Wall Street gave Romney $34M while Obama got $4M, what would the repercussions or benefits be?

There aren’t Republicans that distrust Wall Street. The Republicans have been opposed to any efforts to hold Wall Street responsible for what happened in ‘07/‘08. And they are trying to roll back all of the Dodd-Frank legislation which was to reduce wall Street excesses.

I hope this doesn’t surprise you.

I guess the benefit is that Romney got $30m more than Obama. More free beer at the Romney tent!

My heart bleeds for Obama. Obama got the big donations in the last cycle. Everyone is now looking for a way to clean up Obama’s mess. The easiest way to do that is to get someone competent into the Whitehouse. No surprises here.

@Jaxk If it looks like Obama will win this election, he’ll get more boatloads of cash. Wall Street will buy the winner.

The banks that took the economy over the cliff in 2007 with their reckless bets were bailed out by the US taxpayers. The US Middle Class lost 40% of their wealth, since most of it was in their homes. The Wall Street Banks used the money We the People gave them not to forgive mortgage debt but to buy up smaller banks, to lobby Congress to water down the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act till it’s largely meaningless, and to give themselves big bonuses for failing. Heads they win, tails we lose. Why shouldn’t they reward themselves for creating such a deal. The banks that were too big to fail are bigger today than they were in 2007.

Jamie Dimon took full responsibility for the $3 billion loss on risky betting under his watch at JP Morgan Chase. Of course, he pointed out that they easily covered the loss, and will probably post profits in excess of $20 billion for the year. But they only lost 3% on that bet. Have you ever heard of a high risk investment losing 50%, 75% or even evaporating altogether? If it had happened on this bet, the bank would have lost $100 billion. And what happens when the losses on risky bets are triggered yet again by an endemic problem in the economy, so they hit all the big banks at once? It’s not a matter of if, it is a matter of when. Will we still be able to borrow at near zero interest to bail them out once more? I doubt it very much. And if we can’t bail them out and have the debt we currently have, we’re looking at an economic crash that will make the Great Depression look like a vibrant economy.

It was shameful to watch Republicans in Congress line up to Genuflect to Dimon and kiss his royal butt. Shows you how far proud men are willing to go for the love of money—what they are willing to sell out. Even their own children’s future is unimportant.

@Jaxk C’mon dude, explain to us how this is Obamas mess…really? it’s his mess because he was elected last time? That’s what it takes to catch the blame for something that happened way before he was president. look I didn’t vote for him last time but to say this crap is his fault is making you look like a dumb cool-aid drinker. We all know you are not like that. If McCain had taken the same actions it would not have been so horrible now would it? This it why I hate republicans and democrats almost personally.

Oh shit, I agree with woodcutter. The Mayans were right.

This is Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission at work, folks, in addition to the usual Wall Street largesse. These two guys aren’t even really campaigning anymore. They’re just running around to the usual ATMs, and so far, Romney’s raking in more cash. It’s a battle of the bank accounts, down to the finish. Doesn’t help Obama that a lot of the smaller donors from last time aren’t ponying up, because of his dismal record (the progressives are NOT coming out for him, either with cash or campaign support). I think Obama’s in trouble. He might be able to pull it out, but he’s going to have really work hard.

@AngryWhiteMale As a progressive, I’m deeply disappointed in Obama. But one campaign slogan he floated actually made perfect sense. He said, “Don’t compare me to the Almighty, compare me to the alternative.” With Romney promising to be George W. Bush II on steroids, Obama’s right. The alternative we simply cannot afford.

@ETpro, oh, I agree—Romney would be disastrous, no question about that. But Obama hasn’t really given me cause for hope. I’m afraid it’s the difference between going to hell in a handbasket the scenic way or the direct way. But that’s just me.

@AngryWhiteMale I wish I could argue with you, but I cannot. But the slower road to the banana republic is preferable, as it allows more time for the electorate to wake up and take our liberty back. The Tea Party and OWS movements, as diverse as they may outwardly seem, are both signs this is starting to happen. Unfortunately, the Tea Party got Astroturfed by Corporatists as soon as it blossomed. But both movements show people are waking up to the fact that we are losing our liberty.

Romney can buy a shit load of hairspray, may have a negative impact on the ozone-layer.

What is it with my fellow liberals getting down on Obama?

The guy: Pulled our troops out of Iraq, expanded the war on Terror via covert means (as he campaigned on), expanded our troops in Afghanistan whilst giving them a schedule for withdrawal (as he campaigned on), put two new liberal/young/minority justices on the supreme court, got a new START treaty with Russia to lower the # of nuclear weapons on the planet by about ⅓, gave billions of dollars to green/alternative energy companies to upstart their funding, ended DADT and stopped enforcing the DoMA, passed a massive stimulus bill that likely saved our country from a second depression, lowered taxes on the middle class via said stimulus, passed the largest overhaul of healthcare (or any other program for that matter) since the 1960’s and made sure millions more will be ensured, increased fuel emissions standards on cars, saved GM and Chrysler, etc, etc, etc

You people are f*cking cry babies… what were you expecting?? Unicorns and candy sandwiches for everyone after a few short years? This is god damn reality and he was handed a gigantic sh*t sandwich. The things he’s been able to accomplish are a damned miracle… especially in the face of the stone wall opposition from the Republicans… and you guys are whining that he hasn’t lived up to his promise?

Jesus-tap dancing christ!

Yes, indeed, Obama has accomplished much. Not least of which is pointing our rhetoric away from sabre-rattling and we-got-ours-screw-you of the previous administration.

Biggest disappointment: No folks in jail over the enormous frauds in the securities markets, especially the sub-prime MBOs rated AAA, and continuing frauds in foreclosure procedures.

But it’s easy to see why Obama and everyone else has given a pass to the financial industry. Lack of election finance controls requires ALL candidates to kiss corporate butt, and as long as that persists, the choices will remain the slower road or the faster road toward the banana republic.

Amen @tedd. Preach brother jelly!!
All kidding aside, folks are a little unrealistic in their expectations.

@tedd I think when progressives express unhappiness with Obama, it’s more likely about how he plays politics, not necessarily about his governing, policies and achievements. It’s never simple to play Wall Street. Democrats need money to somehow reach and get weakly convinced Democratic voters to go out and vote.

Wall Streeters are unhappy when they are being portrayed in the media as the bad guys. Obama could play with that politically but I guess most of his voters would not be able to recognize he was just playing politics and this may disenchant them.

Karl Rove has already raised 200 million bucks in 2012. The “turd blossom” still has potent drawing power. Today, Obama would make a speech in Ohio? I’m hoping he could tweak his message perfectly in a way that would inspire conviction from people to still vote for him in November. And donate for his campaign.

I’m hoping this will be able to be used against Romney. I kind of wish Obama refused money from Wall Street, just to make a point. I know money is critical to winning a campaign, but 4 million might not be worth the trade off of being able to make the statement “I’ve not taken a dime from Wall street, and my opponent has taken $34m, who is Romney REALLY working for?” and plastering that all over his campaign ads.

I think people who say “both are just as bad” are more interested in preserving their vanity than in actually making a defensible claim about our political system.

Just about the only thing easier than sitting on a fence and saying “a pox on both your houses” is patting yourself on the back while you’re up there, for being above the fray and clear-eyed. Look at you! Apathetic, ignorant, and sanctimonious!

@Jaxk, and as we all know, “competent” means “capable of extracting lots of money from the economy.” What other skills do you need, after all? Government is just like a business. Just ask Herbert Hoover, our last successful businessman-turned-president.

”Apathetic, ignorant, and sanctimonious!”

@Qingu: You just described half the people I know.

Part of what irks me is that the idea that any two politicians are exactly as bad as each other is mathematically absurd.

Even given that the two politicians are very similar (which is not at all the case with Obama and Romney) ... what are the chances that their badness is split exactly at 50/50? That the exact same things will happen under both presidencies with the exact same effects? Not 47/53, with one being the lesser of two evils—or even 49.9/50.1 but EXACTLY 50/50?

Part of being a citizen in a democracy involves compromising, involves learning how to differentiate between political choices—and yes, involves choosing the lesser of two evils in many cases. Abdicating this responsibility and blathering on about how both of your choices are equally bad to justify your apathy is just beyond idiotic.

@woodcutter

At some point Obama has to take responsibility for what he’s done. If you hire somebody to fix something how long can you continue to blame the last guy when it’s not getting fixed. Now he’s trying to tell us that it is fixed. He said the private industry is doing fine. All he needs to do now, is pump up government. Is that really his plan?

Obama has injected so much uncertainty into the economy, we can’t grow out of this recession. Taxes, what is going to happen? Regulation, what’s next? Health care, what will be the impact? We can’t know what next year will bring only that it is likely to get worse. We’ve spent our way into a hole that even a Reaganesque economy can’t pull us out. We passed Dodd-Frank but all it’s really doing is killing the small banks. So big banks buy them out and the ‘Too Big To Fail’ gets worse. I’m not asking for him to take responsibility for the recession, only the mess he has created. If he can’t do the job, get rid of him. It’s painfully obvious, we’ve reached that point.

@Jaxk, you’re lying. You know exactly the context in which Obama made the “private sector is doing fine.” Stop being dishonest.

Also:

“Obama has injected so much uncertainty into the economy, we can’t grow out of this recession.”

“Uncertainty” is not hampering the economy. Lack of demand is. We’ve been over this before, of course, but don’t let the facts stop you from repeating things that aren’t true over and over again and hope we don’t notice.

“We’ve spent our way into a hole that even a Reaganesque economy can’t pull us out.”

That’s funny. Did you know that Reagan deficit-spent like crazy? Of course you did. You’re just being dishonest.

“We passed Dodd-Frank but all it’s really doing is killing the small banks. So big banks buy them out”

Cite this happening. Ideally with a historical comparison.

@Qingu @Jaxk Speaking towards deficit spending… Reagan actually produced so much debt via deficit, somewhere around half of our current national debt is that which we incurred under his administration, and the interest from said debt.

And perhaps more salient to Jaxk’s point: Reagan did not have to worry about Fed policy at the zero-bound. In the 80’s inflation was the problem… so the Fed raised rates. End of recession. In 2008 and 09 we were suffering deflation, much like the Great Depression. The Fed lowered rates… but you can’t lower rates past zero.

I also don’t believe Reagan had to deal with a congress that blocked through filibuster every attempt to stimulate the economy through fiscal spending stimulus.

@Qingu

Yes, I do know the context. That’s why I’m so worried. And yes, we’ve been through this over and over but I ‘m not hoping you won’t notice, I’m hoping you do notice. Unfortunately you never do. The Democratic congress under Reagan did spend too much but after all, they’re Democrats, that’s what they do. Obama got his stimulus, Republicans couldn’t stop it. Now you just want more and more. Do the same thing over and over hoping for different results.

Obama’s speech again today. Double down on everything he’s already tried. Wow what an innovative thinker. I can’t shake the image of a two year old trying to pound the square block into the round hole. The man’s a genius.

Why are you so worried? Private sector growth has been okay. The public sector losses have consistently dragged down the jobs numbers. What part of this do you disagree with?

And I’m sorry, but are you blaming the Democratic Congress under Reagan for deficit-spending the massive military buildup he ordered? You are clearly not actually stupid enough to believe this—which is why I call you a liar.

Finally, when you say “more and more,” you’re going to have to be specific. I would indeed like more spending on infrastructure and aid to states to prevent public sector layoffs. Why? Because it worked. Is that what you mean? Or do you mean “more and more public sector layoffs because of Republican obstructionism and cuts to state aid?” I don’t want more of that, because austerity is a disaster everywhere it’s been tried.

Of course, you’re smart enough to have noticed that we haven’t actually been trying Obama’s ideas for the past 2 or 3 years, since the Republicans obstruct them. Which means, again, that you’re lying.

@Qingu

I we have massively different definitions of what is OK or just fine. Unemployment in the public sector is 4.2%. I would consider that just fine. Unemployment in the private sector is north of 8.2%. I would consider that abysmal. Yet both you and Obama seem to feel what we need to do is prop up the public sector. The public sector gets all… let me say that again, ALL of their money from the private sector. And to add insult to injury, the public sector salaries are 30% higher than private sector. Why in the hell would we want to add more jobs in the public sector. We can’t pay for them, they’re already over-compensated, and they are already fully employed.

I don’t know if you’re lying about all this but if not, I can only hope you don’t breed.

The only reason public sector salaries are 30% higher than private sector (if that’s true) is because the private sector has been steamrollered by exploitive race-to-the-bottom corporate “globalization” and union-busting tactics.

Public sector salaries used to look unattractive compared to private sector and that is no longer the case not due to rampant increases of public sector compensation.

There is plenty of money to pay public sector salaries if tax levels are put back to progressive levels that historically have very reliably produced prosperity. If lower tax rates produced jobs there would be two jobs for every one who wants one in this country due to the absurd march of tax cuts we’ve seen for the past three decades.

[mod says] Flame off, folks. Let’s not make this personal.

It’s ridiculous to blame everything that happens in the economy on the president.
The Senate has filibustered most of the best aspects of good legislation that came out of the House, so the president couldn’t sign literally hundreds of bills that would have helped straighten the economy out.

On top of that corporate entities are sitting on records amounts of cash (over 2 Trillion$) that they refuse to invest in anything.

That is from where comes the uncertainty in the economy.

“Obama got his stimulus, Republicans couldn’t stop it. ” Are you kidding? He got far less than he asked for, and the Republicans voted for it plenty, because they’re in Big Finance’s pockets (see OP) as much as anyone. They DID stop almost every other good idea that came to the Senate.

@Jaxk, how on earth do you measure “unemployment in the public sector” vs. private sector? That statistic makes no sense.

Since the recession, the economy has consistently added a healthy amount of private sector jobs. It has concurrently lost a ton of public sector jobs. That is what Obama meant. You know it. I know you know it. Stop lying. Stop making up nonsense and red herrings to cover your tracks.

@ Jaxk The problem with growth is the right wants boom and bust, creating a few billionaires during the sweet patch and ruining the common worker in the process but its worth it to them for the few winners. I think its not such a terrible thing to grow the economy slower but steadier and avoid those nasty recession cycles. From the right’s POV It’s almost natural to have recessions it seems.

btw you’re not admitting to us you are that gullible to really believe in those sound bite gaffes by giving them credence are you? You strap your dog to the roof?

Another problem is that the right has no actual plan to achieve growth—or, more specifically, to lower the unemployment rate. Here are their ideas:

“Less regulation!” — this means businesses have more money to spend on hiring workers. But corporations are absolutely flush with cash. They’re not hiring workers because there’s not enough demand. Ever since the recession, small businesses have cited poor sales as by far their number 1 problem.

“Stop spending!” — except that spending directly employes people like teachers, police officers, scientists, and construction workers on infrastructure projects. This plan directly makes unemployment worse.

And that’s about it, isn’t it? Oh wait. “Lower taxes for millionaires.” Because the money will trickle down.

They’re frauds.

Well didn’t Romney elude to teachers and police and firefighters work for the love of the job and forgo pay…if said pay comes from the govt? I bet the gated commune he lives in has its own fire and police depts so screw the rest of us if our shit burns. But what the hell at least we are saving valuable money in the process.

@Qingu

The Department of labor releases these statistics. If you think they make no sense, they are created by the bureaucrats you seem to want more of. Corporations are not flush with cash. As always you hear a number and have no idea what it means.

@woodcutter – Police and firefighters are state functions. If you don’t think you have enough, get the state budget straightened out. And if you think slow growth is good, why would you want to start that in the middle of a recession. Really, every country goes through recessions whether capitalist or communist. The idea that we can avoid the next recession by simply never getting out of the current one is asinine.

@Jaxk, I’m not sure what point you think you’re trying to make. I imagine you’re not interested in making a valid point to begin with. The table you cited shows that government workers are among the biggest increases in unemployment in the past year. Almost every other industry has higher employment. This supports my point, not yours.

Unless you’re stupid enough to believe that a laid-off teacher somehow doesn’t count as an additional unemployed person? I don’t think you are.

“Police and firefighters are state functions. If you don’t think you have enough, get the state budget straightened out.”

That’s exactly what Obama and liberals are advocating. Aid to state budgets so we don’t have to lay these people off.

But I guess you want to lay them off. Remember this the next time you talk about “job-killing” regulations (which don’t actually affect employment of course, but nevermind facts). You are directly advocating for killing people’s jobs if they are in the government sector.

Oh, and this:

“Corporations are not flush with cash.”

Yes they are. This has been pointed out to you, repeatedly. Stop lying.

@Qingu

Only a handful of the largest mega-corporations have this cash, Apple, Oracle, Pfizer and companies like that. There are about 30 million companies in the US. Pfizer does not represent the norm. To make matters worse most of that cash is sitting overseas, unable to return without huge excessive taxes. When you say corporations have cash you either don’t know what you’re talking about or are intentionally misleading. And screaming LIES, only serves to accentuate your ignorance.

You mean that corporate wealth is not evenly distributed among businesses? Shocking. And I thought inequality only existed in personal incomes! In any case, how on earth does pointing this out mean your statement was not factually incorrect?

And the reason I keep on calling you a liar is because you are either lying or ignorant, and I don’t think you’re ignorant. For example, I think you know perfectly well that Apple would not hire a single additional worker if it could repatriate its profits at massive tax breaks. Which makes it deceitful to bring this issue up to support your point.

@Jaxk I just wanted to make a point about recessions. Why don’t you look at how many recessions hit the United States between the Great Depression and Ronald Reagan being elected president…. vs the number of recessions since Reagan was elected. And then why don’t you look at what major regulations were overturned under Reagan that allowed the economy to become the roller coaster it did.

I don’t want to spoil the surprise for you, so I won’t tell you which period “wins.”

@tedd

I’m not sure what you’re seeing in the data. Since Reagan, I only see 3 recessions, ‘90, 2000, and 2008. Prior to Reagan they were more frequent. I’m afraid that if there’s a point in your comment, I don’t see it.

@Qingu

You are right that Apple will not likely do any additional hiring if their funds are repatriated. Hell they already have plenty of cash and have not had to scale back. In fact their workforce has quadrupled over the past decade. But once again Apple is not the normal US corporation. They have plenty of demand, plenty of cash and plenty of employees. Trying to use Apple as your typical corporation is foolish at best. That why I’m saying your ‘corporations have plenty of cash’ is misleading and wrong. Most corporations are struggling to exist. Pointing at one that isn’t, doesn’t change that.

@Jaxk I get my data from reliable sources rather than random sh*t I find on google.

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

Since 1980, 5 major recessions.. including the worst since the depression… which happened because of the collapse of a highly unregulated housing market and banking system…. all starting under Republican presidents.

You’re the one who brought up Apple, and you’re the one who brought up repatriation.

And it sounds like you agree with my original point. Businesses having more cash does not necessarily lead to businesses hiring. This is not a supply-side problem. This is a demand-side problem. Businesses aren’t hiring because they don’t have sales to justify additional labor. They don’t have sales because everyone is unemployed (or paying off debt), and so are not spending money on businesses’ products.

You know what would help with that? Firing less state workers. That was Obama’s point. And you know it.

@tedd

Just to be clear, Reagan took office in Jan of 1981. The recession in 1980 can in no way be attributed to Reagan. The recession of 1981 was a continuation of the 1980 recession. When you ask about recessions since Reagan, there are three. That works out to one every ten years, on average. Prior to Reagan (1945–1980) there were 8, that works out to 1 every 4.3 years. If you’ve got a point, I wish you’d make it.

I also don’t see what the point about recessions pre- and post-Reagan is…

If there’s a point to make about Reagan, it’s not about recessions but rather financial crises. Recessions are a normal part of the business cycle; financial crises are not and they typically occur alongside the worst recessions. Reagan sowed the seeds for lax financial regulation; but to be honest Clinton deserves some of the blame as well, for buying into Greenspan’s laissez-faire ideology.

@Qingu

You’re as always missing or avoiding the point. Businesses that have a lot of cash are not holding back on employment they have all they need. They aren’t the ones cutting corners to survive. The vast majority of businesses in the US are cutting corners and holding back on employment because they don’t have cash. It’s really not a difficult concept.

No, it’s really not.

What would those businesses do if they had more cash (say by, for example, saving money from more lax regulations)?

“Hire more workers” is not often the answer. Because they don’t need the extra capacity. Because there is no demand for their products.

If we were not in a depression, and there was full employment or at least plenty of demand, then yes, pulling back regulations so businesses had more cash to spare would likely make businesses hire workers*—because those workers could be used to produce more goods and services, which would be bought by excess demand. But this is not the world we live in today. The GOP’s economic policies are one-size fits all, and they rarely fit.

* (but then they’d have to compete for workers better labor market, which would counteract the effect to some extent)

I mean, I’m not sure you grasp the absurdity of what you are trying to argue. Let me restate it.

You: We need less regulation so businesses can afford to hire people.

Me: But businesses have lots of cash now, and they’re not hiring.

You: Only successful businesses have lots of cash! The unsuccessful ones don’t, and they’re not hiring.

Me: Why would unsuccessful businesses hire if they had cash—when we’ve just established that successful ones with cash are not hiring?

You:…...

@Qingu

You seem to miss the point that those big businesses with cash, are hiring people. We have not established that businesses are not hiring. Nor have we established that businesses that are in need of cash are unsuccessful businesses. Virtually nothing in your post is accurate.

You seem to have no concept of how businesses work. When times are tough they cut back. Demand is a major component but not the only component. When expenses increase business cuts back, whether or not demand has changed. When expenses go down, businesses loosen up, whether or not demand has changed. Your theory that you can raise expense (through regulation or taxes) without affecting hiring is nonsensical.

You: “You are right that Apple will not likely do any additional hiring if their funds are repatriated. Hell they already have plenty of cash and have not had to scale back.”

But okay. I guess they are hiring now.

I know you think you have some vast business experience and economic sense from running a gas station. But you aren’t exactly an authority, your analysis of business behavior is childish, and moreover, you’re not even addressing the underlying point. Maybe you don’t understand the underlying point. You seem capable of understanding it. “Demand is a major component,” you say. Do you understand why demand is a major component especially in an economy with severely depressed demand, like ours currently is?

Do you understand that we are not living in normal economic conditions, and that even if expenses go down, businesses will not necessarily hire when there are no extra sales on the horizon to justify the extra input?

“Your theory that you can raise expense (through regulation or taxes) without affecting hiring is nonsensical.”

Now you’re lying again. I never stated this. My point is that expenses are not a major reason why businesses are not hiring. Lack of demand is. Freeing up regulations might help the unemployment picture at the margins—I have never denied this. But if your whole plan to fight employment is to cut regulations, your plan is a fraud. Just like how the GOP’s whole plan to fix health care with “tort reform” was a fraud.

@Qingu

I’m not sure why you can’t communicate without attacking but since you obviously don’t know how, I think I’ll end this. If you think I’m lying about everything there is little point to this discussion.

@Jaxk ”Police and firefighters are state functions. If you don’t think you have enough, get the state budget straightened out”

Really? Just like that? All states need money from the federal govt, even yours. And not for just emergency workers. But that’s my point. First responders are emergency expenditures. If your house is burning with a missing kid inside do you really care how the crew is partially funded as long as they are there? Which is more important for a society the fire and cops….or more military adventures that make the very few rich but kill off more families than we can count? China….not fighting a war. Russia…again, no fighting in wars and…oh what the hell…are any other countries on earth fighting a war besides the US? Thats where all your money is going. Ever been a soldier? What about a firefighter? No? I have…been both. We aren’t much to even give a shit about until your ass is in a hitch in a bad way and then we are essential. Stop laying off these people just so the rich can keep their toys. Agreed?

@woodcutter

No I was never a soldier, I was a sailor. During VietNam. I’ve never been a firefighter but I’m not sure how that pertains. Every Time you guys want to raise taxes, you throw cops, firefighters and teachers at us. When you get the money you waste it on bureaucrats. When the Stimulus money went out to the states they spent it on keeping the inefficient ineffective government they had. When you supplement the states with federal money, the states have no incentive to clean up thier act. Stop just throwing money at every problem and fix them. Agreed?

Who Is you?

You is you. You know, the guy that advocating all this spending.

All what spending? I don’t think you read my last post at all and just assumed after the first few words simplified your take on it out of convenience. It’s ok I do that sometimes. I’m trying not to tow any party lines but you are doing exactly that and that can effect how you read things. What you do is a “diatribe” that Limbaugh spouts . I want to hear some of your own ideas, your own thoughts not the radical right’s talking points that never change.

try again.

@woodcutter

I can only read what you write. If you have some hidden meaning, I can’t see it. You seem to want the federal government to send money to the states to help pump up government employment. Which not surprisingly is what Obama wants to do. His plan is to raise tax rates and supplement government employment. He wants to spend on more infrastructure which he has already said didn’t work the first time. All this means he wants more government and I want less government. That doesn’t seem hard to understand. If you aren’t supporting Obama’s plan to expand government then you will need to tell me what you are supporting.

I did ignore you war rant as it sounds exactly like every other war rant I’ve heard. Stop the war and the world will be rosy. Deficits will disappear, the economy will take off, and everybody will love us. That’s a fantasy. Syria is in the throws of civil war, Libya has already had a civil war, Egypt is on the verge of another civil war, Iran has been threatening to attack Israel for years, The Chinese are building up thier military and threatening Taiwan, Russia has already attacked Georgia and the eastern European countries fear more. I think you view the world through rose colored glasses and ignore much of the reality.

If others have the same opinions I do, I can’t help that. Trying to say I’m spouting talking points is a way to deflect and not address the issues. I have no problem posting my opinions. That’s why I’m here. But the opinions are my own.

“His plan is to raise tax rates”
On millionaires.

“He wants to spend on more infrastructure which he has already said didn’t work the first time.”
Nope. He said there weren’t as many shovel-ready projects as he hoped. Infrastructure spending clearly worked when it happened.

You also left out the reason why states need assistance from the federal government. Something about the worst economic crisis since the great depression, severely restraining tax revenue that pays teachers and other government employees… worth keeping in mine, you know.

“Every Time you guys want to raise taxes, you throw cops, firefighters and teachers at us. When you get the money you waste it on bureaucrats.”
More lying.

“If not for the Recovery Act, we would’ve gotten rid of 25,000 teachers’ jobs two years ago,” she said, noting that Perry and GOP lawmakers accepted stimulus money to avoid cuts in the 2009 session and did not replace the funds last year. “We know what actually happens, now that the money’s gone.” Source — note that’s 25,000 teacher jobs in Texas alone.

@Qingu

I will respond once more with mu opinion. If you think I’m lying maybe you should take the time to look up the word so that you can use it correctly in the future.

There is way too much bureaucracy in the school system. Throwing more money at it doesn’t solve anything. “According to a 1999 article by William J. Bennett, former U.S. Secretary of Education, increased levels of spending on public education have not made the schools better. Among many other things, the article cites the following statistics:[93]
Between 1960 and 1995, U.S. public school spending per student, adjusted for inflation, increased by 212%.
In 1994, less than half of all U.S. public school employees were teachers.
Out of 21 industrialized countries, U.S. 12th graders ranked 19th in math, 16th in science, and last in advanced physics.

In 2011, the Center for American Progress, described as a “left-leaning think tank” stated that for half the states studied, it found no correlation between spending and achievement after allowing for cost of living, and students living in poverty.”

If we have less than half the school employment as teachers, it’s the other half that needs trimming. Throwing more money at the school problem isn’t the answer.

Dang guys! strap on the gloves and step in the ring!

I agree, throwing more money at the school system is not the answer.

Nothing in your post supports your initial claim, however. Pointing out that there are a lot of non-teachers in the school system does not in any way shape or form show that the money liberals want to spend, and have spent (in such things as the stimulus act) does not actually go to teachers.

So, I’m sorry, but it’s hard for me to come to any conclusion other than that you’ve just made a deliberaly deceptive argument to support a point you made earlier that was wrong.

More broadly, railing against “bureaucracy” is rather childish. What is wrong with bureaucracy in and of itself? We live in a largely information-based economy; bureaucrats exist because there is a need for humans to organize complex information and administrate complex workplaces. I mean, who exactly are we counting as “bureaucrats” anyway? IT people? Librarians? School principals and vice principals and their secretaries? Obviously, any large organization should try to streamline, and it’s entirely possible that modern technology makes certain jobs like secretaries obsolete. But the idea that you can run a public school system or large government organization without many “bureaucrats” in 2012 strikes me as incredibly stupid.

Maybe “throwing” more money at school systems won’t solve any problems. And the same can be said of lots of programs, public and private.
But I strenuously object to the corollary conclusion that a lot of people make that this indicates money should be taken out of the school system, not least because it will come out of the budget from the wrong places like teacher salaries and supplies, which are dismally funded already.

The benefit for Wall Street to be able expand their derivative casinos.

@Qingu

OK I’ll say it again. From the article I linked, less than half the school system is teachers. That ratio seems dramatically out of whack. Trying to say that we need some bureaucracy, in no way justifies that ratio. @dabbler seems to get it when she says, “it will come out of the budget from the wrong places like teacher salaries and supplies”. There is no reason that we eliminate some of the layers of government bureaucracy, instead of always laying off teachers. The schools don’t need more money, they need less bureaucracy and more of the money going to the front line.