O'Reilly article

[muttly]

ROTFLMAO ... by a certifiable ***-clown ?

I suspect not:



Williamson’s Howlers :: The Circle Bastiat

I must say mutt, you really do know how to pick 'em ...

You didn't respond to my article, other than to post something else about what somebody had to say about the author.

 

[cheri1122]

I don't think it's the governments's business to pick winners and losers.

Straight from a Fox editorial - or was it Rush who said that? It is the government's business to encourage 'good' behavior and discourage 'bad', correct? That's why the tax structure rewards home ownership, charitable donations, business investments, etc.

I was speaking of GM. He didn't do anything with the unions and so GM will be asking for more billions.The managemant got wacked in the deal,along with the 20,000 non union members and bond holders. Do you think it's ok for the tax payers not to get back the billions of dollars they are owed and to foot the bill for more? I'm for govt. creating an environment for businesses to be successful so they can hire people so they can have a job and have money.

Business has been pretty **** succesful, for the most part: the top employers [who pay the lowest wages, BTW] have all seen profits rise the past few years. But they're not hiring people. The Bush tax cuts promised to encourage business investment and jobs, but they didn't hire people, they laid them off.
Now people are again insisting that business taxes should be cut to promote hiring, and you know, we just aren't buying it, this time.

Bipartisanship is good when country benefits. Bad when the the country suffers.

Much of the country has been suffering for years, but it isn't the business sector, by a long shot.

 

[muttly]

Much of the country has been suffering for years, but it isn't the business sector, by a long shot.

The "Bush tax cuts" happened in the early 2,000's. The recession in the late 1990's, and the 9/11 attack affected the economy initially,then the Bush tax cuts kicked in and then the economy improved.The GDP was higher,the amount of jobs created was higher, and the unemployment rate was lower. Understand also that since the unemployment rate under Bush was just about at full employment the amount of jobs created wouldn't be real high. It still had better growth than the previous four years that Barry's supporters seem to trumpeting all the time. Like 1.5 percent GDP and enemic job growth is to be some type of accomplishment. I mean it's an embarrassing job record you would have to agree?

 

[AMonger]

Bipartisanship is good when country benefits. Bad when the the country suffers.

Bipartisanship is ok when no moral or ethical principle or right is violated. We can debate about how much of the budget should go toward something constitutionally authorized and come to a compromise. For other things, bipartisanship/compromise is an unacceptable evil.

 

[Pilgrim]

Much of the country has been suffering for years, but it isn't the business sector, by a long shot.

What on earth would make you say that? Surely not because Barack Hussein Obama told us "the private sector is doing fine" during a campaign speech. As Muttly mentioned in the previous post GDP has been almost flatlined the past four years, more people are unemployed now than four years ago and the average household income of a middle class family has declined almost $10K per year - all because businesses are going out of business. The economic policies of the Obama administration have been a disaster, as evidenced by the practically nonexistant recovery since the recession supposedly ended in the summer of 2009. Now, under the disguise of "comprimise" and "Grand Bargains" our elected representatives are going to raise taxes on individuals and small businesses, impose socialized medicine on our society while continuing to run up annual trillion dollar deficits. Doesn't inspire a lot of confidence for our immediate future.

This graph should scare you

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/10/us/recession-officially-over-us-incomes-kept-falling.html