Do you think Obama knows there will be NO jobs created without government spending?

[Stinky The Clown]

I think he does.

Do you think he will do anything about it?


edit to delete my answer to the second question.













The orange mambo was the wankie wanker. Ledo's was the giveaway.

[Broderick]

1. Nationalization of all corporations over 1000 employees

That will get it done!

[orpupilofnature57]

7. K&R !!!!!!!

Now that would be just ,especially after the Bailout.

[hughee99]

13. Why bother, the government won't be able to run many of these companies very well

They should just print trillions of dollars and hire people to work for the government. What could possibly go wrong with that plan?

[Broderick]

17. Who cares how it is run so to speak

but let's put the money back in the hands of the people instead of a few. Take them all over! That is much better than printing money which drives inflation and devalues the currency. Storm the gated communities so to speak, and take back what is OURS and everyone else in America, instead of the privileged few stealing from the man/woman on the street.

[hughee99]

18. Who cares how it is run?

when it goes out of business, you lose both the new jobs you created at that company and the people who already had jobs as well. Are you really worried about the economic problems that will result from printing money, but NOT the economic consequences of nationalizing private businesses?

[Broderick]

19. Government entities don't go out of business, they grow

The only thing remotely close to consider is the Post Office issues right now but that is because of technology changing more than anything else. Post office isn't going anywhere. I say seize all these companies raping the American public for the wallets of a privileged few.

[hughee99]

21. And if they grow while losing money, all we've done expand the size

of our problem and not fix anything.

[Broderick]

22. And the problem is?

Maybe we can run companies like non-profits and let the workers reap the benefits. Why they turned over GM to fat cats again is beyond me.

[hughee99]

25. If the problem were merely an issue of jobs

and the government had money, it would spend massive amounts hiring workers (like in the 30's with the TVA) and upgrading infrastructure. The problem is that government doesn't have, and can't borrow, enough money to really do that effectively. The proposed solution of seizing private assets and using THAT money to create the jobs (leaving aside the constitutionality of it) is that if those companies aren't profitable, they won't be self sustaining, and we'll find ourselves eventually back in the same boat we're in now.

[Broderick]

27. Take away the tens of millions from CEO fat cat

pay and all the cronies that raid the companies, and they might just be profitable. I say seize the companies and the profits. Don't pay for it. They have stolen enough from this country - time to raid the coffers and put people to work. If a company is running profitably and the CEO is raking in 25M a year - how many additional workers can we employ. I say storm the gates of the neighborhoods we are not allowed in and seize those assets too. Power to the people. Next thing, once we scour their books after seizure - lets incarcerate the robber barons.

[Claudia Jones]

23. government agencies are not businesses

They cannot "go out of business" or "go broke."

Talking about government as though it were a business is a right wing stunt used to promote privatization.

[hughee99]

26. Really, what was all that stuff about in July,

something about government not being able to pay it's bill, not being able to borrow more money, and stuff like that. Now imagine if government were responsible for all the workers of Ford, GM, Chrysler, Walmart, Apple, Microsoft, all the TV networks, most of the newspapers, the utilities, technology companies, the oil companies, etc... Is the government going to be able to run all those businesses at a profit? If not, where will the money come from to make up the difference?

[Claudia Jones]

29. what are you talking about?

You are illustrating my point.

Wealth comes from the workers and from the public resources. That wealth is being steadily siphoned up into the pockets of the few. Now those wealthy few, who never could have been in business let alone profited and amassed wealth had the public infrastructure not been in place, had the public resources not been available, and most importantly had the workers not produced for them, want to claim that "we" have no money and that "we" cannot afford to maintain the public infrastructure, "we" cannot afford to protect public resources, and "we" cannot afford to feed, house, clothe and provide healthcare to the workers. What they really mean is that they do not want to give anything back, do not want to pay their fair share.

That is pure Republican right wing dogma you are spouting. It is in total opposition to anything even vaguely moderate, let alone left wing, is in opposition to Labor, the environment and the public welfare. You are free to hold and espouse that position, but do not try to claim that it is consistent with any political position other than the far right, and do not be surprised when many Democrats strongly disagree with you.

[hughee99]

30. What are you talking about...

If companies are only successful because the public infrastructure is in place and there are workers producing "the products" then why aren't ALL companies successful. There's a public infrastructure in place to build buggy whips and I'm sure you could hire workers to make them, but that doesn't mean your business is going to be successful. Wang computers had the infrastructure to distribute its products and the workers to build them, so did the DeLorean Motor company. While they are necessary components, if production and distribution were all that were required for a company to be profitable, you'd have to work very hard to get a business to fail.

[Claudia Jones]

34. amazing

We have a lot of work to do. No wonder the Republicans are so successful and there is so much contention and controversy within the Democratic party.

Do you truly not know what public infrastructure is?

This statement is obviously illogical:

"If companies are only successful because the public infrastructure is in place and there are workers producing 'the products' then why aren't ALL companies successful."

Just because all cars require wheels in order to be driven, that does not mean that all cars with wheels are drivable.

This next statement contradicts the previous statement, and is also illogical:

"While they are necessary components, if production and distribution were all that were required..."

Just because all people need water to live, that does not mean that ater is ALL they need.

[hughee99]

37. Yes, it is amazing

"Wealth comes from the workers and from the public resources. That wealth is being steadily siphoned up into the pockets of the few. Now those wealthy few, who never could have been in business let alone profited and amassed wealth had the public infrastructure not been in place, had the public resources not been available, and most importantly had the workers not produced for them, want to claim that "we" have no money and that "we" cannot afford to maintain the public infrastructure, "we" cannot afford to protect public resources, and "we" cannot afford to feed, house, clothe and provide healthcare to the workers. What they really mean is that they do not want to give anything back, do not want to pay their fair share."

You are suggesting that since "their" wealth isn't possible without infrastructure and labor (to produce their product) they wouldn't have it and THEREFORE their fortune really belongs to us. That doesn't make any sense to me.

[Claudia Jones]

40. I believe you

I believe that this does not make any sense to you, sadly.

[hughee99]

41. Thank you for your condescension.

I've found that there's many ways to change peoples minds. Politicians use hope and fear, preachers often use guilt, and those people on at 3am selling the "secrets to real estate with no money down" use greed to get people to listen to what they have to say. I'll bet you'd have a really hard time finding an example of someone who won an argument with condescension, though.

[crazyjoe]

31. Wow, what a ridiculously stupid statement.

[Broderick]

38. And 1 percent of the population continues to get

50% of the wealth in the country.

shrug.

[Yo_Mama]

32. If the purpose is a second Great Depression, yes it will

If the purpose is to gradually improve our economy and our future, no, it won't.

Our government has shown little ability to invest to create growing businesses. It spends money well, but invests money remarkably badly.

And then, if the government were to do this, it would wipe out all the pension funds and people's private retirement savings, precipitating a wholesale crisis, taking down the banking system, and killing off all the union pensions.

If I were you, I'd rethink. You are essentially advocating the Chavez solution; Venezuela under Chavez has become a remarkable failure, which is an extraordinary achievement given oil prices.

[joshcryer]

42. That'd double or triple our deficit instantly.

[dennis4868]

2. do you think Obama knows...

how to tie his shoes or how to feed himself? hahaha! DU is so funny lately...thanks guys :-)

[Stinky The Clown]

5. I heard he wears slip-ons.

[dennis4868]

11. okay...

do you think he knows how to put on the slip ons? haha!

[Marr]

3. I think he's a Milton Friedman true-believer.

Top down, feed the rich all the way. And if it doesn't work, you just haven't fed the rich enough.

[Davis_X_Machina]

14. How odd. I believe I'm Queen Marie of Rumania.

Amazing, the power of coincidence.

[polmaven]

15. Sure, sort ot like

when he bailed out the auo manufacturing industry in Detroit....oh, wait, that saved and or created a TON of jobs!

[Marr]

20. *That* is your argument that he is not a top-down, supply-side guy? Seriously?

Bailouts coupled with union concessions? I also notice you didn't mention the bank bailouts, or how differently they were structured and conducted.

[polmaven]

24. Yes, you are right!

It would have been MUCH more effective to allow the auto manufacturers to go belly up. That would have created soooo many more jobs. But you apparently prefer the way GW did it with the bank bailouts....Really?

[kenny blankenship]

16. A true son of Ronald Reagan.

This man is an impostor!

[edhopper]

4. I do not know why

Obama has gone so far down the rabbit hole.

[Mr Deltoid]

6. Why did he insist on cuts then

I see no indication of any belief in anything fiscal except 'compromise' for the sake of compromise.

[galileoreloaded]

8. Uh.....No. Sorry, look what they have already spent vs. what the got.......

?&id=MULT&scale=Left&range=Max&cosd=1984-02-15&coed=2011-08-24&line_color=%230000ff&link_values=false&line_style=Solid&mark_type=NONE&mw=4&lw=1&ost=-99999&oet=99999&mma=0&fml=a&fq=Bi-Weekly%2C+Ending+Wednesday&fam=avg&fgst=lin&transformation=lin&vintage_date=2011-09-05&revision_date=2011-09-05

[EFerrari]

9. I'm afraid his solution will be like the HAMP program for modifications.

It will sound good and do nothing or worse. He's already let us know that FTAS with Korea and Panama and Colombia are part of his "solution" so I don't think my expectation is way out of line.

[Yo_Mama]

33. Excellent point

The troubled refi situation has improved, but the vast majority of refinancings are being done under private programs rather than the official programs.

[EFerrari]

36. HAMP was used by lenders to lure consumers into foreclosure.

The loan servicers got paid for a year or two to diddle the consumers and then their properties were / are taken anyway.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

10. If he doesn't start opening his mouth and ACTIVELY opposing the right wing....

I see Obama doing absolutely nothing, ever.

[kenny blankenship]

12. Whether he's an elitist who really doesn't care or a 3rd wayer who thinks we must beg corporations

for crumbs, and sincerely believes that's the only way 'forward' - it doesn't matter. Pragmatically speaking, they may as well be the same thing.

[mmonk]

28. I think he grossly underestimated the severity of this crash.

That goes with having New Democrat Coalition advisors and strategists who clearly don't know enough. They thought they could go ahead and strike a deal with the Republicans on extending the bush tax cuts and propose budget cutting with the false thought that the economy was going to grow enough this year when most of us didn't see it. I keep hearing how smart he is but I think that was one of the most bonehead decisions I've had the misfortune of living through.

[TNLib]

35. Yes to the first question and no to the second.

He's all about getting the corporate campaign donations and appealing to the moderate voters. I personally feel that I have no representation in Washington.

[Bragi]

39. People need income now, jobs will follow

I think Obama is basically, at heart, a trickle-down enthusiast. Otherwise he would not have agreed during the debt ceiling crisis to adopt the GOP platform of austerity plus tax cuts.

I now expect complicated job creation schemes from Obama that will rely on incentives and subsidies for corporations to create jobs, plus tax cuts for investors.

Since Corps and investors are already sitting on mountains of cash because of lack of consumer demand, this will fail to create jobs.

If you really wanted to create jobs, you would be wanting to provide an income boost to poor and working class people now struggling without jobs.

But that isn't the GOP way, is it?

[Iggo]

43. Do you think he's stupid?

Neither do I.