What makes you think you can make it work here???

overthemoon 4 years ago

Nobody's coming for your piggy bank, promise. Here's the part of this whole discussion that is overlooked. The cries of 'redistribution of wealth' and 'socialism' are completely wrong and overly simplistic in order to appeal to an emotional level rather than a rational understanding of reality.

When money, from revenues raised with appropriate taxation on the wealthy, is infused into the economy, its like priming the pump. The unemployed, small business (real small business, not the hugely profitable money changers that don't have many employees), infrastructure projects, programs for education, technology, etc etd put the money immediately to work in purchasing goods and services. It increases demand. And then the big businesses and investors start doing better and hire more people, who spend money and create more demand. And then you know what?? That 'redistributed wealth' makes it back to the pockets of the wealthy and the balance sheets of the corporations. And they make more business and the money is cycling through the system as it does in a healthy economy. VOILA!!

As it stands right now, there is no demand so the people with all the money are just sitting on it. Its not circulating and the longer this goes on, the longer it will take the economy to be any where near healthy.

Here's an interesting article about this: http://robertreich.org/post/9142270982

and another on job creation http://www.commondreams.org/view/2011/08/20-4#.Tk_9hb_7gaA.facebook

George Lippencott 4 years ago

So where are we disagreeing? Did you intrepret my tax cuts to be for the rich. Giggle. No!!! Raise their taxes and redistribute their money to those in the middle. The middle spends (and invests).

Kendall Simmons 4 years ago

Believe it or not, choosing between tax cuts and no tax increases and tax cuts plus tax increases actually DOES offer two alternatives. I don't understand why some folks don't see this.

As far as regulations being the problem? Not hardly. That's just another specious argument made for the purpose of increasing profits...with no commensurate effect on employment.

Why is it so hard for some folks to grasp that increased consumer demand is what leads to new jobs? NOT increased profits?

And why is it so hard for some folks to understand that, while government regulations requiring, say, clean water...oh, the horror!...may mean that some jobs are "killed", it also means that other jobs are created in the new industries that spring up? Or that the tradeoff, e.g. profits in lieu of clean water, may not be a particularly good idea?

George Lippencott 4 years ago

You are right if you narrow the definition of the issue to taxes. The actual issue is paying our bills. The alternatives are cuts and revenue. The Republicans have put two versions of that (no revenue) on the table. The Democrats have yet to do so. They just demand more revenue.

The Republican base wants no tax increases and major reductions in the size of government. They support a rational national defense

The Democratic base wants substantial tax increases (roll back the Bush Tax Cuts that primarily hit the middle and upper middle, major cuts in Defense and no substantial cuts in entitlements.

Now if both were on the table at the same time a compromise might take the form of some level of tax increases (maybe even some on the lower income group), reasonable cuts in defense and an overhaul of our entitlement. The latter so that they remain solvent over the long haul and for those targeting the poor they produce the desired outcome of returning the poor to self-sufficiency.

Kendall Simmons 4 years ago

I'm sorry, but the alternatives are not simply "cuts and revenue". That's why the Democratic proposals have included BOTH.

Sure...that means that you're technically correct when you say that the Democrats have yet to offer a plan that only includes revenue. But why on earth would we want the Democrats to do so?

You, yourself, wrote "The Republican base wants no tax increases...The Democratic base wants substantial tax increases...and no substantial cuts in entitlements."

Got that? Your very own words. NO tax increases vs. no SUBSTANTIAL cuts.

Sounds to me like...even though you apparently don't want to admit it...even you noticed that one party was willing to put at least a small part of what the other party wanted on the table.

George Lippencott 4 years ago

Exactly what is the Democratric proposal for cuts?? I must have missed that. Are you referring to Mr. Obama's speech?? The CBO dismissed that

I am waiting!!

overthemoon 4 years ago

I'm not sure that a 3% increase in taxes is 'substantial. That the amount of the Bush Tax cuts. Or there's the alternative of getting rid of all the deductions, loopholes, and handy tax shelters while lowering tax rates to 20-25% for the mega-rich. They'd be paying more in taxes perhaps (since many pay a far lower marginal rate) but they'd still KEEP 76%. Lucky dogs.

George Lippencott 4 years ago

I happen to agree with you on whaping the rich and think there is a compromise there.

I also think that entitlements need to be revamped and Isee no Democratic offer there.

overthemoon 4 years ago

Obama presented his ideas on 'entitlement' reform. Streamline medicare, revisit the possibility of wholesale or generic drugs for medicare, change the caps on SS taxes, create a tiered payment so that those who really don't need SS don't get as much or any, etc etc. Also, the Affordable Care Act has a number of provisions for revamping medicaid and medicare.

The constant claims from the right that Obama or the dems haven't provided any plans is simply not correct. They just don't like the plans presented (even if it matches what they proposed) so they pretend none exist.

George Lippencott 4 years ago

Yes he did with no detail and the CBO dismissed it. Detail is required to "score" proposals. I want detail.

What changes for whom and when. Generalities are useless. A 4% tax increase is real and meaningful and can be scored (raises $700B over ten years).

lunacydetector 4 years ago

i am officially on the obama diet plan. i cannot afford to buy as much food as before, so now i will eat less. thanks president obama........when do the hunger pains go away?...please ask michelle.

Jimo 4 years ago

I thought you were working on the GOP diet plan - the one where you give all your money away to your rich uncle and then let your children starve. What was wrong with that? Didn't work? Rich uncle claims he doesn't owe you a thing?

tbaker 4 years ago

Do you remember when, five days prior to the election in 2008, Obama stood in front of a group of supporters and told them that “We are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America!”? Perhaps it's time for us to pay a bit more attention to what he ment by that. He gives us hints by the things he says:

We need to raise taxes because we need to spread the wealth around. He referred to working for the private sector is “working behind enemy lines.” Does that mean the private sector is America’s enemy? He said sometimes you have to just admit that you’re making too much money. He thinks, yes, an increase in capital gains taxes would probably result in a decrease in tax revenue, but we need to do it out of fairness. And (my favorite) some people just have more money than they need and they should pay more taxes.

I don't need anymore hints. Ever wonder why we are in the middle of the worst economic "recovery" since the Great Depression? Why can’t our economy get on track? Why another 408,000 additional American applied for jobless benefits last week? Earthquake in Japan caused it? Bad luck?

Really?

pace 4 years ago

She has done nada about jobs, applauded foreclosures, hurt the economy but we get it. she hates Obama, got it. the Hate party

George Lippencott 4 years ago

So having planned my housing properly and not put myself upside down I should now be rewarded by having to bail out those who took a flyer???

If one looks seriously at where the foreclosures are one finds the majority in places where markets were unbelievably overheated. If you took a flyer (aware or not) the rest of us should not have to bail you out. If housing policy in this country had been properly regulated (failure by both parties), we would not be in this fix as far as lower income people are concerned.

Las Vegas is replete with tales of lower income people that tried to flip houses for a quick gain (DC and California the same) and were caught. Proper housing policy would have avoided that. The result is not the problem of the rest us!!!

Not wanting to pay selectively for losers in the recession does not make us anti-American or heartless. Why must we pay for houses for the poor (Democratic constituency) and not for middle class investors in the stock market (Republican constituency)? They both lost and both claim innocence.

Kendall Simmons 4 years ago

"If housing policy in this country had been properly regulated..."???

I thought you said you wanted a regulatory moratorium? That it "would do wonders for our investment climate"?

Uh...

overthemoon 4 years ago

George often contradicts himself from one sentence to the next. Sometimes even within one sentence.

George Lippencott 4 years ago

I guess it is the nuance thing. Thought liberals were good at that. Apparently not - they are just good at gotchas.

Frankly, I am not opposed to regulation - just regulatory burdens that are out of proportion to gain among other issues.

The issue, by the way, is not regulation, it is uncertainty. Guess you missed that!!

overthemoon 4 years ago

No, I didn't miss the 'uncertainty' excuse. That isn't right either. Its demand.

George Lippencott 4 years ago

Yes demand is not there because people are uncertain about their future. Business will not invest because they are uncertain about their future.

Quit messing with the system for a while and let people get back to a comfort zone and demand will pick up.

I (and others like me) do not buy things because we are looking at tax increases, cuts in income, regulatory costs raising our utiltiy bills, mandates increasing our medcial insurance costs and on and on.

If we knew what they were we could plan. In the uncertainty created so far by this administration nobody knows where we are going. Worst of all situations.

overthemoon 4 years ago

Demand doesn't come from the producers. It comes from the consumers...and the consumers don't have money to spend. Its not uncertainty...its hard core reality. Can't afford stuff today...'the future' is not really on the budget calendar yet.

The uncertainty is largely manufactured by the media and by the constant obstruction and objection to any plan enacted or proposed. There is, in fact, deal of certainty. The GOP will not allow one iota of progress if it might make the president look good. That has become quite certain.

George Lippencott 4 years ago

New regulations.

If you establish a public policy to make loans to high risk borrowers with my money behind it I expect appropriate provivions to make sure the process works.

Can you understand the diference???

overthemoon 4 years ago

George. Party affiliation is not neatly divided at the line between rich and poor. You really think only Republicans invest in the stock market? Better tell that one to Warren Buffet. But then you said earlier that the stock market was 'democratic'.

Personally, for what many have lost in this economic disaster feels more like theft than 'loss' when we see those money changers making out like bandits those who actually make and do the stuff that makes money for the stock market are sliding off the edge.

George Lippencott 4 years ago

Simplistic comment on my part. You are right. However, if you intend to help some peopel you should help all people - not just those who vote heavily for your party.

However, bankers have contributed much money to both parties. You have to wonder why they got off so lightly,

Scott Tichenor 4 years ago

Jenkins added, "I have always been willing to work with everyone."

Riiiiiggghhttt. Say whatever crap you wish to do what you think will help you keep your job and your Cadillac health care benefits but don't expect us all to believe your lies.

Kendall Simmons 4 years ago

I just read the Judicial Watch "expose" about the Obama administration 'Bankrolling a Massive Internet Propaganda Campaign to Push Obamacare...and laughed hysterically.

Jeez. It was nothing more than a simple pay-per-click campaign. Good grief!

Apparently only the folks who are against something the current administration supports can express their opinion through TV and radio, newspaper and magazine...and Internet ads that you don't have to pay for unless someone CLICKS on them.

Jimo 4 years ago

Heck, it's estimated that at least a third and perhaps even half of these poor saps commenting on pages such as this are in the employ of one corporatist shill or another. You didn't seriously believe there were that many fools living on minimum wage but convinced that billionaires are their buddies, did you? Granted, most don't earn their pay but it does manage to through a lot of sand in people's eyes.

Kendall Simmons 4 years ago

Nope...but I do believe there are tons of folk who are convinced that some of those billions will "trickle down" to them via the jobs they've been fooled into thinking those billionaires will create.

overthemoon 4 years ago

Yea, I read that, too. And even though Judicial Watch does go after some conservatives, it failed to 'expose' the Bush adm when they spent 6 Million in the exact same way pushing the Medicare Drug Plan...which clearly benefited big Pharma and has cost us a lot more than that 6 million in advertising costs.

Richard Heckler 4 years ago

The day Reagan/Bush came to power is the day bipartisanship began the mass exodus and polarization stepped up and so did Iran-Contra weapons smuggling with Iran as a partner.

This is what followed:

Introducing the RINO Plaftorm Written In Stone:

The RINO party has a long history of economic destruction and crime to include Iran-Contra and Watergate. Like or not a consistent and disturbing pattern has developed by their choosing.

STOP electing RINO’s ! My My father in law left the RINO party because he is a fiscal conservative republican with at least 50 years under his belt. Evermore stunning he is working with the democrat party in Pennsylvania.

After spending so so many decades in Washington D.C on tax dollar payrolls RINO’s are sure they learned all they needed to know about OUR money and founding reckless economies. RINO’s have much experience under their belts that they never quit sharing.

Introducing the RINO Plaftorm Written In Stone:

  1. TABOR is Coming by Grover Norquist and Koch Bros sells out state governments http://www.dollarsandsense.org/archives/2005/0705rebne.html

  2. The Reagan/Bush Savings and Loan Heist(Cost taxpayers $1.4 trillion) http://rationalrevolution0.tripod.com/war/bush_family_and_the_s.htm

  3. Wall Street Bank Fraud on Consumers under Bush/Cheney sent the economy out the window costing taxpayers many many $$$ trillions and millions of jobs. http://www.dollarsandsense.org/archives/2009/0709macewan.html

  4. ONLY 3 financial institutions were at risk so why $700 billion in bail out money? http://www.democracynow.org/2009/9/10/good_billions_after_bad_one_year

Tax cuts which do nothing to make an economy strong or produce jobs.

  1. Still A Bad Idea – Bush Tax Cuts - The ENTITLEMENT program for the wealthy at the expense of the middle class http://www.dollarsandsense.org/archives/2001/0301miller.html

In the end big debt and super duper bailouts were the results which does not seem to bother Republicans, as long as they are in power.

In fact, by the time the second Bush left office, the national debt had grown to $12.1 trillion:

  • Over half of that amount had been created by Bush’s tax cuts for the very wealthy.

  • Another 30% of the national debt had been created by the tax cuts for the wealthy under Presidents Reagan and George H.W. Bush.

• Fully 81% of the national debt was created by just these three Republican Presidents. http://www.dollarsandsense.org/archives/2010/0111orr.html

love2fish_ks 4 years ago

The problem is not the Tea Party or Move On. This is a lack of leadership from the President. Hillary called it when she said the Presidency is too important to have someone who votes 'present' or is 'on the job training.'

The President has failed to lead and his policies have failed. It is time to recognize the failure and go in a different direction. Divided government is nothing new. President Regan and President Clinton both had a divided government and the economy was great. The diffrence between those Presidents and the Obama is that they knew how to lead in a divided government.

We can grow our way out of this mess but we need jobs to do it.

It is past time to call it what it is....and past time to draft Hillary to run. We need her. We would not be in this mess if she had won.

Jimo 4 years ago

We literally see the President adopt one Republican position after another, in some cases the actual bills in Congress that Republicans sponsor!, only to have the GOP turn around and denounce what they believe in five minutes ago. But the problem is Obama's "lack of leadership"?

Health insurance mandates? GOP idea until Obama endorsed. Tax cuts on payrolls? GOP idea until Obama endorsed. Cap and trade? GOP idea until Obama endorsed. Bipartisan debt commission? GOP idea until Obama endorsed. Pay as you go budgeting? GOP idea until Obama endorsed. Trying terrorists in civilian courts? GOP idea until Obama endorsed. Taxing banks to recover bailout money? GOP idea until Obama endorsed. Letting families & business buy insurance across state lines? GOP idea until Obama endorsed. End tax subsidy for employer provided health insurance? GOP idea until Obama endorsed. Market-based health insurance reform? GOP idea until Obama endorsed. Stay out of Libya? GOP idea until Obama endorsed. Get involved in Libya? GOP idea until Obama endorsed. Employ drones over the Mexican border to stop illegal immigration? GOP idea until Obama endorsed. Financial disclosure of campaign money? GOP idea until Obama endorsed. Immigration reform? GOP idea until Obama endorsed. Spending curbs on Medicare budget? GOP idea until Obama endorsed.

Again and again, Republicans voted for proposals that they now vote against.

We see a House Speaker who is so incompetent at this job that he cannot even produce legislation capable of passing Congress without calling on the President to do the Speaker's job for him.

Sorry, but we have never had a Congress of Republicans who would filibuster a bill to praise Apple Pie and Mothers before .... if Obama endorsed it. Voters haven't been fooled. They have correctly identified the Partiers as the pig in the apple bin.

tbaker 4 years ago

Letting families & business buy insurance across state lines? GOP idea until Obama endorsed. End tax subsidy for employer provided health insurance? GOP idea until Obama endorsed. Market-based health insurance reform? GOP idea until Obama endorsed.

Why was none of this in Obamacare? Why was the bill that the GOP introduced that contained these things defeated by the dems?

Get your facts straight.

jafs 4 years ago

People can buy insurance across state lines if the states agree to it.

And market based health insurance reform is exactly what we're getting - there's no public option, or Medicare for all type of system.

tomatogrower 4 years ago

"Why was none of this in Obamacare?"

This will be taken care of with the health insurance exchanges. Of course, Brownback has nixed that in Kansas. Why don't you try reading the bill. You just believe what Faux News and your tea party cohorts tell you. Brownback had the perfect opportunity to set up an exchange, using Federal, not state money, and define it the way he wanted it, which would imply that he would want more competition between insurance companies. But the insurance companies don't like the competition that the exchange will bring. Their profits will go down. They will have to compete, which sounds like capitalism to me. Why are the tea party and Republicans opposed to forcing the insurance companies to compete? Why are they being so anti-capitalism? Is it because they are heavily invested in insurance companies? Is it because the insurance companies hold their puppet strings?

overthemoon 4 years ago

Brownback didn't nix exchanges. He nixed the opportunity for the State to design its own exchange program. Now the federally designed exchange will be implemented.

tomatogrower 4 years ago

The federal exchange will include all insurance providers. Brownback could have done the same thing and owned it, but his supporters like things the way it is now. Fewer competitors, more profit. Brownback is actually anti-capitalism.

camper 4 years ago

With all due respect, the President's main power is the veto, executive order, and commander in chief. Another is power of influence, but this is most often subject to the congress approval via the passage of budgets and legislation.

I believe if you criticize President Obama for a lack of leadership, you must consider his lack of influence upon congress as the issue. In reality this seems patently impossible as the House majority's main goal is to see President Obama fail. This is true if you look at former positions from the Rebublican Party that they have since flipped stance. There are even initiatives made by Republicans, which President Obama has supported, but now receives a lack of support from the same that initiated it in the first place. With these facts in mind, it is reasonable to assume that it is impossible to execute influence amongst this absurdity.

President Obama has influence though. He is the 1st President in my lifetime who speaks off the cuff (despite right-wing telepromptor inuendoes) and you know is speaking from a basis of truth. We see this, but as polls indicate the reduction in popularity, we are impatient and do not connect that no matter how much goodwill is found in a speech or plea to the Nation, it must be blessed by congress. Obama wanted a public option. The public did. congress didn't. Obama wanted a 4 trilion defecit reduction, congress didn't. Obama wanted tax reform, congress didn't. Obama wanted to raise taxes on the top bracket, congress didn't. Obama wanted to cut payroll taxes, congress only aproved in concession to not raising the top tax bracket.

Forget that I disagree with his continuing support of Afghanistan and Iraq because of these long time lines of exit. President Obama is the man I support. He is a man, the best leader we've had in a long time. And I say this because I happen to like Reagen and Bush and Carter and Bush, tho I did not always agree with there policy. Even if you put there policy against the rhetoric from congress and Tea Party junk, these guys are saints. I do not doubt their noble intentions.

George Lippencott 4 years ago

Based on this logic what happened for the first two years??

camper 4 years ago

TARP and Stimulus. Helped level the pain of the depresion. Was no solution tho.

Other than that I saw Palin bus tours, palin crosshairs, tea party uglyism, Repubican flip-flopping, congress holding the world hostage with a debt ceiling crisis, Republicans not willing to reduce the debt, Republicans not willing to raise taxes 3 points on the wealthy, Republican Govenor from Texas threaten the non partisan Fed Reserve chairman, false cries of Socialism, watered down heath care reform, "the surge is working" rhetoric in Iraq and Afghanistan, Fat and Obese Tea Partiers.

George Lippencott 4 years ago

I saw a reverse Reagan. A substantial increase in the regular budget of the US (without funding) for all kinds of pet Democratic causes (some labeled as stimulus)

I saw a significant increase in entitlements that had nothing to do with stimulus (Obama Care, Chips, and Medicaid).

I saw a stimulus that was spent on bailing out rich bankers (Democratic constituency), providing jobs for construction workers (Democratic constituency) like the Lawrence side walk project and subsidies to state and local governments to avoid layoffs of government employees (Democratic constituency) that in about half the cases have occurred anyway.

Perhaps the stimulus might have been more effective if it actually stipulated business and consumers (tax rebates, regulatory moratoriums, no mandates, etc)

There are two very different worldviews here and neither is right or wrong. One has not worked rcently. Perhaps we should try the other. It has worked in the past.

overthemoon 4 years ago

George, it hasn't worked in the past. NEVER. And you're really misrepresenting a lot with your broadbrushing with eyes wide shut. And you're putting a lot of things together that just don't belong together. That was a Sesame Street song. A lesson worth learning.

Bank Bailout....pushed by Paulson and Bernanke under Bush's watch. And you really thing 'democratic constituencies' were targeted? That's so weird I haven't even heard it before. Perhaps because the ENTIRE working class is more dem than republican (by varying margins year to year) we should not do anything that helps them to get back to work???

George Lippencott 4 years ago

overthemoon (anonymous) replies… George, it hasn't worked in the past. NEVER.

Well we disagree.

overthemoon 4 years ago

Name a time when there was 'small' government and prosperity for more than the very wealthy and economic growth.

George Lippencott 4 years ago

I would name the fifties and sixties. Government did not get big unitl the middle of the sixties and got wacked iback in the aarly seventies.

Now I am not LO so I see many roles for the government but not direct investments in the market.

Lets us keep on topic.

tbaker 4 years ago

According to Gallop, Only 11% of Americans are satisfied with the way things are going in our country right now. This is the lowest level in satisfaction we have seen since December 2008, and it is only a few points higher than the all-time low, which was recorded in October 2008. It has been nearly two years, and almost eight months since Barack Obama was inaugurated. We are $3.7 trillion poorer and we spend 24% more than we did in 2008. There are 2.5 million fewer Americans working and businesses are paying $38 billion more every year just to comply with federal regulations. One in seven people are on food stamps, and according to the Annie Casey Foundation, one in five children live in poverty in the US now, yet the President needs to finish his elite vacation before he can come up with a “jobs plan?”

Really? Either the man is out of touch, or things are going just as he planned.

jafs 4 years ago

According to something I read recently, the current problem is not one that can be solved by the government.

The government has pumped lots of money into the economy, but it's sitting stagnant, rather than being used, by corporations, banks, etc.

What needs to happen is for the private sector to invest that money, rather than sitting on it, for banks to start lending rather than buying T-bonds for a nice little profit (having gotten the money for virtually nothing from the Fed).

overthemoon 4 years ago

They won't invest until there is demand. There won't be demand until the middle class has the ability to buy stuff. That is why stimulus is needed create jobs at the 'low end' to restart the cycling of money through the system. Then the real 'job creators' (small to mid size business) will start making more stuff and hiring more people. And the rich will make money off it all and everybody will be happy again.

jafs 4 years ago

I agree that if we're going to do any sort of stimulus spending, it should be at the low end.

But, given the massive amounts of money the government has already put into the economy, it seems to me the private sector should be doing that investing themselves by now.

If I were in charge, I would have mandated that companies getting government stimulus money actually spend it as they were intended to do, and not let banks get virtually free money from the Fed and then buy government T-bonds with it, for example.

George Lippencott 4 years ago

To OYM: see note above. Give a tax break to the middle and raise the tax on the rich and the market will respond to the released pent up demand from the middle. One condition - stop messing with the rules so people know what to expect.

Construction workers are not the low end. A goodly portion of governemnt employees are not the low end.

overthemoon 4 years ago

I think that most gov't stimulus money's create jobs through contracting, not through more 'government workers'. So I don't know why you mention government employees. At this point, "low end" can be stretched to include the bottom 60% of wage earners whose income has been stagnant or declining for over a decade. Its the working class. Sure, some construction workers make good money by the hour, but they're often not employed year round.

George Lippencott 4 years ago

You are right - it did through contracting "shovel ready" projects that unfortunately are still not ready in some cases - mitigated the impact of the stimulus.

But the stimulus also went to local governments who apent it on employees. Useful but not partiucularly a stimulus as they already had jobs.

Flap Doodle 4 years ago

Spending 10 days hanging out with the ultra-wealthy on Martha's Vineyard is just what the Prez needs to reconnect with the plight of average Americans, don't you think?

jafs 4 years ago

The problem of that disconnect is real, but it's shared with many politicians, and many presidents.

It's not unique to Obama.

Bush's ranch in Texas didn't get him any closer to the average American either.

yourworstnightmare 4 years ago

In other news....

[Insert anti-Obama knee-jerk here]

overthemoon 4 years ago

Martha's Vineyard is a large and diverse area. All kinds of folks there. Paul Ryan avoided his constituents and took his family to Colorado...is anyone angry that the congress people are taking vacations as well?

jafs 4 years ago

Uh oh, tbaker and I are agreeing on a few things :-)

yourworstnightmare 4 years ago

overthemoon is exactly right.

Corporations are sitting on record amounts of money. They are not creating jobs with that money becasue the demand from consumers is weak. They would be foolish to create jobs in the absence of demand.

This is why the stimulus at all levels is important, so that consumers can start spending momney again and corporations can use their record cash reserves to start creating jobs.

George Lippencott 4 years ago

Send me the money by reducing my taxes and I will spend it. Recover the tax loss by taxing the rich. Get the governemnt out of the rest. What I am describing is stimulus just not government centered stimulus.

yourworstnightmare 4 years ago

"Send me the money by reducing my taxes and I will spend it. Recover the tax loss by taxing the rich. "

I agree, George.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.