President Obama giving tax breaks to business...

[Howard Dittrich]

Today I heard on the radio that President Obama signed the “Hire Act” into law. In a nut shell it provides businesses a tax incentive to hire and keep workers. My question to the forum, does giving businesses a tax break like this really create jobs?

[Bob Jentges]

Today I heard on the radio that President Obama signed the “Hire Act” into law. In a nut shell it provides businesses a tax incentive to hire and keep workers. My question to the forum, does giving businesses a tax break like this really create jobs?

If I owned a for profit business the business reason I would use in deciding whether to hire new employees or retain present employees would depend on if the businesses needed them to meet customer demands for goods and/or services.

As I understand the tax incentive the Obama Administration is offerring is a one year holiday from paying federal witholding taxes for new employees. That is not much of an incentive when one considers the overall cost i.e. salery, benifits, etc., for a new hire when the new employee does not generate additional business revenue.

[Dennis Mikkelson]

If I owned a for profit business the business reason I would use in deciding whether to hire new employees or retain present employees would depend on if the businesses needed them to meet customer demands for goods and/or services.

As I understand the tax incentive the Obama Administration is offerring is a one year holiday from paying federal witholding taxes for new employees. That is not much of an incentive when one considers the overall cost i.e. salery, benifits, etc., for a new hire when the new employee does not generate additional business revenue.

The employer will have to pay more taxes in the future to pay for the taxes he did not pay now. When we don't teach math in schools you get stupid laws passed like this. We have more people working for govt. than people paying for govt. and the wealth of the nation has turned into a debting nation.

[Dan Conner]

Today I heard on the radio that President Obama signed the “Hire Act” into law. In a nut shell it provides businesses a tax incentive to hire and keep workers. My question to the forum, does giving businesses a tax break like this really create jobs?This is probably not the most effective way to create new jobs, but you really wouldn't like the way that is the most effective. If the government started massive new spending on defense, highways, bridges, green energy, education, etc., they would be extremely effective methods of creating jobs. However, something tells me you wouldn't like that either.

[Bob Jentges]

If the government started massive new spending on defense, highways, bridges, green energy, education, etc., they would be extremely effective methods of creating jobs.

I thought that was what the "Stimulous Bill" was supposed to do. Since it did not produce what we were told it would do, probably because much of the money was used to promote Democrat contributors, are you suggesting we should try Stimulous II?

[Dan Conner]

I thought that was what the "Stimulous Bill" was supposed to do. Since it did not produce what we were told it would do, probably because much of the money was used to promote Democrat contributors, are you suggesting we should try Stimulous II?Guess what? The stimulus did exactly that. We would all be wallowing in another Great Depression without it. Even the President, George Bush, who got us in this pickle, recognized that massive government spending was required to prevent a catastophic economic collapse. Some feel there is still another second mortgage bubble coming that could throw us back into another depression. I would certainly opt to be safe and try to save our economy. I don't think any of us would like to endure another Great Depression.

The administration has estimated over 2 million jobs were saved/created because of the stimulus. Almost all economist have acknowledged we exited a recession because of the stimulus. It is only employment that has lagged, but that has always been the case exiting a recession/depression. Employment ALWAYS lags behind in an economic recovery. That only makes sense. Employers wait to hire employees until they are sure there will be a long-term increase in demand. So, hiring will be slow and methodical, provided our economy continues recovery.

Also, economic recovery will only happen if we actually start producing things again. Our manufacturing sector has all but died. The President has been attempting to jump start it by using stimulus money to creat green industries. He used the example of a solar panel company, I believe. Befoer the stimulus our country was produicing 2% of the solar panels in the world, and now we have already increased our share to over 20%. That has created a lot of jobs. We have to learn how to produce wind generaqtors, nuclear power plants, and most any technologically advanced product. Our country is way behind. Currently, Europe leads in wind, solar, and nuclear electrical generation technology. We need to take the lead away.

The President had requested a second stimulus some time ago. While debt is always a concern, it means nothing when no one is working because of a general economic collapse. We can't get by in the status-quo. If we are to prosper we have to strive to be number one in the world in advanced technology. We have lost way too much ground.

[Bob Jentges]

Also, economic recovery will only happen if we actually start producing things again. Our manufacturing sector has all but died.

I agree with the above, but disagree with pretty much the rest of what you said in your post, except that unemployment is usually a "lagging" indicator of economic recovery.

I read an Associated Press analysis of "Stimulus" spending a while back that found it didn't matter if a lot of money was spent on highways, or none at all. Country wide local local unemployment rose and fell regardless. The analysis further opined the "Stimulus" spending barely helped the beleagured construction industry at all. Do not get me wrong, highway/road maintance is critically important, it's just that "Stimulus" spending on those projects did little to spur the economy, at least according to the AP analysis.

Economic recovery is driven by people making purposfull decisions. Just adding money doesn't do it. That only serves to further distort the economic fundamentals and prolong the recovery period.

Taking money from the private sector and then redistributing it back into the private sector does not create private sector jobs. What the government should do is establish a stable climate so the private sector can make plans on what needs to be done to stimulate the economy.

There is a recent TIME magazine (yes I said TIME) article that suggests long lastimg jobs are created by the private sector and not the government. The way I see it the only jobs the government creates are more government jobs.:mad:

Creating more "green jobs" per se is not the answer either. I have read articles that claim for every new "green job" created, two regular jobs are lost. Examples are some European countries like France and Spain as well as some states in the USA.

[Dan Conner]

I agree with the above, but disagree with pretty much the rest of what you said in your post, except that unemployment is usually a "lagging" indicator of economic recovery.

I read an Associated Press analysis of "Stimulus" spending a while back that found it didn't matter if a lot of money was spent on highways, or none at all. Country wide local local unemployment rose and fell regardless. The analysis further opined the "Stimulus" spending barely helped the beleagured construction industry at all. Do not get me wrong, highway/road maintance is critically important, it's just that "Stimulus" spending on those projects did little to spur the economy, at least according to the AP analysis.

Economic recovery is driven by people making purposfull decisions. Just adding money doesn't do it. That only serves to further distort the economic fundamentals and prolong the recovery period.

Taking money from the private sector and then redistributing it back into the private sector does not create private sector jobs. What the government should do is establish a stable climate so the private sector can make plans on what needs to be done to stimulate the economy.

There is a recent TIME magazine (yes I said TIME) article that suggests long lastimg jobs are created by the private sector and not the government. The way I see it the only jobs the government creates are more government jobs.:mad:

Creating more "green jobs" per se is not the answer either. I have read articles that claim for every new "green job" created, two regular jobs are lost. Examples are some European countries like France and Spain as well as some states in the USA.I think you are confused about the purpose of the stimuls bill. Our country was roaring down a chute into economic oblivion. The stimulus money was intended to stem the tide. It did that. Last January we were losing over 700,000/month. In fact, I think we lost over 800,000 in February. Currently, we are holding our own. I believe employment figures showed we lost about 80,000 jobs last month. That's over a 90% reduction. The rate has even declined further and the administration is expecting a small growth in jobs in the coming months. That's a dramatic trunaround. I think it is unrealistic to expect our economy to go from record increases in unemployment to dramatic increases in employment. It will take time and we have to be patient.

If the American public is intolerably impatient about job growth, then more stimulus money needs to be appropriated and spent to increase jobs, but there is some value in sustained and methodical change. One of the reasons the administration has released stimulus money as slow as they have, is because they want this stimulus effect to last. If it were spent right away, the stimulus would have been over with and increases in unemployment would have resumed.

The article in the Associated Press was wrong about unemeployment trending up and down. Since the stimulus money was spent unemployment has trended down, not up. You're wrong about stimulus spending not causing growth. It will cause tremedous growth. However, the dilemma is can it cause sustained growth. The stimulus can cause sustained economic growth if new industries are fostered and created, that weren't otherwise. That's why I gave the example of the solar panel company. A good part of the stimulus money was used as seed money for innovation. Normally risky businesses, willing to invest in advanced technological areas were given freer access to capital to finance their innovations. Some of it has worked. If these innovations take off, these industries will grow and help lead the way to sustained economic growth and increased employment.

The construction industry was the initial target for the stimulus because they were profoundly affected by the economic downturn. Also, the economy needed a quick "shot in the arm." That's why the President stipulated the money was to be used for "shovel ready projects." This would have a quick stimulative affects to more quickly turn the corner on the wildly increasing unemployment. I chose to think of it as a triage. In order to save the patient to live a long life, the bullet has to be removed from the stomach. In other words, it would have done no good to increase the patient's cholesteral medication to prevent future heart attacks when the patient is dying of liver cancer.

I think you are forgetting probably the best experiments in economic theory ever...World War II. Economists learned that massive government spending dramatically stimulated the economy. So much so, that many goods had to be rationed. Many economist theorized that our economy prospers when we just manufacture materials, like tanks, and then just push them off the deck of a shipo, into the ocean. The prosperity came from massive produiction. Unfortunately, inflation also occurs in the scenario. In fact, economic academics will tell you that the biggest stimulative impact in an economy is Federal spending. This is money that is entirely spent on production, without money skimmed off for savings, etc.

You seems to forget that it is jobs that are needed, green or not. Not only was the private sector not CREATING jobs, they were shedding jobs at an enormous rate. Leaving it to the private sector was not the answer. They were the ones gushing jobs. The government was need to stimulate the private industry to turn the bloody loss of jobs.

I don't quite understand your fear of government involvement. Without it, our economy would have collapsed. We can all argue of the trivial nuances of whether creating "green jobs" was beneficial or not, but the stimulative affect of the government spending was a life saver. I think you need to look at the results, without some of your programmed prejudices against government.

[Bob Jentges]

I think you are confused about the purpose of the stimuls bill....I think you need to look at the results,...

I understand what the "purpose" of the Stimulus Bill was, and I have been waiting for some significant positive results. There was an article on CBS NEWS Political Hotsheet on Tuesday with the headline: "National Debt Up $2T on Obama's watch". Not the "results" I favor.

But it's the weekend and the first day of Spring, with Easter Sunday just weeks away. It's time to be happy! Some say liberals are always angery, frown frequently, and hardly ever smile. I'm not one of those that thinks that way, but if it is true maybe I can change that with a little levity, at least temporarilly, for any liberal that might read this.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/20100319/sc_livescience/happinessismakingmoremoneythanthenextguy

The link is to yesterdays article in Live Science Magazine. The article discusses a study by the Department of Psychology at the University of Warwick in England. It is not a long article, but seems to demonstrate that competitivness is just simply human nature when it comes to money, and that competitivness leads to happiness it you make more money than the next guy.

Although I consider myself a very competitive person, I personally do not totally buy the conclusions of the study. True happiness certainly involves much more than making more money than the next guy. But maybe the study helps explain why the people who live under a system that promotes the philosophy: "From each according to their ability, to each according to their needs", are for the most part not happy people. Their competitive spirit is stymied by the government when it comes to making money, and that probably carries over into other aspects of their lives as well.

If reading the actual article did not at least bring a smile to your face, click-on the link at the end of the article titled: "Happiness is...Being Old, Male and Republican" I am living proof that is accurate;)

[Dan Conner]

I understand what the "purpose" of the Stimulus Bill was, and I have been waiting for some significant positive results. There was an article on CBS NEWS Political Hotsheet on Tuesday with the headline: "National Debt Up $2T on Obama's watch". Not the "results" I favor.

But it's the weekend and the first day of Spring, with Easter Sunday just weeks away. It's time to be happy! Some say liberals are always angery, frown frequently, and hardly ever smile. I'm not one of those that thinks that way, but if it is true maybe I can change that with a little levity, at least temporarilly, for any liberal that might read this.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/20100319/sc_livescience/happinessismakingmoremoneythanthenextguy

The link is to yesterdays article in Live Science Magazine. The article discusses a study by the Department of Psychology at the University of Warwick in England. It is not a long article, but seems to demonstrate that competitivness is just simply human nature when it comes to money, and that competitivness leads to happiness it you make more money than the next guy.

Although I consider myself a very competitive person, I personally do not totally buy the conclusions of the study. True happiness certainly involves much more than making more money than the next guy. But maybe the study helps explain why the people who live under a system that promotes the philosophy: "From each according to their ability, to each according to their needs", are for the most part not happy people. Their competitive spirit is stymied by the government when it comes to making money, and that probably carries over into other aspects of their lives as well.

If reading the actual article did not at least bring a smile to your face, click-on the link at the end of the article titled: "Happiness is...Being Old, Male and Republican" I am living proof that is accurate;)I haven't read the study, but I can tell you I would definitely disagree with the study's conclusion if winning with competitiveness is happiness. It sure doesn't explain the profession with one of the highest suicide rates being dentists. It doesn't explain the numerous very successful hollywood personalities have troubles with alcohol, drugs, suicide, etc.

I think competitiveness has its place, but I think for the good it accommplishes, there is an equal amount of bad. I think competitiveness caused Bayer pharmaceuticals to knowingly sell AIDS infected hemophelia medicine to Europe, where thousands died. I think competitiveness has led to thousands of substandard products that have sometimes killed or injured people. It has lead to corruption, etc. Competitiveness has a very dark side, along with the positive.

I think happiness is doing what you want and getting what was reasonable in you own mind. There are millions of people happy with what they have because they know nothing else.

I disagree with your assertion about competitiveness and its harmony with Republicans. If that were the case, then Republicans would not be so surly about introduction of the public option to health care. If what you say was true, Republicans would relish the opportunity for competition. However, when a group of people have what they desire and resent anything that might affect it, that's not competitiveness. That's fear and the wanting of the status-quo. Competitiveness is not monopolies using all available resources to restrict competition to monopolize their markets. It is not fighting CHANGE. If one was truly competitive, they would be looking for the great opportunity that change brings.

There are too many organizations who think of themselves instead of others or our country. I don't agree with that. This country has evolved to a dominant power because of people working together in a cooperative spirit for a shared purpose. It's the spirit that when all are benefited, so is the individual. It is not the spirit that when I'm benefited everyone else is. The benefits of a few all too often turn out to hurt most everyone else. That's great if we are the country of the few, but we aren't.

The deficit under Obama? All I have to say is great! The money is going for the best cause I can think of...the improvement of our nation. I revealed in my prior post about the great things the stimulus money has accommplished. Economists agree, even the conservative ones. If this President felt another stimulus bill was required, I'd support that too. I don't believe in sitting on the sidelines watching our country going down the toilet. I think it is important to try to do something. I would think a competitive person would want to too.

[Bob Jentges]

The deficit under Obama? All I have to say is great! The money is going for the best cause I can think of...the improvement of our nation....If this President felt another stimulus bill was required, I'd support that too. I don't believe in sitting on the sidelines watching our country going down the toilet. I think it is important to try to do something. I would think a competitive person would want to too.

To quote that famous baseball sportscaster Harry Carey: "HOLY COW"!

Competitors always "...try to do something." The difference between competitors that succeed and those that fail is those that succeed apply reason to what they try, and if what they try does not produce the desired result, they try something else.

A competitor that continues to try something that has failed over and over again and expects that if they keep trying that same thing under the same circumstances they will succeed, is almost certain to fail again and again. Trying and good intentions do not, of themselves, result in success, regardless of the competitivness of the one trying. Moreover, people who sit on the "sidelines" and accept that, in my opinion, are watching their competitor (individual, team, group, business, government, etc.) go "down the toilet".

Going back to the baseball analogy, if a batter continues to swing at eye high fastballs, or low outside curveballs in the dirt he will seldom, if ever be rewarded with a base hit. Believe me, I speak from experience. During my very, very brief low level professional baseball career I demonstrated I could hit the heck out of the ball in batting practice when the pitcher threw the ball down the middle of the plate. But during a game when the pitchers learned I was so competitive (maybe undisciplined would be a better word) I could not lay-off bad pitches I never got a good pitch to hit. That resulted in those on the "sidelines" (the organization) saying bye, bye to me, because they did not think keeping me in the organization would result in the
"improvement" of the organization, even though I must have looked good to them initially!

But I consider you a competitor too and I think you understand my analogy from your younger day's as an accomplished wrestler.

Looking at things from a business standpoint, an owner that continues to stock his/her store or warehouse with products he wishes the consumer would buy because he thinks the product would be good for them, but consumers do not buy, will not be in business very long.

After over a year in office it seems reasonably clear to me that the majority of Americans are not buying what President Obama and the Democrats are selling.

I expressed my concern over excessive government spending in an article I wrote while you were away i.e. it must stop before federal taxpayers can no longer afford their own government.

[Dan Conner]

To quote that famous baseball sportscaster Harry Carey: "HOLY COW"!

Competitors always "...try to do something." The difference between competitors that succeed and those that fail is those that succeed apply reason to what they try, and if what they try does not produce the desired result, they try something else.

A competitor that continues to try something that has failed over and over again and expects that if they keep trying that same thing under the same circumstances they will succeed, is almost certain to fail again and again. Trying and good intentions do not, of themselves, result in success, regardless of the competitivness of the one trying. Moreover, people who sit on the "sidelines" and accept that, in my opinion, are watching their competitor (individual, team, group, business, government, etc.) go "down the toilet".

Going back to the baseball analogy, if a batter continues to swing at eye high fastballs, or low outside curveballs in the dirt he will seldom, if ever be rewarded with a base hit. Believe me, I speak from experience. During my very, very brief low level professional baseball career I demonstrated I could hit the heck out of the ball in batting practice when the pitcher threw the ball down the middle of the plate. But during a game when the pitchers learned I was so competitive (maybe undisciplined would be a better word) I could not lay-off bad pitches I never got a good pitch to hit. That resulted in those on the "sidelines" (the organization) saying bye, bye to me, because they did not think keeping me in the organization would result in the
"improvement" of the organization, even though I must have looked good to them initially!

But I consider you a competitor too and I think you understand my analogy from your younger day's as an accomplished wrestler.

Looking at things from a business standpoint, an owner that continues to stock his/her store or warehouse with products he wishes the consumer would buy because he thinks the product would be good for them, but consumers do not buy, will not be in business very long.

After over a year in office it seems reasonably clear to me that the majority of Americans are not buying what President Obama and the Democrats are selling.

I expressed my concern over excessive government spending in an article I wrote while you were away i.e. it must stop before federal taxpayers can no longer afford their own government.I don't think I need lectures about successful competitors. And I don't think you are an acknowledged expert at making determinations of the ingredients for success. Frankly, I think you have missed the success. Did you read tonight's paper? Mankato is doing relatively well. Overall, the US economy seems to be rebounding. I think you are the unreasonable one here. I am amazed that a lay person with such little economic expertise is judging the President as a failure. To be frank, I don't know for sure if the above writer is able to recognize success.Why would someone expect a person who supported the incompetent Bush Administration as credible in judging success? The first stimulus was a great success and performed exactly as expected.

I disagree that competitors generally apply reason. In fact, much of the destructive forces in competition involve little reason, and even fewer scruples. That might be very beneficial for the competitor, but of no benefit to the community or society. The Bayer Pharmaceutical as an example.

I would say that a successful competitor is able to recognize success when it happens. Most importantly, a successful competitor has a better idea of what to do. Other than an incessant critique of Obama, I have not heard of one viable idea of what would have worked better. I haven't even read anything in the above about what has failed. Certainly, being so astute at seeing failure, one is able to prescribe steps to success. Being negative is easy and requires little thought. Being constructive requires reasoned thought. I haven't heard any of that.

Looking from the standpoint of a business owner, I think you must have noted that car and home purchases were up in Mankato. The State of Minnesota has the smallest percentage increase in unemployment in the US. The President forecast almost exactly what the unemployment percent would be as a result of this recession. And now it is slowly improving, again as he forecast. I think there is too much jibberish here about "competitor" and what someone's homespun ingredients define a "competitor." Instead, I think one needs to open their eyes and notice that so far, we have been saved from an abyss. The Republican solution was let us fall over into the abyss.

Not only are people buying what the President says, they are voting to enact his programs. He has had virtual total success passing his legislation. Now that health care reform appears to be near, it will be another historic legislative victory not witnessed in decades. You are dead wrong about Obama. He is enormously successful. It is the Republican party that has and continues to fail. The party of no and paralysis. The party of no ideas. Not something to be proud of.

Also, self-acclaimed success at baseball doesn't translate to economic technicality. I'm sorry, but the analogy laden post does little to illuminate me or anyone else about economic accumen. I'm sorry, but you are still swinging and missing in this post. I think you need to deal in more substance and use fewer irrelevant metaphors. If you are the pitcher, you're still throwing the ball in the dirt.

[Ben Willaert]

Here it is. I finally agree with something Obama has done. I realize there are still obstacles here, but giving a tax break for hiring workers is a step in the right direction. There is absolutely the issue of businesses being fiscally responsible. It is difficult to hire new workers if their output is not going to be purchased. Hopefully there are enough "bubble" jobs out there that this tax break can now allow those businesses to hire that next worker. Another person collecting a paycheck is another consumer that can buy products to employ the next bubble worker and so on.

[Dan Conner]

I just watched this 30-minute video of the President speaking to the Democrats in the House of Representatives. There is no way I could say it better. He explains the need for health care, the need for us to work as a community, and the need to be true to your convictions. Not only was it a moving speech, but I believe it was from the heart and show what he stands for.

Also, I think it will help clear up about whether he has been a "success." I think he gets at the core of what we need to be, if we are to be Americans.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/20/obama-quotes-lincoln-to-h_n_507124.html

[Bob Jentges]

Why would someone expect a person who supported the incompetent Bush Administration as credible in judging success? The first stimulus was a great success and performed exactly as expected....Being negative is easy and requires little thought. Being constructive requires reasoned thought. I haven't heard any of that....I think you must have noted that car and home purchases were up in Mankato. The State of Minnesota has the smallest percentage increase in unemployment in the US. The President forecast almost exactly what the unemployment percent would be as a result of this recession....Not only are people buying what the President says, they are voting to enact his programs. He has had virtual total success passing his legislation....You are dead wrong about Obama. He is enormously successful.

If you still assume I supported most of the Bush Administrations economic policies I think you either never read my posts on the issue, or forgot what I said.

I have not read much, even in the mainstream media, proclaiming "...the first stimulus was a great success and preformed exactly as expected."(my emphasis) And As I have posted before, I recall President Obama out selling the first "Stimulus Bill" with the claim that if the bill passed unemployment would not exceed 8%.

One thing that bothers me about exchanging posts with you in this Forum is that when you post you consistantly disregard what I have said in previous posts, and move right ahead with your usual method accussing me of offerring only criticizism but no solutions.

Mankato and Minnesota may not have been hit as hard with the recession and unemployment as many other areas, and we should be grateful for that. But I prefer to look farther than Mankato and Minnesota and look at our country in general i.e. the big picture. Moreover, I don't think having "...the smallest percentage increase in unemployment in the U.S." is that big a positive.

President Obama and most of the Democrats may be successful in passing Health Care Reform, but whether or not the effects of the "reform" will be what is best for Americans in general is a judgement best made a few years down the road.

I do not subscribe to the idea of governing by polls, but I think most politicians keep an eye on them. If they do not I think they should in order to get an idea where most of the people they represent stand on issues.

With respect to your contentions I think last week President Obama's favorable rankings were less than 50%---between 43% and 46%. Rasmussen this morning---26% strongly approve & 41% strongly disaprove. Congress had a favorable rating of about 18% and only about 3% considered Speaker Pelosi trustworthy. As to health care specifically, last weeks Pew Poll indicated 38% favorable and 48% unfavorable. Rasmussen this morning---41% approve & 54% disapprove. I do not agree with anything you say in the second to fianl paragraph in your post.

Last and probably least, if you read my post #11 to be "...self-acclaimed success at baseball..." you misread that too!

[Dan Conner]

If you still assume I supported most of the Bush Administrations economic policies I think you either never read my posts on the issue, or forgot what I said.

I have not read much, even in the mainstream media, proclaiming "...the first stimulus was a great success and preformed exactly as expected."(my emphasis) And As I have posted before, I recall President Obama out selling the first "Stimulus Bill" with the claim that if the bill passed unemployment would not exceed 8%.

One thing that bothers me about exchanging posts with you in this Forum is that when you post you consistantly disregard what I have said in previous posts, and move right ahead with your usual method accussing me of offerring only criticizism but no solutions.

Mankato and Minnesota may not have been hit as hard with the recession and unemployment as many other areas, and we should be grateful for that. But I prefer to look farther than Mankato and Minnesota and look at our country in general i.e. the big picture. Moreover, I don't think having "...the smallest percentage increase in unemployment in the U.S." is that big a positive.

President Obama and most of the Democrats may be successful in passing Health Care Reform, but whether or not the effects of the "reform" will be what is best for Americans in general is a judgement best made a few years down the road.

I do not subscribe to the idea of governing by polls, but I think most politicians keep an eye on them. If they do not I think they should in order to get an idea where most of the people they represent stand on issues.

With respect to your contentions I think last week President Obama's favorable rankings were less than 50%---between 43% and 46%. Rasmussen this morning---26% strongly approve & 41% strongly disaprove. Congress had a favorable rating of about 18% and only about 3% considered Speaker Pelosi trustworthy. As to health care specifically, last weeks Pew Poll indicated 38% favorable and 48% unfavorable. Rasmussen this morning---41% approve & 54% disapprove. I do not agree with anything you say in the second to fianl paragraph in your post.

Last and probably least, if you read my post #11 to be "...self-acclaimed success at baseball..." you misread that too!I didn't know you had to read to see around you. Have we collapsed yet? Are things getting better in Mankato? I think it would be good to observe some yourself, instead of investing your thinking to very biased and self-serving sources.

You can post all you want about what you have said about Bush, but the most telling part is what your have done...or not done when it came to Bush. When he was President, I never remember one disparaging word about unfunded wars and prescription drug coverage. I never heard anything disparaging about his panic over the financial disaster he precipitated. Instead, I only hear negative remarks about Obama, who is successfully working on a fix to the incredible mess Bush left us. We are now just about out of Iraq. Obama has had far more success in Afghanistan in a little over a year than Bush had in over 7 years. Wall Street is back over 10,000, compared to about 7,000 during the last part of Bush's Administration. Torture has stopped, health care reform and consumer protection appear imminent, and the rest of the world again respects the US. They have accepted Obama as a far wiser representative of the US. That's pretty good. I'm surprised you've missed all that.

There seems to be a disparity of rememberances here. I remember Obama saying he expected unemployment to top out at about 10%, as inexacting a science as that is. However, I think it is trivial to be quibbling over this. We were in the process of falling over a financial cliff, and it's like worrying about what rock we're going to hit. I am so totally surprised anyway, that you would hold Obama to such a precise standard, when the Republican President, Republican Senate, and Republican House all led us into the 10+% unemployment ditch. I would hope people would learn not to be "burned" in the same way again.

It is astounding that the Republican party, after such a long running string of failures, now pretends to be able to judge success? Generally, I think people would be far ahead listening to Republicans and what they want to do, and then do the opposite to guanantee success. We don't need another President starring off into space and reading "My Pet Goat" for 7 minutes while the 911 attack was happening. Or praising a failed FEMA director with "Good job, Brownie" while the New Orleans debacle was unfolding.

I have continued to respond to substantive issues you have made. However, I have repeatedly asked that you respond with your ideas, not some "ditto-headed" reading of yours. I assume you have your own opinions. I suggest you voice them. To substantiate a claim by saying you haven't read much about Obama's successes doesn't impress me with political objectivity. Instead, it impresses me only with a reactionarily sequestered point of view bolstered by Sean Hannityesq references. I would think you would know that "I have not read much..." is hardly an authoritaive resource on which to predicate your negative feelings for Obama. Maybe you need to revise your reading sources?

Anyway, you have been negative about Obama right out of the shute after Inaguration Day. That hardly portrays an objective source of criticism. You have disliked him from the beginning. I realize that, and I think most everyone else would too. While I question your racial motivations, I understand you have always disliked him. Allowing a Bush Presidency to go on failing for 8 years with hardly a negative word said, but come right out of the blocks with nothing but negative words about Obama illustrates a definite prejudice. Unlike Bush, Obama won the Presidency with a very clear majority, soundly beating John McCain and company. This was very different from Bush, who won with minorities in both elections. So, I suggest you more carefully examine you evaluation about what the people want. While Bush tried to BS the public that he came in with a mandate, President Obama really did come in with a mandate.

[Bob Jentges]

I think it would be good to observe some yourself, instead of investing your thinking to very biased and self-serving sources....
When he was President, I never remember one disparaging word about...prescriscription drug coverage...I never heard anything disparaging about his panic over the financial disaster...I have continued to respond to substantive issues you have made. However, I have repeatedly asked that you respond with your ideas, not some "ditto-headed" reading of yours. I assume you have your own opinions...To substantiate a claim by saying you haven't read much about Obama's successes doesn't impress me with political objectivity. Instead, it impresses me only with a reactionarily sequestered point of view bolstered by Sean Hannityesq references. I would think you would know that "I have not read much..." is hardly an authoritaive resource on which to predicate your negative feelings for Obama. Maybe...Anyway, you have been negative about Obama right out of the shute...While I question your racial motivations...Unlike Bush, Obama won the Presidency with a very clear majority, soundly beating John McCain and company....So, I suggest you more carefully examine you evaluation about what the people want.

I could probably limit my reply to your post with read the polls. I went so far as to cite some of the recent ones in my post #15! But I have lost interest in the NCAA basketball game on TV now, so I will go further in addressing your post.

In addition to providing links from conservative sites like Human Events, The American Spectator, the Heritage Foundation, National Review and others throught this Forum, I have linked articles from the Associated Press, Reuters, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, TIME magazine, The New York Times, etc., all of which I believe most would consider mainstream media sources. In fact I just yesterday I linked an AP article from the Free Press titled: "Final health bill omits some of Obama's promises". You chose not to respond, which is your prerogative.

On the otherhand most of your links have been to the Huffington Post, with an occassional reference to Wikipedia and/or dictionaries.

As far as your not remembering, your memory about what I post seems so poor I am surprised you can remember your "Password" to "Log in" to the Forum to make any posts.

I said from the onset that I did not favor Medicare Part D i.e. prescription drug coverage. I think I was correct about that---it has added a great deal to problems with medicares solvency.

I also expressed disfavor with TARP, but I could have been wrong---more time will tell us more about that. I recall that in late 2008, before TARP, Bush consulted with Candidate Obama and Obama agreed with the program. But to blame the Bush Administration for financial problems related to home loans, etc., is wrong. Those problems can be traced way back to the Carter Administration, and they were fueled by actions or inactions by Democrat Banking Committee Chairmen like Chris Dodd, Barney Frank, etc., when Democrats gained control in 2006.

You say "[You] have continued to respond to substantive [I] have made" (my emphasis), yet in the same breath say I have made none! My "ideas" and "opinions" expressed in my posts are my ideas/opinions. Just because I have linked to articles that support them, often after I have expressed them, is no indication I have no ideas/opinions. Regarding Hannity, how many times must I say I do not watch him---I do not approve of his interviewing style!

If you are giong to quote my "I have not read much" language you could have quoted the entire sentence for context. Since you did not, I will do it for you. "I have not read much, even in the mainstream media, proclaiming '...the first stimulus was a great success and preformed exactly as expected.' (my emphasis)". Shame on you!

I have said to you before, stop the racial insinuations ! Nothing I have said about President Obama has anything to do with his race! I did not vote for him because I gathered from his campaign speeches I did not agree with his ideology and did not think he had the experience to be President. The policies he proposed almost immediatly after "Inaguration Day" reinforced my beliefs.

Many of the people whose articles I have referred you to are the same race as President Obama eg. Tom Sowell Phd, Walter Williams Phd, etc.

The majority President Obama was elected with has nothing to do with his performance as President. Remember the very large majority Richard Nixon received for his second term?

Read the polls!

[Howard Dittrich]

Wow, talk about role reversals. I remember back in the 80's when the Democrats called tax cuts to the rich business owners voodoo economics and it would never work. Now that a Democrat is in the White House, trickle down economics works and will save the working people.

When I asked the question, I figured that the tax and spend, big government types would say that tax cuts do create jobs. You guys did not let me down. LOL

[Dan Conner]

I could probably limit my reply to your post with read the polls. I went so far as to cite some of the recent ones in my post #15! But I have lost interest in the NCAA basketball game on TV now, so I will go further in addressing your post.

In addition to providing links from conservative sites like Human Events, The American Spectator, the Heritage Foundation, National Review and others throught this Forum, I have linked articles from the Associated Press, Reuters, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, TIME magazine, The New York Times, etc., all of which I believe most would consider mainstream media sources. In fact I just yesterday I linked an AP article from the Free Press titled: "Final health bill omits some of Obama's promises". You chose not to respond, which is your prerogative.

On the otherhand most of your links have been to the Huffington Post, with an occassional reference to Wikipedia and/or dictionaries.

As far as your not remembering, your memory about what I post seems so poor I am surprised you can remember your "Password" to "Log in" to the Forum to make any posts.

I said from the onset that I did not favor Medicare Part D i.e. prescription drug coverage. I think I was correct about that---it has added a great deal to problems with medicares solvency.

I also expressed disfavor with TARP, but I could have been wrong---more time will tell us more about that. I recall that in late 2008, before TARP, Bush consulted with Candidate Obama and Obama agreed with the program. But to blame the Bush Administration for financial problems related to home loans, etc., is wrong. Those problems can be traced way back to the Carter Administration, and they were fueled by actions or inactions by Democrat Banking Committee Chairmen like Chris Dodd, Barney Frank, etc., when Democrats gained control in 2006.

You say "[You] have continued to respond to substantive [I] have made" (my emphasis), yet in the same breath say I have made none! My "ideas" and "opinions" expressed in my posts are my ideas/opinions. Just because I have linked to articles that support them, often after I have expressed them, is no indication I have no ideas/opinions. Regarding Hannity, how many times must I say I do not watch him---I do not approve of his interviewing style!

If you are giong to quote my "I have not read much" language you could have quoted the entire sentence for context. Since you did not, I will do it for you. "I have not read much, even in the mainstream media, proclaiming '...the first stimulus was a great success and preformed exactly as expected.' (my emphasis)". Shame on you!

I have said to you before, stop the racial insinuations ! Nothing I have said about President Obama has anything to do with his race! I did not vote for him because I gathered from his campaign speeches I did not agree with his ideology and did not think he had the experience to be President. The policies he proposed almost immediatly after "Inaguration Day" reinforced my beliefs.

Many of the people whose articles I have referred you to are the same race as President Obama eg. Tom Sowell Phd, Walter Williams Phd, etc.

The majority President Obama was elected with has nothing to do with his performance as President. Remember the very large majority Richard Nixon received for his second term?

Read the polls!For eight years, well beyond the life of most of the 5-year no-interest balloon payment mortgages, the Bush Administration merrily went along its way, just biding its time to the big fall. Then, you choose to go back to Carter? Next, you'll be blaming the Iraq war on FDR. The economy steadily deteriorated under Bush's watch and he did nothing. I moved my money out of the market way back in 2006 because I saw things weren't doing well. I didn't have a raft of economic advisors. Where were Bush's advisors? Hey, where was Bush? Instead of reading about pet goats he should have been doing his job. Then, one day he reacted with a panic, when he said that we were facing something even worse than the Great Depression. The collapse happened on his watch, no one else's. He is to blame. Now I think he is mor mature than you, because he has admitted substantial responsibility for our economic failure. Too many Republicans seem to duck and blame everyone else.

The vast majority of the American public want health care reform. The last poll I saw was the 70% favor health care reform. In fact, polls show the majority favor the public option. Now, the current legislation did not get as far as the public option, but it's a lot further along the way than the Republican do nothing approach.

I reference dictionaries because you do not seem to know how to use one. I have to regularly inform you about the meaning of such difficult words as "being."

It has been a while since logged on to the Forum. I just mised you too much. Your great humor mixed with some predictable reactionary rhetoric gives me a laugh before the end of the day. I'm just surprised you got through a post without beating your chest about your achievements coaching kids. I only wish you would have done something in the last many years.

You are right about Medicare Part D!! It was an unmitigated disaster, both in cost and administration. I wonder....what President proposed that? I wonder what party controlled the Senate then? Is that just another Republican failure? I'm afraid so, but it was surprising that you admit it. The Republicans are great for passing programs without the funding to support it. They kind of do the same thing about wars. Somehow, leaving those enormous debts to our children didn't bother them....hmmmmm. Just more hypocrisy?

Republicans seem to become so miserly when Democrats are in office, but then totally run our economy in the ditch when they're in power. Now you vascilate about TARP? You're right we'll wait longer for the long term result. So far, in the short term, it has worked wonderously.

I'll stop with my racial inquisitives when you stop acting racially suspicious. Meanwhile, I 'll raise the issue when ever you seem to border on racism. It's like I've said, you have hated Obama since the day he was elected. You have not said anything positive that I can remmber. That was even at a time that he really had not had a chance to be President yet. As I remember, I had to inform you he hadn't even had a chance to appoint half his cabinet.

Hey, I sure do remember the majority with which Republican President Nixon was elected. It's funny how you mention that stalwart Republican. Let's see... He was impeached and the Senate was about to "convict" him, but then he resigned. Great! He saved himself ande Republicans a lot of embarassment. This bolsters my case about improving our country by doing the opposite a Republican would want done. When Republicans overwhelming concur our country is in trouble. Frankly, I think you better go back to Abraham Lincoln before you find a great Republican. Oh, maybe I would concede Eisenhower was alright. Heck has at least warned us about the "military-industrial complex." He sure was right aout that.

Your Republican party in Congress revealed their objective very early in the Obama Presidency. They wanted to completely bring the Congress to a halt and destroy Obama. Yeah, real patriots there. They value party over country.

[Bob Jentges]

The vast majority of the American public want health care reform. The last poll I saw was the 70% favor health care reform....I reference dictionaries because you do not seem to know how to use one. I have to regularly inform you about the meaning of such difficult words as "being."...I only wish you would have done something in the last many years....You are right about Medicare Part D!! It was an unmitigated disaster, both in cost and administration....I'll stop with my racial inquisitives when you stop acting racially suspicious. Meanwhile, I 'll raise the issue when ever you seem to border on racism. It's like I've said, you have hated Obama since the day he was elected.

I agree the vast majority of Americans (including me) want health care reform; they just did not want the health care reform that the House passed last night. Read the polls I made reference to yesterday; watch to see what the polls say in the next few day's.

If you continue to contend I do not favor health care reform, last night I received a phone call from someone at The Free Press (who I did not know) asking my thoughts on the passage of the health care reform bill. This mornings print edition of The Free Press printed my quote, along with quotes from two others who I do not know. My quote says essentially the same basic thinking I have been posting in the Forum for months. Apparrantly the reporter understood what I said---it's you who does not/refuses to understand what I say!

Get your dictionary out again and open it to any page at random. I think you will see that the same word can have different meanings. It depends on how the word is used in the sentance i.e. context. I thought I established that in a post a few days ago, but it must have been expunged from your memory as is anything you disagree with.

As to your comment about wishing I had been "doing something in the last many years", I did. When working in the private sector as a saleried person for 32+ years, 50 or even 60 hour weeks were not unusual. The group I supervised in Minnesota and Wisconsin paid out multi-millions of dollars to policyholders and claimants/plaintiff's each year. Yes we owed the claim payments, but we paid what we owed promptly and with empathy. Additionally I spent many hours doing volunteer work with youth during those years. I am not saying this to boast, but rather to address your comment.

"Acting racially suspicious..."...and "seem to border on racism"? Unless you can give me even one example to substanciate such inflamitory claims shut up about it!

You can say I hate Obama until you run out of breath, but that does not make it true. Besides you can not find anywhere in thes Forum where I said I "hate" Obama. As I have said before in this Forum, but because of your frequent memory lapses and boilerplate assertions I will say it once more: I dislike Obama's policies, but I do not "hate" Obama. "Hate" is one of your frequently (too frequently in my opinion) used words---so is "lie"!

[Dan Conner]

I agree the vast majority of Americans (including me) want health care reform; they just did not want the health care reform that the House passed last night. Read the polls I made reference to yesterday; watch to see what the polls say in the next few day's.

If you continue to contend I do not favor health care reform, last night I received a phone call from someone at The Free Press (who I did not know) asking my thoughts on the passage of the health care reform bill. This mornings print edition of The Free Press printed my quote, along with quotes from two others who I do not know. My quote says essentially the same basic thinking I have been posting in the Forum for months. Apparrantly the reporter understood what I said---it's you who does not/refuses to understand what I say!

Get your dictionary out again and open it to any page at random. I think you will see that the same word can have different meanings. It depends on how the word is used in the sentance i.e. context. I thought I established that in a post a few days ago, but it must have been expunged from your memory as is anything you disagree with.

As to your comment about wishing I had been "doing something in the last many years", I did. When working in the private sector as a saleried person for 32+ years, 50 or even 60 hour weeks were not unusual. The group I supervised in Minnesota and Wisconsin paid out multi-millions of dollars to policyholders and claimants/plaintiff's each year. Yes we owed the claim payments, but we paid what we owed promptly and with empathy. Additionally I spent many hours doing volunteer work with youth during those years. I am not saying this to boast, but rather to address your comment.

"Acting racially suspicious..."...and "seem to border on racism"? Unless you can give me even one example to substanciate such inflamitory claims shut up about it!

You can say I hate Obama until you run out of breath, but that does not make it true. Besides you can not find anywhere in thes Forum where I said I "hate" Obama. As I have said before in this Forum, but because of your frequent memory lapses and boilerplate assertions I will say it once more: I dislike Obama's policies, but I do not "hate" Obama. "Hate" is one of your frequently (too frequently in my opinion) used words---so is "lie"!Bob, you have not wanted health care reform. That was evident in te early days of the debate. There's no use hiding from that.

Republicans sound like spoiled brats. They want health care reform, but not that reform. It reminds me of a complaining child who wanted a change in his diet, but then complained when mom made aspharagus one of the changes. Well, I suggest, just like mom, try it Bob, you might like it. Don't be a Mikey.

This is a great day for America. We have started the health care change America needs for everyone. It's about time American conservatives regard existing people with the same sanctity, as they do for the life of embryos. It's time to stop the hypocrisy about the regard for human life.

Great Bob! I'm glad the Free Press called, but I'm not impressed as much as you would like me to be. I think they called to find out how bitter you were. Good press right? A little conflict here and there. Other than that, I'll let you beat your chest all you want. You must really be important...in someone's mind.

Hey, I'm glad you finally discovered words can have multiple meanings. Brilliant. You are learning. Now, if you would only learn that it is the writer that determines which meaning...not the reader. Of course, there is also that thing called context, but why spoil your record of misinterpretation.

Bob, it is amazing how you now define public service as doing your job. I hate to remind ytou, but you got paid for that. While I'm glad to see you worked 50-60 hours a week, my first reply would be, "Is that all?" You confirmed in my mind that all that hard work was not so terribly hard. There are lists of millions upon millions of people working harder and longer than that. And many of tem don't have health insurance. Franklly, I was surprised you only worked that few hours. I regularly worked those hours, and many times far longer. Also, I'm glad you are beating your chest about your 32+ years. I did it for 39+ years.

I'm most surprised that I didn't read about things you have done for the community since you have retired. I don't consider what you have been paid to do as any kind of community service. If so, you are in the same company as everyone else. And guess what, many many others don't have helth insurance coverage for all their hard work. I would think that selfless people would realize that there are millions upon millions of people who work as hard as they do, but unfortunately don't have the great medical care, or income for that matter. True empathy would point to a remedy for that problem, other than I don't want to pay any taxes to help anyone else. Selfishness is not an admirable or flattering cloak to wear.

You're right. I can say you hate Obama and it doesn't make it true, but you certainly can create that perception. Your hate for Obama preceded his ever proposing or passing any policies.

I think it is such as "spoiled person" mantra to equate community service with what one has done as part of their professional life. Afterall, one was paid for doing that. One probably would not have done those things if they hadn't been paid. If we were to accept the contention that community service and profession were the same, then EVERYONE (except for the 10% unfortunate people looking for work) who work for a living engage in community servce. The unfortunate part of that is, many of those professionals are not getting rewarded with the good health insurance or pay that other "community workers" are. It's time the community level that playing field.

[Bob Jentges]

Bob, you have not wanted health care reform....
Republicans...want health care reform, but not that reform....Great Bob! I'm glad the Free Press called, but I'm not impressed as much as you would like me to be. I think they called to find out how bitter you were....Now, if you would only learn that it is the writer that determines which meaning...not the reader. Of course, there is also that thing called context, but why spoil your record of misinterpretation....Bob, it is amazing how you now define public service as doing your job. Also, I'm glad you are beating your chest about your 32+ years. I did it for 39+ years....I think it is such as "spoiled person" mantra to equate community service with what one has done as part of their professional life.

Maybe it would enlighten you about my position on the need for health care reform if you would go back and read some of my early posts in the various health care threads in this Forum.

For once you have interpreted something correctly---Republicans, and me, "want health care reform, but not that reform" i.e. what passed the House last night.

If as you suggest The Free Press called "to find out how bitter [I] was", and if you read the quote the article attributed to me, I guess I fooled them! Also, part of what I was quoted as saying was: "I'm not saying we don't need health care reform. Goodness gracious we certainly do".

The "writer determines...which meaning [of a word that can have more than one meaning]---not the reader" could be true if the writer understands which meaning fits the context of the sentence they are using the word in. When the writer uses the proper context the reader will understand what the writer meant. When the writer does not understand the proper context in which to use a word with more than one meaning but the reader does---well correctly communicitating the writers thought does not happen.

I think you should read the fourth paragraph in my post #20 again. How even someone as illiterate as you could interprute that to say I equated doing my job in the private sector as public service is beyond me. The volunteer work I was referring to had absolutly nothing to do with my "professional life". I think it should go without saying that I did not do volunteer work to benefit myself---but when trying to get through to you maybe that is not the case. So let me be clear; I did volunteer work for the benifit others. Get it now?

The 32+ years was my time in the private sector. I worked in the public sector as a teacher for eight years before that.

The whites of your eyes are turning brown. Interprut what that means!;)

[Dan Conner]

Maybe it would enlighten you about my position on the need for health care reform if you would go back and read some of my early posts in the various health care threads in this Forum.

For once you have interpreted something correctly---Republicans, and me, "want health care reform, but not that reform" i.e. what passed the House last night.

If as you suggest The Free Press called "to find out how bitter [I] was", and if you read the quote the article attributed to me, I guess I fooled them! Also, part of what I was quoted as saying was: "I'm not saying we don't need health care reform. Goodness gracious we certainly do".

The "writer determines...which meaning [of a word that can have more than one meaning]---not the reader" could be true if the writer understands which meaning fits the context of the sentence they are using the word in. When the writer uses the proper context the reader will understand what the writer meant. When the writer does not understand the proper context in which to use a word with more than one meaning but the reader does---well correctly communicitating the writers thought does not happen.

I think you should read the fourth paragraph in my post #20 again. How even someone as illiterate as you could interprute that to say I equated doing my job in the private sector as public service is beyond me. The volunteer work I was referring to had absolutly nothing to do with my "professional life". I think it should go without saying that I did not do volunteer work to benefit myself---but when trying to get through to you maybe that is not the case. So let me be clear; I did volunteer work for the benifit others. Get it now?

The 32+ years was my time in the private sector. I worked in the public sector as a teacher for eight years before that.

The whites of your eyes are turning brown. Interprut what that means!;)I have long learned to disregard most of what you say. You say you support halth care reform, even though this was a belated response and you have spent far more energy ande posts to defending th status-quo. So pardon me if I don't believe you. You support reform like the Republicans have. It covers vey few additional people adds to the deficit and does nothong about the abuses of insurance companies to kick people ff because they are sick or because the had a "pre-existing condition." Therefore, your statement about needing and wanting health care reform is not born out by the facts. Your reform seems to be limited to interstate competition and tort reform. Guess what, the Democrats incorporated these into their legislation.

I think it is easy to say you support reform, but I think it is more important to look at your record. That record shows NO support fro reform, only obstruction and trivial adjustments to our broken system. I think one has to remember that actions are more important than words. You say lots of things, but without sincerity. Just re-read all of your defense of the current system. Heck, you have repeatedly and empahtically asserted we have the best health care sytem n the world. Now you think it needs to be changed? I think you need to focus more on consistency.

At least you know state for the record you want reform. The question is what??? Maybe the insurance company letterhead needs to be changed? You again illustrate your failure to read. You concede context is important, but then you ignore context? You use your hallucinatious mind to assert I mean God when I use "being." That's your problem, not mine. I defined "being" for you, and even furnished the dictionary definition, but you are apparently still unable to comprehend. I think you feel the dictionary is a turntable of definitions where you get to pick a definition that suits your prejudiced argument. I guess some people just can't be educated. Apparently you can't learn. However, I will reiterate "being" again for you Bob. It does not necessarily mean God, human, or anything tangible. You won't sucker me into believing you are religious because yoiu want to interpret the only meaning of "being" to be God. It certainly won't emphasize your humanity by believing it only means a human either. Just learn about words before you criticize their use. Maybe try something like...the state or quality of having existence; An object, idea, or symbol that exists, or thought to exist, or is represented to exist. You might think that's God or human, I don't. So don't twist my words. Learn to what they mean.

If you need a dictionary, let me know and I will buy you one. However, if you have one, try to use it. And stop BEING so stupid.

Please try not to hurt me so when you say my eyes are turning brown...boohoo. I'll try to interprut (?) that. You are displaying your vintage here. Well, I'll respond be saying "Sticks and stones may brake my bones, but your words will hillariously bounce off me." Oh, is that how it goes? Maybe not...but..er...well, I think it's a better finish for you anyway.

[Ben Willaert]

Your reform seems to be limited to interstate competition and tort reform. Guess what, the Democrats incorporated these into their legislation.




They did? I haven't heard or read of any tort reform or interstate competition. I would be interested in knowing what was included.

[Bob Jentges]

You use your hallucinatious mind to assert I mean God when I use "being." That's your problem, not mine. I defined "being" for you, and even furnished the dictionary definition, but you are apparently still unable to comprehend. I think you feel the dictionary is a turntable of definitions where you get to pick a definition that suits your prejudiced argument. I guess some people just can't be educated. Apparently you can't learn. However, I will reiterate "being" again for you Bob. It does not necessarily mean God, human, or anything tangible. You won't sucker me into believing you are religious because yoiu want to interpret the only meaning of "being" to be God. It certainly won't emphasize your humanity by believing it only means a human either. Just learn about words before you criticize their use. Maybe try something like...the state or quality of having existence; An object, idea, or symbol that exists, or thought to exist, or is represented to exist. You might think that's God or human, I don't. So don't twist my words. Learn to what they mean....If you need a dictionary, let me know and I will buy you one. However, if you have one, try to use it. And stop BEING so stupid.

Rather than shooting from the hip aimlessly as you almost always do, why don't you go to the Global Warming thread and read my post #47. That post references the two dictionaries I used, and also explains how you tied yourself in a knot over the improper use of the word "being" in your sentance.

I found it strange you did not reply to that analysis, but now choose to bring the issue up again and distort the whole thing. Could it have been a way to try to mislead readers of your above post who may not have read my Global Warming post? Gee, why would I get the impression that you would intentionally distort and try to mislead when I should know you are not clever enough to do that. Because I am such a caring and considerate fellow I will give you the benefit of doubt and say the real reason that happens to you so often must be because you simply lack reason and logic---you are not devious---you are simply not very smart!

On second thought maybe you did read my post #47 in the Global Warming thread again---you used the word "being" in proper context in the final sentance of your post which I quoted above, although I suppose it could have been by accident.

FYI I heard the phrase "The whites of your eyes are turning brown" from a young college fellow this weekend. Thought it was clever. I will not think less of you it you do not understand what it means.:)


PS Do not overlook Ben's post #24. It's short and you must have the correct answer somewhere in your being.

[Dan Conner]

Rather than shooting from the hip aimlessly as you almost always do, why don't you go to the Global Warming thread and read my post #47. That post references the two dictionaries I used, and also explains how you tied yourself in a knot over the improper use of the word "being" in your sentance.

I found it strange you did not reply to that analysis, but now choose to bring the issue up again and distort the whole thing. Could it have been a way to try to mislead readers of your above post who may not have read my Global Warming post? Gee, why would I get the impression that you would intentionally distort and try to mislead when I should know you are not clever enough to do that. Because I am such a caring and considerate fellow I will give you the benefit of doubt and say the real reason that happens to you so often must be because you simply lack reason and logic---you are not devious---you are simply not very smart

On second thought maybe you did read my post #47 in the Global Warming thread again---you used the word "being" in proper context in the final sentance of your post which I quoted above, although I suppose it could have been by accident.

FYI I heard the phrase "The whites of your eyes are turning brown" from a young college fellow this weekend. Thought it was clever. I will not think less of you it you do not understand what it means.:)


PS Do not overlook Ben's post #24. It's short and you must have the correct answer somewhere in your being.

Analysis? Are ayou kidding me? I have never seen any effective analysis out of you yet. You are a hog that thinks he has table manners. You are "being" ridiculous. Either you were unable to comprehend the full spectum of definitions for "being" or you don't want to . That's problably a typical affliction of reactionaries.

I do remember in your global warming posts that you didn't feel there is global warming. At least nothing man could possibly have caused, but maybe that's the ostrich blood in you. Let's see...tie myself in knots? It must have been a slip knot. You sit there all bound in a "square knot" and you talk of me tying my self up? What silly little "analysis" have you come to now. Did your in depth analysis of superficialities come up with that one?

Please do explain all your above jibberish. You waste paragraphs of cipher about who knows what on the ridiculous. Analysis? Frankly, I haven't seen any analysis of anything other than you have a great deal of difficulty reading and comprehending the dictionary. Distort "the whole thing" you say... Real good. I have no idea what you are talking about. Why don't you at least give a reader the courtesy of explaining your rant. Distorting things....wow!

Talk about distorting? Considerate and caring fellow. Now I know you need to read the dictionary. I have seen very little of either in you. You don't wish to help people who die for lack of health care because it might cost you something, you classify working your job as a public service, you worked the beastly 40-50 hours a week (whew). And you want health care reform, except for anything that is proposed or passed. You say you want health care reform, but amazingly, you have no idea what that is. Kind of like your dictionary use. Then, you rail against the reform passed because.....it costs too much. Yet it produces a surplus over 10-year period. You are a perfect Republican. You don't like anything done and you have no ideas. You disaprove of anything with Obama fingerprints on it, he has never been a good President, even after a month in office, but you aren't prejudiced. Sorry, I don't buy it. Just saying you're considerate, caring, and not prejudiced doesn't absolve you. I think I need to see some evidence. Your many many posts cast a looming shadow over those overly generous self-appraisals. I think you are a little too obsessed with telling everyone how good and generous you are, chest-beating, and general self-promotion.

I suggest that you work a little harder on being more considerate and caring because your self-interested testimonial just doesn't cut it. I think of you more like the emperor with no clothes. I'm still thinking of your exhausting typical work day...40-50 hours....wow. Well, maybe it will help you feel better that only 99% of workers work that hard, but I will say good job Bob, if that makes you feel good. Maybe you would want a valuable testimonial from President Bush. He could say, "Good job Brownie...er...ah...Bob." Maybe now you can back to the topic in this thread.

[Bob Jentges]

Analysis? Are ayou kidding me? I have never seen any effective analysis out of you yet....Please do explain all your above jibberish....Talk about distorting? Considerate and caring fellow. Now I know you need to read the dictionary....Maybe now you can back to the topic in this thread.

I think most who thought my Global Warming post #47 was not an "effective analysis" would have tried to refrute it in a reply post.

If you do not understand my relativly short post #26 the way it is written, trying to explain it to you would be an exercise in futility.

I knew my use of the words "caring and considerate" would jerk your chain and boy did they. Irony, satire, sarcasm, etc., consistantly go right over the top of your humorless being. Since you continue to repeat yourself over and over and over it is only fitting that I try it. Here goes: I can read you like a monk reads a book and play you like a concert violinist plays a
Stradavarous.

I agree we should "get back to the topic in this thread". I think good place to start might be for you to reply to Ben's post #24, as I suggested you do in the PS to my post #25

[Ben Willaert]

It could be argued that the health care reform that is being signed today is also a boost to the job market. Health insurance companies are going to have to hire more people to provide customer service to the 30 million new clients. The health insurance companies will be able to use the tax break for hiring as well, saving more money that can be used to hire more workers. And hopefully, since those employees will see first hand the expenses of health care, they can become thrifty in their personal use of health care. It will be good to see a profitable company hiring workers that have the potential to exemplify citizenship.

[Bob Jentges]

They did? I haven't heard or read of any tort reform or interstate competition. I would be interested in knowing what was included.

It has been almost 24 hours since your above post and Dan has not responded, even after a couple reminders from me. Therefore, even though I think you know the answer to your own question, here is my answer.

Selling accross state lines is not included in the Democrat plan, as it stands now.

There is no provision in the bill as it stands now for tort reform. The only thing relating to tort reform, at least as I understand matters now, is that President Obama instructed HHS Secutary Kathleen Sebelious (sp) to form a committee to "study" the issue. A typical bureacratic ploy to avoid taking action or make a decision.

More than 30 States have instituted some type tort reform since 1986, so I would hope the "committee" will explore what has been learned by those expirements. If they do it would seem it should speed-up the time it might take the "committee" to report back on their findings.

[Dan Conner]

I think most who thought my Global Warming post #47 was not an "effective analysis" would have tried to refrute it in a reply post.

If you do not understand my relativly short post #26 the way it is written, trying to explain it to you would be an exercise in futility.

I knew my use of the words "caring and considerate" would jerk your chain and boy did they. Irony, satire, sarcasm, etc., consistantly go right over the top of your humorless being. Since you continue to repeat yourself over and over and over it is only fitting that I try it. Here goes: I can read you like a monk reads a book and play you like a concert violinist plays a
Stradavarous.

I agree we should "get back to the topic in this thread". I think good place to start might be for you to reply to Ben's post #24, as I suggested you do in the PS to my post #25Hey, you just admitted that you being considerate and caring was an irony. You've come clean. Even you recognize that. Your claim for reading me is certainly overstated. You have a hard time reading even simple prose. However, let me know when you graduate to words more difficult than "being." I guess you would have a hard time playing...Stradavarous? I would suggest you learn to spell in addition to read. Or, maybe you mean Stradvarous? No instrument that I know.

You must now think you are the post policeman? I will respond to who I choose. You are probably directing me to someone more challenging than you? It's just that your posts are so poorly thought out and flawed, it is easy to address yours. I'm sure Ben's is far better and more thoroughly thought out than yours. It's just to much fun criticizing your "Elmer Fudd" posts. What words are you working on today? Have you graduated out of Dick and Jane?

[Ben Willaert]

It has been almost 24 hours since your above post and Dan has not responded, even after a couple reminders from me. Therefore, even though I think you know the answer to your own question, here is my answer.

Selling accross state lines is not included in the Democrat plan, as it stands now.

There is no provision in the bill as it stands now for tort reform. The only thing relating to tort reform, at least as I understand matters now, is that President Obama instructed HHS Secutary Kathleen Sebelious (sp) to form a committee to "study" the issue. A typical bureacratic ploy to avoid taking action or make a decision.

More than 30 States have instituted some type tort reform since 1986, so I would hope the "committee" will explore what has been learned by those expirements. If they do it would seem it should speed-up the time it might take the "committee" to report back on their findings.

Thanks Bob. That is what I thought.

[Bob Jentges]

Have we collapsed yet?

I do not think so, but in a poll out today 79% of those surveyed said they thought the "American economy will collapse", including 72% of Democrats polled.

[Dan Conner]

I do not think so, but in a poll out today 79% of those surveyed said they thought the "American economy will collapse", including 72% of Democrats polled.Are you able to make up your mind? Or do you consult polls before you think?

[Bob Jentges]

...do you consult polls before you think?

No, but it's no surprise to me that as usual you have it backwards. The only reason I consult polls is to see if most peoples thoughts about an issue agree with what I think.

[Bob Jentges]

The title of this thread is: "Obama giving tax breaks to businesses"

I just saw a speech by the President saying he wants Congeess to loan small businesses money so they can hire people. Yesterday he said his plan was to eliminate the Bush tax cuts for people earning more than $200,000/$250,000. Since most small businesses pay their business tax as part of their personal income tax his rideculous plan seems to give small business owners a loan and then raise their taxes!

I know many small business owners and most of them would prefer government create a stable enviroment for them to operate and they will take care of creating jobs without the need to pump another several billion dollars into another government program that on it's face is counter productive to creating jobs.

Everything this Administration proposes flies in the face of common sense!:confused: