Report on yahoo says it has saved or created nearly 650,000 jobs....and is on track to save or create 3.5 million by the end of 2010.

That's great news people! So far this year, the e onomy has lost.....4-6 million jobs, and if we keep doing what we've been doing, not only will no more jobs be lost, but to make the math work, well gain (not save) an additional 3 million jobs.


“Poor Al Gore. Global warming completely debunked via the very Internet you invented. Oh, oh, the irony!” -Jon Stewart

I saved 32,000 jobs single handedly...


True story





"The FACTS are always subject to CHANGE once the TRUTH is applied"
"In the entire history of man the only stupid questions are the ones that don't get asked"

It's fuzzy math no matter how it's calculated, for the "saved or created" term is a bit broad to define.

However, taken from a less cynical point of view, it's merely saying that the total losses of 4 - 6 million, with 650,000 more would have been...either 15% greater (if your 4 million is correct) or 10% greater (were your 6 million correct).

I find it endlessly entertaining though, that you question their math's accuracy by quoting a "range" of two million jobs (difference from 4 to 6 million). LOL, your "range" is three times the 650,000 number you find hinky!

ScottaWhite wrote:Report on yahoo says it has saved or created nearly 650,000 jobs....and is on track to save or create 3.5 million by the end of 2010.

Funny, but last I heard, most economists, including the CBO, are predicting at least another 2 million jobs lost in 2010. The investigating and calculating required to estimate "saved" jobs is an undertaking that would require a budget higher than that of what we've spent so far of the stimulus money. It's a figure that can't be disputed, but no one seems to be doing a very good job of pointing out that it can't be substantiated, either.

Bottom line, the Whitehouse is going to continue to say what a great job the stimulus plan is doing, and they're going to continue to use the adjusted unemployment figures, because, due to the way they are calculated, they paint a less bleak picture of the real story. As I posted here, September had the largest number of jobs lost since January, but due to people exhausting their regular unemployment benefits, the number of people in the measured workforce drops, showing a smaller increase in the unemployed number as it is reported. The real number that needs to be looked at is the difference between the number of employed one month to the next. The BLS measures this as the U6 unemployment. This number is currently over 16%. When the government can actually report any real increases in the number of people employed, they can start claiming we're recovering.

Also worthy of noting is Edmunds.com's analysis of auto sales for the last quarter. They are experts at tracking and predicting sales figures in the auto industry, and have figured that only 125,000 more cars were sold than would have been had it not been for the C4C program. Furthermore, they estimate that a large amount of the sales that happened in the third quarter would have happened in the fourth quarter, so when the fourth quarter numbers come in, we are going to see a steep drop that wouldn't have happened had the market been left alone. You can read an article on it here. I even used CNN Money.com, which can't possibly be argued to be a right-wing site, for anyone that might want to question the source.

ScottaWhite wrote:Report on yahoo says it has saved or created nearly 650,000 jobs....and is on track to save or create 3.5 million by the end of 2010.

That's great news people! So far this year, the e onomy has lost.....4-6 million jobs, and if we keep doing what we've been doing, not only will no more jobs be lost, but to make the math work, well gain (not save) an additional 3 million jobs.

Does this really surprise you on any job loss figure? Look at where your shirt is made, the t.v you watch is made, listen to the accent from the customer service over at AT&T is from, the Delco spark plug where is made, the many of the foods you eat are grown. There's one thing in common; not made in the USA. So what can you expect, that's an aspect capitalism, you have to maximize your profit, and well... if the outside can do the same job for peanuts, pack your suite case... because that where the job force will head.
Oh and best of all, don't expect those jobs to comeback, unless near slavery-like salaries are brought back and/or nice hefty 80s like corporate welfare to entice. But you all know; that the lowly paycheck nobody wants to have, but most of the JBO loves to say and insist will "save american jobs" if it was instilled today.


THE POLITICALLY INCORRECT ONE.

"Does this really surprise you on any job loss figure? Look at where your shirt is made, the t.v you watch is made, listen to the accent from the customer service over at AT&T is from, the Delco spark plug where is made, the many of the foods you eat are grown. There's one thing in common; not made in the USA. So what can you expect, that's an aspect capitalism, you have to maximize your profit, and well... if the outside can do the same job for peanuts, pack your suite case... because that where the job force will head. "
-mrGoodwrenchgt

Don't get off on your anti-capitalism rant or you'll blow your cover and somebody new might see you for the socialist (communism-lite) that you are.

It isn't capitalism that sends jobs overseas. Having one of the worlds highest business tax will do the job handily. Want to see more jobs go byebye? Pass a piece of crap legislation that mandates businesses give healthcare to their employees...and if they don't, steal their money and buy it for the worker anyway.

You can't have a taxpayer funded socialist society, while at the same time have low taxes. You may think that only the wealthiest 5% will be taxed, but heck, if O.B.ama told you that Republicans created swine flu in a secret lab to kill babies....


“Poor Al Gore. Global warming completely debunked via the very Internet you invented. Oh, oh, the irony!” -Jon Stewart

Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:Does this really surprise you on any job loss figure? Look at where your shirt is made, the t.v you watch is made, listen to the accent from the customer service over at AT&T is from, the Delco spark plug where is made, the many of the foods you eat are grown. There's one thing in common; not made in the USA. So what can you expect, that's an aspect capitalism, you have to maximize your profit, and well... if the outside can do the same job for peanuts, pack your suite case... because that where the job force will head.
Oh and best of all, don't expect those jobs to comeback, unless near slavery-like salaries are brought back and/or nice hefty 80s like corporate welfare to entice. But you all know; that the lowly paycheck nobody wants to have, but most of the JBO loves to say and insist will "save american jobs" if it was instilled today.

Of course, it's always the "corporate welfare" (aka not raping every company who succeeds in this country with a punitive tax code) that's to blame for jobs lost to other countries. It's never the fact that the burdens placed on US companies when it comes down to general operations and especially the cost of employees drives them out of business or out of the country.

We won't see those jobs come back until everyone stops believing that Corporate America needs to be punished over and over again via oppressive regulations and tax policies is driven out of the general sentiment of the average American.

ScottaWhite wrote:"Does this really surprise you on any job loss figure? Look at where your shirt is made, the t.v you watch is made, listen to the accent from the customer service over at AT&T is from, the Delco spark plug where is made, the many of the foods you eat are grown. There's one thing in common; not made in the USA. So what can you expect, that's an aspect capitalism, you have to maximize your profit, and well... if the outside can do the same job for peanuts, pack your suite case... because that where the job force will head. "
-mrGoodwrenchgt

Don't get off on your anti-capitalism rant or you'll blow your cover and somebody new might see you for the socialist (communism-lite) that you are.

It isn't capitalism that sends jobs overseas. Having one of the worlds highest business tax will do the job handily. Want to see more jobs go byebye? Pass a piece of crap legislation that mandates businesses give healthcare to their employees...and if they don't, steal their money and buy it for the worker anyway.

You can't have a taxpayer funded socialist society, while at the same time have low taxes. You may think that only the wealthiest 5% will be taxed, but heck, if O.B.ama told you that Republicans created swine flu in a secret lab to kill babies....

Doesn't take much to figure and understand any "ism" has its ups and down, but it does not surprise me that you could not figure out differences, you hear a sound byte and it's automatic gospel: "not with us...commie." Simpletons, will regurgitate the line, with out thought.
When you figure out what capitalism is and what are some of their aspects (text-book definition...not wikipedia), you will see how it correlates with the two.

Any facts to your assumption on health care will make the jobs go "bye-bye?"

As for "You can't have a taxpayer funding socialist society," Really? All the "socialist" programs from school, to roads, to product safety checks, to libraries, to police/fire protection, seem to work fine around here. Oh yea, that's right, it is only socialist when government offers a health care system, even though for the past what ever years, low income folks gets government assist already... but no, it NOW-- dum-Dum-DUMMMMMM... Socialism!

"You may think that only the wealthiest 5% will be taxed"
Spoken like you belong in the category... of course lol
Tell me, are you one of the those schmucks that believe that if you make $30K-$50 per year you are under the 1% category?
Some others may laugh, but I saw a statistic about 4 years ago in which a healthy dose believed this.

Misinformation Peddler wrote: Of course, it's always the "corporate welfare" (aka not raping every company who succeeds in this country with a punitive tax code) that's to blame for jobs lost to other countries. It's never the fact that the burdens placed on US companies when it comes down to general operations and especially the cost of employees drives them out of business or out of the country.

What else would you call money grants, tax breaks, or other special favorable treatment on corporations or selected corporations? I gauge you have a problem labeling it what it is?

Quote:

We won't see those jobs come back until everyone stops believing that Corporate America needs to be punished over and over again via oppressive regulations and tax policies is driven out of the general sentiment of the average American.

Oddly the taxing has not changed from the previous administration, what's more & weirdly history showed when taxed up the ass, the country/employment was doing fine... then again that was when $hit was made here, and people were making money and in turn had money to spend... yes (gasp) people moved the economy, so corporates had no problem with high taxes. Now jobs are overseas, and everybody wonders why the economy doesn't move?


THE POLITICALLY INCORRECT ONE.

I think MI. may have finnaly run out of manufacturing jobs to purge. In Aug. we dropped back below 15%, but did have a slight increase of .1% for September. Im still sitting at 2 months of work for the year and if things go well I may be back to work next week, just not sure how long.

of course there aren't facts yet on jobs lost when healthcare becomes mandatory. How would you propose preventing an employer from operating overseas? Make it illegal?

Everyone enjoys the product of a police force, military, schools, roads, etc. However, it is wrong to tax group A at a higher rate than group B. (flat tax would be fair).

Other than envy, can you explain why someone who makes $100,000 per year has a responsibility to pay a higher tax rate than someone who makes $30,000? You'll probably chase the rabbit of tax loopholes etc, but I want to know, what is the fundamental reason why?

I made $29,500 last year, so my reasons behind this belief are idealogical, not personal. If there are four people that want to split a large pizza, do they sit around arguing that the richest of the four should have to pay 70% of the price of the pie, while only getting an equal share?


“Poor Al Gore. Global warming completely debunked via the very Internet you invented. Oh, oh, the irony!” -Jon Stewart

Quote:

of course there aren't facts yet on jobs lost when healthcare becomes mandatory.

Show them I would like to be enlightened. And I request no biased BS either.

Quote:

How would you propose preventing an employer from operating overseas? Make it illegal?

Remove the tax incentive as in corporate welfare that gives less taxing when building outside. The obvious choice is less tax when building here. But the way it is setup is, less taxes (if workforce is outside) and less payroll payment as the outside has no minimum wage. Nice win-win for the folks on top.

Quote:

Everyone enjoys the product of a police force, military, schools, roads, etc. However, it is wrong to tax group A at a higher rate than group B. (flat tax would be fair).

Wait, you are sounding like commie, who said anything about fair? Time and time again, nothing is fair. No?

Quote:

Other than envy, can you explain why someone who makes $100,000 per year has a responsibility to pay a higher tax rate than someone who makes $30,000? You'll probably chase the rabbit of tax loopholes etc, but I want to know, what is the fundamental reason why?

Personally the tax brackets are skewed to screw up the lower-middle class, but that is just me. By taxing more on the upper section puts it to a (more of) equivalent ratio then taxing less. You put a flat tax of say 35% for a person making $25K and it will make a nice dent to the way of living. Do that same 35% for person making $25 million per year, and I guarantee his way of living will not be impacted.
Catch my drift?

Quote:

I made $29,500 last year, so my reasons behind this belief are idealogical, not personal. If there are four people that want to split a large pizza, do they sit around arguing that the richest of the four should have to pay 70% of the price of the pie, while only getting an equal share?

If only it was that simple.
But a more realistic hypothetical scenario with your pie reasoning is, the pie where one pays 70% price would have extra cheese and all the toppings. The one paying less, would be lucky to even have cheese, much less cooked. Consider the extras on that pizza $$.


THE POLITICALLY INCORRECT ONE.

ScottaWhite wrote:Other than envy, can you explain why someone who makes $100,000 per year has a responsibility to pay a higher tax rate than someone who makes $30,000? You'll probably chase the rabbit of tax loopholes etc, but I want to know, what is the fundamental reason why?

Because taxation is not about fairness. It's about redistribution of wealth. Always has been, well before the current socialism-hysteria. Oops. There I go again, dismissing strongly held (taught) beliefs.

Cuz that's the way it has always been is not a good argument Bill. The hysteria results from the rapid ramped-up slew of new taxes and programs. (beginning with the '08 bank bailouts).

Goodwrench, your extra chees/topping analogy was pathetic. I suppose the extra cheese he is paying for is his own personal lane on the freeway, his personal detective, extra firemen just for him, personal reading room at the library???

I would really like you to answer this question with a yes/no, followed by a why.:: If you had the power to do so, would you take everyones property taxes, put them in a fund and divide the money evensteven between all the schools in the state?

I think a wealthy community should pay the same property tax rate as a poor, then spend their taxes in their community. Their money-their services. Btw capitalism isn't the absence of public projects and services like police/fire and paved roads. But nice try at making it sound like there are two choices

also, I am waiting to bear why it is a wealthy persons responsibility to pay a higher rate. Your explanation that they can afford to dot it sounds faintly like envy. (well you have 100 dollars and I only have 20, so you pick up the pizza tab, after all if I paid my share it would put a cramp in the budget....y'know, may e I should eat ramen and skip the pizza


“Poor Al Gore. Global warming completely debunked via the very Internet you invented. Oh, oh, the irony!” -Jon Stewart

I didn't ARGUE this aspect of taxation, lol...I merely stated it. That's not argument, or even support of said point...in literary terms, that's known as a "matter-of-fact" observation. Sit tight and watch closer...you'll know when I actually adopt a position on something. It's best to be more careful when trying to pigeonhole me for points of view...I'm a bit more multi-faceted than most of the trained puppets you'll encounter.

As for socialism-hysteria: I do stand by that position. Still the righties fail to realize that the harder they push, the more folks they push away.

Whoa, watch that knee-jerk now! No matter what the divisive leaders of both sides tell you, just because I don't believe in extremist right-steria, that does not make me a commie liberal.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edited Saturday, October 31, 2009 10:53 AM

The more we push, the more people know about the issues. Talking to a 25 yr old girl at work today. Didn't know anything at all about healthcare reform...nada. Typical female response I got was "oh. I'm not into politics...so boring and complicated". She didn't run screaming to the hills in revulsion of my "rightie" ideas...just total apathy....just like O.B.AMA needs her to stay.


“Poor Al Gore. Global warming completely debunked via the very Internet you invented. Oh, oh, the irony!” -Jon Stewart

I don't think you understand though...you would do your own causes so much more justice if you eschewed the methods of the hypermedia and went on a more subtle route. I really believe you alienate more than you attract with the hysteria tactics. I am but one example. Surely you can't count that young lady...this isn't about filling empty heads with anything that suits your cause, but instead adding thoughtful reflection to heads that are already informed, and careful enough to make a real difference.

Bill Hahn Jr. wrote:I don't think you understand though...you would do your own causes so much more justice if you eschewed the methods of the hypermedia and went on a more subtle route. I really believe you alienate more than you attract with the hysteria tactics. I am but one example. Surely you can't count that young lady...this isn't about filling empty heads with anything that suits your cause, but instead adding thoughtful reflection to heads that are already informed, and careful enough to make a real difference.

the man makes a good point there scotty.


http://www.flickr.com/photos/sndsgood/ https://www.facebook.com/#!/Square1Photography

People that are informed and have any sense, have already made up their mind, a d are highly unlikely to change (barring so
e bombshell piece of news). Arguing with clowns on this site is more for my enjoyment than anything. I hold to no illusion that I will persuade anyone (regardless whether I play good or bad cop). It's actually the empty heads that are with targeting. If ican get this girls mind off o baby names for five minutes, I can inform her. Few younger people actually study issues. They watch tv, or just vote the mom and dad do. (very typical for children of UAW households....I know, used to be me)

And I don't have cable, so I don't watch beck, etc. Foxnews is on at the YMCA in the am though. I read the Saginaw news, and mostly stories posted on yahoo.com/ as well as biggovernment.com

I don't sense any hysteria anywhere bill. Aggravated people who feel they have no voice in their government anymore, but not hysterical by a long shot. If you are referring to screamers at townhalls....ain't me. I have a pretty cool temper


“Poor Al Gore. Global warming completely debunked via the very Internet you invented. Oh, oh, the irony!” -Jon Stewart

Man, I hate to beat you up, but your apparent impression of women gives me another cackle. Enlightened it ain't!

The fact that you don't sense right-steria is the best illustration possible of the cluelessness I ascribe to the right-wing assault on sensibilities. I daresay you aren't being honest with yourself, much less us, if you maintain that you do not wish to swing people in your direction. I could use quotey boxes and endless counterpoint to show this, but I don't really need to. Your motives are clear, if not to you, then to those of us who aren't easily won over by extremism.

I don't like playing this card, so I save it for very occasional use...but really, how much "voice" did you personally have in government in the decades before this? You are making a comparative assertion here, saying that an erosion has taken place, so state your qualifications. Taken another way...how old are you, and how much direct experience do you base this notion on?

ScottaWhite wrote:Bottom line, the Whitehouse is going to continue to say what a great job the stimulus plan is doing, and they're going to continue to use the adjusted unemployment figures, because, due to the way they are calculated, they paint a less bleak picture of the real story

As opposed to Bush and his cronies wanting to consider flipping burgers a "manufacturing" job??? Hahaha




Currently #4 in Ecotec Forced Induction horsepower ratings. 505.8 WHP 414WTQ!!!
Currently 3rd quickest Ecotec on the .org - 10.949 @ 131.50 MPH!!!

and we go back to the " well the last guy lied so its okay for this guy to lie" wrong is wrong no matter what side your on.


http://www.flickr.com/photos/sndsgood/ https://www.facebook.com/#!/Square1Photography

ScottaWhite wrote:People that are informed and have any sense, have already made up their mind, a d are highly unlikely to change (barring so
e bombshell piece of news). Arguing with clowns on this site is more for my enjoyment than anything. I hold to no illusion that I will persuade anyone (regardless whether I play good or bad cop). It's actually the empty heads that are with targeting. If ican get this girls mind off o baby names for five minutes, I can inform her. Few younger people actually study issues. They watch tv, or just vote the mom and dad do. (very typical for children of UAW households....I know, used to be me)

And I don't have cable, so I don't watch beck, etc. Foxnews is on at the YMCA in the am though. I read the Saginaw news, and mostly stories posted on yahoo.com/ as well as biggovernment.com

I don't sense any hysteria anywhere bill. Aggravated people who feel they have no voice in their government anymore, but not hysterical by a long shot. If you are referring to screamers at townhalls....ain't me. I have a pretty cool temper

Sounds kind commie over there Scotty with your brain washing. I think as an individual she can do as she pleases when it comes to getting educated on issues, she doesn't need you. What's next, knock on her door on Sunday afternoon and preach to her that 2012 is the end of human life?

sndsgood wrote:and we go back to the " well the last guy lied so its okay for this guy to lie" wrong is wrong no matter what side your on.

With that being said, you guys who stood quiet during the past catastrophe are no better then (your) philosophy of: " well the last guy lied so its okay for this guy to lie." Which in fact nobody is saying as such. Welcome to double standards.

ScottaWhite wrote:
Goodwrench, your extra chees/topping analogy was pathetic. I suppose the extra cheese he is paying for is his own personal lane on the freeway, his personal detective, extra firemen just for him, personal reading room at the library???

I would really like you to answer this question with a yes/no, followed by a why.:: If you had the power to do so, would you take everyones property taxes, put them in a fund and divide the money evensteven between all the schools in the state?

I think a wealthy community should pay the same property tax rate as a poor, then spend their taxes in their community. Their money-their services. Btw capitalism isn't the absence of public projects and services like police/fire and paved roads. But nice try at making it sound like there are two choices

also, I am waiting to bear why it is a wealthy persons responsibility to pay a higher rate. Your explanation that they can afford to dot it sounds faintly like envy. (well you have 100 dollars and I only have 20, so you pick up the pizza tab, after all if I paid my share it would put a cramp in the budget....y'know, may e I should eat ramen and skip the pizza

Well, when it comes to property taxes, you do get more when you pay more. Less pot holes on the road. Police that will arrive at the scene in under 10 mins, landscaped and tidy parks, more lighting fixtures, etc. Consider that your "toppings."

To answer your question. No, because it does not work that way and with out paranoia...never will.

And you "sound kind of commie" w/ equal property tax rate. When you live in a city that you can tell the difference between wealthy and poor, if you care about your safety, above average schools and cleanliness you pay the extra tax rate. The philosophy of equal low tax rate will only deteriorate one section and hope to maybe scale up another.

Nobody said Capitalism is absent when it comes to social programs. If you actually read, I was talking about the private sector.

Read the impact/ratio as to your last question. Also being that you make $30K per year, why would you defend the folks making the 6-9 figure income? A person like Rush Limbaugh or any Fox talk show hosts have all the rights as they fall under the 1% percent category, but you?




THE POLITICALLY INCORRECT ONE.

It got me a job im not going to lie, it helped me out a lot, I got laid off last June and was about to lose everything

The whole thing sounds like liberal fuzzy math to me...

Quote:

WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama's economic recovery program saved 935 jobs at the Southwest Georgia Community Action Council, an impressive success story for the stimulus plan. Trouble is, only 508 people work there.

The Georgia nonprofit's inflated job count is among persisting errors in the government's latest effort to measure the effect of the $787 billion stimulus plan despite White House promises last week that the new data would undergo an "extensive review" to root out errors discovered in an earlier report.

About two-thirds of the 14,506 jobs claimed to be saved under one federal office, the Administration for Children and Families at Health and Human Services, actually weren't saved at all, according to a review of the latest data by The Associated Press. Instead, that figure includes more than 9,300 existing employees in hundreds of local agencies who received pay raises and benefits and whose jobs weren't saved.

That type of accounting was found in an earlier AP review of stimulus jobs, which the Obama administration said was misleading because most of the government's job-counting errors were being fixed in the new data.

The administration now acknowledges overcounting in the new numbers for the HHS program. Elizabeth Oxhorn, a spokeswoman for the White House recovery office, said the Obama administration was reviewing the Head Start data "to determine how and if it will be counted."

But officials defended the practice of counting raises as saved jobs.

"If I give you a raise, it is going to save a portion of your job," HHS spokesman Luis Rosero said.

The latest stimulus report, released Friday, significantly overstates the number of jobs spared with money from programs serving families and children, mostly the Head Start preschool program. The report shows hundreds of the programs used nearly $323 million to provide pay raises and other benefits to their existing employees.

The raises themselves were appropriate — the stimulus law set aside money for Head Start salary increases — but converting that number into jobs proved difficult. The Obama administration told Head Start officials to consider a fraction of each employee as a job saved.

"That's more than ridiculous," said Antonia Ferrier, a spokeswoman for Republican House Minority Leader John Boehner.

Many Head Start programs around the country went further, counting everyone who received a raise as a job saved.

"It's a glitch in the system," said Ben Allen, the research director at the National Head Start Association. "There was some misunderstanding among some in the Head Start community about completing the reporting requirements."

Allen said a cost-of-living adjustment "may not be viewed traditionally as a job saved, but one could interpret it that, by providing COLA, you're retaining staff."

The Bergen County Community Action Program in Hackensack, N.J., noted the nearly $213,000 it received went to cover raises for existing staff only, but it also reported saving 85 jobs.

At Southwest Georgia Community Action Council in Moultrie, Ga., director Myrtis Mulkey-Ndawula said she followed the guidelines the Obama administration provided. She said she multiplied the 508 employees by 1.84 — the percentage pay raise they received — and came up with 935 jobs saved.

"I would say it's confusing at best," she said. "But we followed the instructions we were given."

Ed DeSeve, who oversees the stimulus at the White House, said the Head Start numbers "represent a few percent of all jobs reported" and said the problems would probably be balanced out by other errors that underreported jobs.

"So we don't expect any corrections to this data to meaningfully impact the total 640,000 direct jobs," DeSeve said.

More than 250 other community agencies in the U.S. similarly reported saving jobs when using the money to give pay raises, to pay for training and continuing education, to extend employee work hours or to buy equipment, according to their spending reports.

Other agencies didn't count the raises as jobs saved, reporting zero jobs.

Last week's stimulus report claimed 640,000 jobs saved or created by the economic recovery plan so far. Those jobs came from 156,614 federal contracts, grants and loans awarded to more than 62,000 recipients, worth a total of $215 billion.

Obama has promised the stimulus would save or create 3.5 million jobs by the end of next year, and the data released Friday represented the first head count toward that goal.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jMNoef6xDenBbHWO0Im6rIjDmAgAD9BOJH300





"The FACTS are always subject to CHANGE once the TRUTH is applied"
"In the entire history of man the only stupid questions are the ones that don't get asked"

I defend those folks because they are the ones that own companies and businesses... Not home improvement store employees like me. They can create jobs, not LaFawnda working for acorn. Because they already pay the highest ratio of taxes.

Too easy to just be envious or the wealthy and assume they got that way by some sort of skullduggery.

Reduce the capital gains/death-inheritance tax? "Tax break for the rich!!" the left screams.... Never mind the fact some average schmuck who inherits his dads vacation home, doesn't have to sell it just to pay the taxes.


“Poor Al Gore. Global warming completely debunked via the very Internet you invented. Oh, oh, the irony!” -Jon Stewart