Social security isn't a hand out. It is a HORRIBLE investment program that has been warped and disfigured from it's original purpose. At least people HAVE been paying into it for a LONG time. I'm not exactly surprised that they want to reap SOME sort of benefit for it.

Tax breaks (that favor specific companies or markets) are government handouts. Speaking of solar, how did our government handout for Solyndra do? Must have been a Red state... no?

Medicare as well is something that has been taken out of people's checks (you know, people with actual jobs) for a long long time. Again, not surprising that people expect to get something for that...

In my experience, in general country folk are very independent folk and are generally self reliant. If you want to find locations in the USA where people thrive off of governmental handouts, pick up a map that shows all the blue counties/parishes/districts/etc.

The 1% are propped up by large government and can crush competition without working a day in their lives. Their money breeds money. Otherwise it's who you blow. Bob says Solyndra executives work because they are the 1%. Bob says the banks and defense contractors work because they are the 1%. Bob says Barrack Obama works because he is rich. You support them, I say fuck that. That's just plain stupid.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'Jimmy Kimmel, confusion, Obama, IRS, Benghazi, Solyndra, boobs' to 'Jimmy Kimmel, confusion, Obama, IRS, Benghazi, Solyndra, boobs, jkl' - edited by lucky760

Isn't it time for Obama to come clean regarding how he got into Columbia, his grades, his medical records, Fast and Furious.

Anyway, when you give your money to the US gov't, they do such a good job watching over it...hell, they might even give it to a fictional solar energy company, like Solyndra, or a number of others.

Let's all come clean...

Source please? I think you might be off by about 3 orders of magnitude. In other words, less than one day worth of your guy's Iraq war.

>> ^quantumushroom:

He's created more green jobs than Obama, and at 535 billion Solyndra dollars less.

He's created more green jobs than Obama, and at 535 billion Solyndra dollars less.

He just said that he doesn't believe corporations should be given money. I agree.

Obama is the one who believes in giving money to corporations...unions, GM, Solyndra, etc.

All gov't money is from taxpayers, don't forget it.

There is only one entity 'distributing' wealth, and that entity is the US government. They tax the producers in this country, then they pay off unions, reward companies like Solyndra, and buy votes from welfare recipients.

No one else is 'distributing' income.

all of those bills are just ones the GOP themselves say are jobs bills, not anything having to actually do with jobs

And Obama's bill is just one that he says is a job bill, not anything having to do with jobs.

UCwhutididthere? From a fiscally conservative position, the GOP bills are about jobs. To a hard-left prog-lib-dyte, they aren't. To a fiscal conservative, Obama's bill is an absolute joke, but to a proglib-dyte it looks wonderful.

The truth is that both approaches are "methods" for creating jobs, but take different approaches. The GOP is using free markets, natural resource development, and small business tax breaks as a means of spurring job growth. The Democrats approach is taxes and deficit spending on temporary jobs and unions. But the past 3 years has shown us that Obama's approach is crap, and the GOP is saying "here's a viable alternative - let's try it". The Democrats in the Senate are saying, "Oh no you ain't going there!" Meanwhile the Democrats and President are saying, "Let's keep going what we've been doing for the past 3 years..." and the GOP in the House are saying, "Oh no you ain't going there!" It's a philosophical debate, and the nation as a whole prefers the GOP approach - not the President's. So he's trying to get the stupid and the suckers to buy into this moronic "do nothing" congress line. He's got nothing else because poll after poll shows both him and his plan are cratering.

the second thing you cite to is a bill basically eliminating the EPA

No - it is a bill to reduce the EPA to a less stupid level. EPA regulation of Co2 is not something the people voted for. It was rammed through by legislative fiat by Obama as a means of stifling energy production and imposing regulations on businesses which (in turn) hurt jobs. Obama's administration is rife with such bullcrap. He bans drilling in the Gulf which COSTS jobs. He blocks the Canada pipeline - which COSTS jobs. He blocks Ohio natural gas drilling - which COSTS jobs. Meanwhile he is literally dumping billions into failed projects like Fisker, Solyndra, and others which they KNOW are bad investments and are going bankrupt left and right. The GOP effort to halt that would almost immediately create over a MILLION jobs. The result will be more energy production, which will lower costs and create work. THAT is a job plan. Obama's plan kills jobs and raises energy costs.

If they had any sense they'd be protesting in front of the White House against Obama who bailed out these businesses that got us here in the first place.Why don't they protest Obama for hiring Jeffrey Immelt of GE, a CEO of a company that paid no taxes? What about the crony system of giving money to companies like Solyndra that are buddies of Obama?

If they had any sense they'd be protesting in front of the White House against Obama who bailed out these businesses that got us here in the first place.Why don't they protest Obama for hiring Jeffrey Immelt of GE, a CEO of a company that paid no taxes? What about the crony system of giving money to companies like Solyndra that are buddies of Obama?

Wealth disparity is a red herring. It is one economic indicator out of literally thousands. Neolibs like to harp on it, but when the poorest schlub in the US has 2 cars, 2 flat screens, air conditioning, and more food than they can possibly eat then it holds very little meaning. I'm a statistician, and there is always a curve in wealth with extreme ends. Deal with it.

Again - they're focusing on the wrong problem. The problem is a corrupt and powerful government. Lobbyists push for bad laws, but bad laws can't get passed without corrupt legislators. In the past, the robber-barons just did what they wanted and government was too toothless and feckless to stop abuses. Today the robber-barons are back, but they are aided and abetted by a powerful, corrupt government that creates a maze of loopholes, exemptions, and laws to pick and choose which company gets to be the one to get away with murder.

The first thing that has to happen is that government needs to be reduced in size and power so that they cannot be the kingmakers. Then you pass a set of simple reforms that are clear and basic so everyone knows 'the rules'. Companies get away with crap because government passes laws that allows it (like the repeal of Glass/Steagall). Peel the lobbyists out of such a system, and all you do it create an all-powerful government that crushes (or blesses) specific industries according to its whimsy.

For example - Obama has been literally shovelling cash at the 'green' industry. Solyndra (and others) have shown that it was all a subsidy-scam. There was no possible way these solar companies could possibly turn a profit. Not to mention ethanol subsidies, et al... They all lobbied big time and got a pile of political payola. It is modern day patronage. Meanwhile Obama is doing all he can to slap down oil and coal. The government is picking some industries to grow, and others to punish. That is totally bogus. And (just so you neolibs don't get mad) it is bogus when it happens to companies like Exxon or Haliburton too.

The government should not be this power broker that picks and chooses which industries get favoritism, and which ones get the thumbscrews based on the political preference of the legislators in power. That creates an unpredictable, uncertain, arbitrary system where industry is more beholden to politicians than the public. Who cares if a company makes a lousy or unprofitable product when they can just pay a lobbyist, or donate to a candidate, and end up getting piles and piles of taxpayer cash?

THAT is the real problem here. Wall Street, Solydra, Enron - all these companies are just symptoms. The disease is the government.

@marinara, friend, I'm not shouting

You are indeed against R&D. I am in high tech with many years, projects, and products under my belt. One thing I will tell you: even the best, well-thought-out ideas can fail. Risk is part and parcel of effective and innovative R&D. You want to take an example of one failure, and say we shouldn't have taken the risk. If the investors who put $1B into Solyndra shared that attitude, we'd never have a Silicon Valley.

http://alum.mit.edu/pages/sliceofmit/2011/09/01/manufacturing-a-recovery/
decline in high tech is due to lack of manufacturing and exports. Read above.

So, then you agree with me? This article is nothing if not a case for investing in Solyndra. Did you read the article? Hockfield makes a case that directly contradicts your main points. And she even points to examples of the US government subsidizing high tech companies.

Are $288 billion in tax cuts worth going into debt for?
What exactly does $275 billion in contracts, grants and loans buy?

If you go to the website, there are links which give a detailed account of what has been spent. To answer your first question, if the tax cuts can help to stimulate the economy, then they would be worth the debt.

You asked why this video was relevant. Well it is. After some lobbyist in our government gives out billions of dollars, all we have is some bad loans, and construction workers now on unemployment.

So this one example invalidates the stimulus? Then, if I can point to a success story will you change your mind?

Rather than cut into corporate profits making profits on exploited Chinese workers, we've build a lead zeppelin of an empty factory. Throwing money at a problem doesn't fix anything. Don't construe this to say that I'm against funding for R&D.



Why can't we both tax corporations that manufacture overseas and invest in innovative companies that manufacture here? The two are not mutually exclusive.

http://alum.mit.edu/pages/sliceofmit/2011/09/01/manufacturing-a-recovery/
decline in high tech is due to lack of manufacturing and exports. Read above.

>> ^longde:
quoting longde:
http://www.recovery.gov/About/Pages/The_Act.aspx
The Recovery Act intends to achieve those goals by:
•Providing $288 billion in tax cuts and benefits for millions of working families and businesses
•Increasing federal funds for education and health care as well as entitlement programs (such as extending unemployment benefits) by $224 billion
•Making $275 billion available for federal contracts, grants and loans


Are $288 billion in tax cuts worth going into debt for?
What exactly does $275 billion in contracts, grants and loans buy?

I feel like we're shouting at each other. For me to win this argument, I have to convince you that the "Recovery Act" is worthless and ineffective; For you to win, you have to convince me that the "Recovery Act" actually helps the economy more than it hurts us in interest payments on the national debt.

You asked why this video was relevant. Well it is. After some lobbyist in our government gives out billions of dollars, all we have is some bad loans, and construction workers now on unemployment. Rather than cut into corporate profits making profits on exploited Chinese workers, we've build a lead zeppelin of an empty factory. Throwing money at a problem doesn't fix anything. Don't construe this to say that I'm against funding for R&D.

>> ^dag:

I sure as shit do want that solar crap - and a lot of people I know do too.>> ^lantern53:
Nothing wrong with investing in high-tech.
But no one wants that solar crap.



hear hear