As usual, Congresswoman Schakowsky has got things backwards. The problem is not demand-there is plenty of demand. The problem is confidence and an anti-business attitude by the Obama Administration.

We could create 230,000 jobs in the Gulf South overnight simply by allowing energy companies to continue producing oil and gas in the Gulf of Mexico. There would be no cost to gov't to create these jobs and increased revenue would start flowing into gov't coffers.

The way to get the American economy moving again is to get government out of the way of the private sector-cut the "red tape".

"Government is not the to solution to the problem; government is the problem."

"The answer is not to put your dreams in centralized bureaucratic Washington. The future is self-government, empowerment of the individual, a citizen-driven and more horizontal government."

Rep. Thaddeus McCotter, R-Michigan

Congresswoman Schakowsky's proposal is to give the unemployed shovels and pay them to dig holes and then fill the holes up. Good idea, Congresswoman.

Fred Spagat: "oil drilling will do nothing for jobs". . . and the oil production will create 230,000 jobs...,what planet are from?"

There are two states where the recession is history: Texas and North Dakota. The reason is oil and gas production. Both Canada and Australia are doing fine too-the reason is the same-energy production.

The Obama Administration's drilling moratorium in the Gulf of Mexico has idled 230,000 energy workers in the Gulf South. Those workers could go back to work tomorrow if the Administration lifted the drilling moratorium today. Those jobs are high-paying jobs.

Something tells me that Mr. Spagat is not particularly interested in facts. If windmills and solar panels were a viable means of energy production, they wouldn't need to be subsudized by the government. We've been talking about windmills and solar panels for the last 40 years and guess what? It's still all talk.

The same can be said for the Chevy Volt. Nobody wants a $40 thousand car that can only go 40 miles before it needs to use the gasoline powered engine. Why not just buy a car with only a gasoline-powered engine and save $20 thousand.

What do jobs in the Gulf South do for the rest of the country? Hmmm, it doesn't take a PhD to answer that question. . ., but since you don't seem to understand, the energy sector workers spend the money they earn and that spending ripples through the rest of the economy.

It should be obvious that jobs in the Gulf South also reduces the unemployment rate and producing more oil and gas reduces the price of these two commodities which is, of course, good for everyone who uses energy.

Another interesting fact is that the depleted oil wells in Texas are filling up with oil once again. Each year, the estimates of provable oil and gas reserves increases. There is plenty of oil and gas on this planet to last for hundreds of years and the richest oil and gas deposits are in North America. There is no reason why America has to import oil from the Middle East.

If developing energy resources in Canada and Australia has helped those two countries exit the recession, maybe it might be a good idea if we follow their example.

Mr. Spagat, your response above indicates that you have little knowledge of economics, or of engineering, for that matter.

I disagree 1000%...oil does not help the economy as you say...never has...and the new wells...a 2 year project that puts a sector to work...not the rest...you are quite mistaken...obvious far right attitudes control your short sited thinking...we have college educated kids not working..so should we stick them in oil fields..we need to get the intelligence in this country working...not the brawn..as to economic..I have my degree in econ...but as we all know all economist have their own ideas of what works or dont..I am not an engineer,but I will stick my head out and say you have neither expertise...just whats been propagandized into your head..by the way,we do produce plenty of oil...we export a good portion elsewhere..but enough to last hundreds of years...you are a dreamer...check your facts...they are flawed...with a billion people in China ready to tap the oil...better learn your mathematics son

Fred Spagat: ". . .by the way,we do produce plenty of oil...we export a good portion elsewhere..but enough to last hundreds of years...you are a dreamer...check your facts...they are flawed...with a billion people in China ready to tap the oil...better learn your mathematics son."

For 30 years now, I've heard we're running out of oil. Well, we've still got plenty of oil, coal and gas and the supply keeps getting larger as we develop improved methods for extracting oil and gas.

May I suggest Mr. Spagat that you check the history of all the pronouncements that we're out of oil. It simply ain't so. The mathematics that you refer to is based upon a static analysis. Sorry, a static analysis isn't appropriate in this case because it doesn't take into account improved methods of extraction.

And this guy thinks he's the smartest person in the room. "Dumber than a box of rocks" would be a more appropriate.

How pathetic. Yeah, create more jobs that the state can't afford , nor the taxpayers who are already broke. This lady is DEAF, DUMB & STUPID to boot. I'm tired of subsidizing corporations and this DUMB PARTY OF DEMOCRATS who have such bad regulations in this state that they can't keep a job unless they totally throw TAXPAYER cash at them. Seriously? Everyone standing with Jan are unions hacks and hired people.

Wow, Jan Schakowsky even has the SEIU guy looking like a responsible adult calling for fiscal sanity. She is out of touch with her district and the rest of the State of Illinois.

It's the Campaign season. Popular thing to say is "we'll create jobs" Whats Jan been doing since 99.

Isn't it time we let this woman retire? More government jobs just means bigger government. We need private sector jobs. We need the government to get out of the way and let the private sector get back to business.

One way to create jobs in the private sector would be to repeal Obamacare. If Obamacare was repealed tomorrow, the economy would explode with private sector jobs. Socialist health care only works in theory, but not in the real world.

It's encouraging to see people speaking out and telling Congresswoman Schakowsky what they actually think of her socialist schemes. I guess the American people have finally had enough of this recession from hell and have figured out that the policies that have been enacted to combat the recession are actually prolonging it.

Let's get America working again!!!

She is growing incompetent. To many lobbyist have visited her. She is taken the $ from those that the public wants it to come from. She knows how to cover up/spend $$ we will not have and make her lobbyists friends happy. Her and her associates are the real cause of our being out of money.

You can't blame her completely. People keep voting for her. Obviously we are a minority here.

Yesterday, President Obama was on his bus tour in Minnesota. He told the crowd that he knows what to do to get the economy back on track and that he will outline his plans in September.

Well, if he knows what to do, why didn't he do it 2 years ago? And why wait until September? If the President knows what to do, let's start today. Unfortunately, the President is clueless and this is just more talk. The President is very good at talking, but that's about all he's good at. . . . .

From the Washington Post:

"Washingtonians now enjoy the highest median household income of any metropolitan area in the country, and five of the top 10 jurisdictions in America -- Loudoun, Howard and Fairfax counties, and Falls Church and Fairfax City -- are here, census data shows."

Your tax dollars go to Washington and stay in Washington.

That's just so depressing. I'd like to leave IL too. Unfortunately, I own a house I can't sell. Mr. Obama is also really good at helping those who won't work to the money of those who do. And blaming G W in the process.

I keep hearing the same ridiculous talking points over and over again about how we should get out of the way of business and let them do their thing. What a joke. Is your memory that short about how we got into this mess in the first place. Rather than blaming the folks who caused this, they've got middle class folks brainwashed into turning on each in case one has a slightly better pension than the other. If we drag each other down, we'll all be at the bottom together. You know those billionaires must be laughing all the way to the bank.

BTW: Why would anyone think the economy would explode with jobs if Obamacare were repealed. It didn't happen before we had Obamacare. And health insurance through government does work. People have moved to some of the countries because they have a better lifestyle. Yes, the taxes are more, but not more than what you pay for monthly premiums to an insurance company each year, and a big portion of that goes to the health insurance CEO and big wigs running the show. We don't need health insurance companies; they aren't a necessity. However, we do need health providers.

The recession is not going to come to an end because of Grover Norquists plan to have candidates for office sign his Taxpayer Protection Pledge. This pledge is causing gridlock in congress with the aim of choking off funding to the government. (Research Grover on the Internet.)

Sadly, people don't seem to realize this is bad for everybody in America, including the rich.

Ms. Williams: "This pledge is causing gridlock in congress with the aim of choking off funding to the government."

The Federal government has more than adequate funding to fulfill it's constitutional mandates. Do we really want to give the Federal government more money to spend? With 43 cents of every dollars spent by the Federal government borrowed, the Congress and the President have shown that they cannot responsibly handle the nation's budget. (That includes Republicans, as well as Democrats.)

Quite frankly, I don't need the government to tell me how to live my life. Yes, that's exactly what we what, a smaller government.

To once again quote Ronald Reagan, "Government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem." Everything that the government touches is a mess. The less government does, the less of a mess we'll have.

It's fashionable to blame the banks for this economic train-wreck, but it was Government involvement in the mortgage market that got us into this mess. The Federal Government mandated that banks make loans to unqualified borrowers. The banks knew what was going on and got rid of those loans as fast as they could-can't blame them for that.

The law that got us into this mess was the Community Reinvestment Act enacted by Congress during the Carter Administration. (Of course, we all know which party controlled Congress at that time.) You can't expect unqualified borrowers to repay loans.

"The entire Democratic Party is currently promising to "save" Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid in their present form. According to Obama's own Treasury Secretary, Tim Geithner, in less than 10 years, spending on those three entitlement programs, plus servicing the national debt, will consume 92 cents of every dollar in the federal budget."

Ann Coulter

"The new poll, conducted Aug. 11-14, finds that only 26 percent of the public approves of Obama's handling of the economy, while a whopping 71 percent said they disapproved. The previous low point on the issue as measured by Gallup was 35 percent."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/17/obama-job-approval-economy_n_929850.html

Mr Schulte:
I agree with your first premise, and the fact that the government can create a lot of red tape; some of it necessary and some of it not. The public wants accountability for their money so they have to cover themselves with reports based on facts and regulations/law. (Our lawmakers make these regulations and laws; hence resulting red tape) Having said that, I agree that we could do without many of those hoops. But look on the bright side, we have made great strides in improving food, air and water quality and should not go backwards on those health related protective agencies.

The fact that the government has a deficit which, BTW began before the current administration took office, is not what holds companies back from hiring. Companies are not hopeful. Companies are holding onto a record amount of cash (2T). It’s because they are in business and the successful ones are still in business because they are smart. And productivity is up because they are making people do more work with less employees. Why would you hire more employees yet? Put yourself in the place of a business owner or a bank; unless you know that demand is going to increase you aren't going to hire more employees and banks aren't going to loan you money to expand without a sound business plan. That wouldn't be a sound business practice, so I don't blame them for not hiring.

Cont.
Besides, who would put their neck out when in a few months, the House might block a raise in the debt ceiling again. Companies might think they better hold onto their cash. Demand has to be there, or at least the expectation of demand, but when wealth is concentrated at historic levels not seen since the 1920s and worse than may Latin America countries (400 Americans hold as much wealth as 60% of all Americans, and 1% own more than 90%) dollars are concentrated with people who can choose to spend it or not. If you only make $25,000 a year, chances are you are going to spend 100% of that money upon receipt. When spent it creates up to $1.61 in that economy for each dollar spent. Every time you lay off a middle class employee, public or private, you suck a bit more spending power out of the economy. Public employees are being laid off throughout the country, benefits are being cut, and/or wages decreased, and in some cases all bargaining rights removed. This does not leave much discretionary income to buy the goods and services of business. Without demand and money moving around, the economy has slowed.

cont.
What didn't help matters was the end of government stimulation, coupled with speculation on the market that artificially ran up oil prices and sucked more money from the middle class and small business owners into the pockets of oil companies (record 10 Billion last quarter). We have a bill to stop this (Dodd-Frank-because Congress knew speculators would do this again and potentially cripple our economy), but hands were tied because the House did not appropriate funding for implementation. The House is very powerful in its ability to hold the purse strings. It seems that a lot (not all) of folks who are at the top don't realize that we are all dependent on each other.

Texas is a perfect model of what policies not to follow. They are 50th in education, health care, and have one of the highest child poverty rates, They have the most min wage jobs. Their other ratings are similar. Not something for Americans to aspire to. It scares me to think that the GOP would even consider Rick Perry as a viable candidate.

I agree that both the GOP and DEMs, as well as many others are guilty regarding the housing meltdown. Greed is a great motivator (more reason for regs to protect the overall health of our economy)

cont.
I find your statement “In other words, Obamacare will be used as a weapon against political opponents. Either tow the Democrat line, or no health care for you. Putting the gov't in charge of health care is a diabolical idea.”
This is implausible. Where would you get such an idea? I’ve never heard of this tactic being used in other countries with government run health care. And our Veteran’s health care does not require any political affiliation to receive care, and it is successful. Any such practice or law would be deemed unconstitutional.

I don’t disagree that the Affordable Health Care Act (as you say, Obamacare) needs improvement, but not repeal. You can simplify health insurance by allowing anyone, regardless of age, who does not qualify for affordable health insurance elsewhere to apply for Medicare as a single payer option, and purchase Medicare supplemental insurance if desired. Medicare makes no decisions about your healthcare. They just pay the bills. I was never in favor of the individual mandate; that was something insisted on by Republicans in order to make the deal by helping health insurance businesses to keep down costs since it spreads risk among young and healthy, and old or disabled groups; which is a good point. Now they are fighting it in court to say it’s unconstitutional. Go figure. We'll see how it works out in the courts.

Cont.
I hate to state the obvious, but when Reagan made that statement he was the government, so that's like saying everything I do (and the rest of us in government) is a mess (and always will be)
First off, I don't buy into that negativity. Life is not all or nothing, and the government does not do everything wrong. And private industry does not do everything right (why regulations are needed). If there are things wrong with the way the government is working, the job of our elected officials is to fix it; not cut off its funding levels. If I told my boss that my department’s work was a mess so we should just cut off its funding, she’d tell me to get my butt in gear and fix it, or I’d be fired.

This all or nothing mentality is we are in the mess we are in. Balance is what we need, not polarization.
The stated purpose of our Constitution is to establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.

cont.
It is not the responsibility of businesses through the capitalist market to provide for the general welfare. Everything that is not required for our welfare should be provided for through capitalism; but when it comes to meeting the basic needs of the masses, like healthcare access, incarceration, a guaranteed minimum standard of living, should be supported or assisted by the government through our contributions. I don’t want to have my tax dollars used in any way to create profits off of the misfortune of our needy citizens. It creates a glaring conflict of interest between the desires of society and the purpose of the business, of which the latter’s is to produce a profit for stockholders. When your goal is to have as many prisoners as possible, you are going to promote and lobby for stricter laws that will result in increased incarceration. One of the possible reasons we have the highest per capita incarceration rate in the world.

Where did you get your data about the US having the best health care? I didn’t see evidence of that on the World Health Organization website.

Cont.
We do need to make some changes to how we collect funds for Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid so that they will be secure for everyone’s future. Social Security is the easiest since we can eliminate the cap on income subject to FICA taxes and take care of 98% of that shortfall. If Medicare had the power to bargain on pharmaceutical costs that would help, but that is being blocked by the powerful pharmaceutical companies via our congresspersons. If we roll Medicaid into a Medicare for All program we would achieve economies of scale on administrative costs that would help reduce overall costs.

Last but not least, we should all remember that people are what is important, not profits, and that the role of government is not the same as the role of business. Somewhere along the way, this fact has alluded many. By choking off government, we are also choking off all that our constitution states is the role of our government. Do we really want to do that?

Ms. Williams, the government's involvement in the economy has caused this economic train-wreck. Social engineering is not the responsibility of the government.

There are some things that the government does well and things that the government simply can't do. Unfortunately, since the 1960's, the gov't has attempted to do too many things and has botched them all. LBJ's "Great Society" has got us into this mess.

Is the health care system in the US the best in the world? Where do the Saudi princes go when they need health care? Why do Canadians come to the US for health care? Comparisons of statistics on health care from other countries is often meaningless, since different metrics are being used.

One only has to look at how the City of Chicago is run to know what Obamacare is all about. Obamacare is an attempt to bring the "Chicago Way" to the entire US.

Ms. Williams: "We elected Congress to run the government."

Yes we did, but Congress is not running the country-the bureaucracy is. Take a look at Obamacare. The bureacracy is developing the rules, not Congress. Take a look at the EPA. The EPA is bureaucracy run amok. The same with the Department of Interior. Federal Courts in New Orleans have ordered the Interior Department to issue permits for oil drilling in the Gulf, but the Interior Department is still delaying issuing permits.

That's one of the problems-Congress isn't doing its job. Cutting funding to the Federal Government is about reining in the bureauracy.

"If President Obama really wants to get the U.S. economy going again, he could do worse than to study the results of my Dad's 1981 Economic Recovery Act, which boosted the economy by leaps and bounds.

Take the matter of jobs, for example. Thanks to the 1981 act, an astounding 20 million new jobs were created. Moreover, inflation dropped from 13.5 percent in 1980 to a mere 4.1 percent by 1988, and unemployment fell from 7.6 percent to 5.5 percent.

Moreover, the net worth of families earning between $20,000 and $50,000 annually grew by 27 percent. At the same time, the real gross national product jumped by 26 percent and the prime interest rate was slashed by half -- from 21.5 percent in January 1981 to 10 percent in August 1988.

The amount of individual tax revenues rose from $244 billion in 1980 to $446 billion in 1989. Moreover, total tax revenues jumped grew by almost 100 percent, rising by 99.4 percent during the 1980s. The act produced 92 months of healthy economic growth -- the longest period of peacetime in the post WWII period."

Michael Reagan
http://townhall.com/columnists/michaelreagan/2011/08/17/obama_could_learn_from_ronald_reagan

"Connie Mack (R-FL) has introduced the “One Percent Spending Reduction Act of 2011.”

This bill, H.R. 1848, will cut 1% of the federal budget each year for the next six years. By 2018, it will install a cap on federal spending, limiting it to just 18% of GDP. By 2019, the federal government will have a balanced budget and a spending cap. We will have cut up Washington’s credit card and forced them to live within their means!"

Sounds like common sense to me. Nothing too drastic. 1 percent-we shouldn't even notice.

The US Health Care System is not #1. France is #1, followed by Italy. And Greece has some of the best health care in the world. The U.S. system is the most expensive; it consistently underperforms compared to the other countries.[16] A major difference between the U.S. and the other countries is that the U.S. is the only country without universal health care. The Affordable Health Care Act is modeled after The Massachusetts Universal Health Care Program http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massachusetts_2006_Health_Reform_Statute and not the Chicago Way. Read all about health care throughout the world at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_system
You’ll see that most governments pay far more than the 45% share of health care that we pay, yet we spend almost twice as much per GDP. You want to throw out the use of metrics in comparing whose best and use the fact that some Canadians and Saudi Princes come to America for treatment.

There may be specialists here for their particular illness/condition. Just as people also travel to Cuba from Latin America and Europe because of the good and cheap medical care they have, and people travel to Mexico from the US for the same reason. You’ll need to provide more compelling evidence than this for me to believe it. I know too many people who have not been able to health care when needed. One young mother, who worked full time for ten bucks an hour, was diagnosed with breast cancer and did not qualify for health care insurance or Medicaid, and could not afford her medicine at $600 a month, so was forced to quit her job to be income eligible to receive the medicine that would keep her alive. Oh, yeah, it’s the best health care in the world, if you have access to it.

As far as Michael Reagan’s statement about his Dad; what can I say? Reagan left office with the largest deficit on record to that date. Clinton dug us out of it through policies that increased revenues and reduced spending. He put a plan in place and during the first half of his 2nd term we were bringing in more than we put out. I sure miss those days……

Yes, the bureaucracy runs things, but they are administering the laws they get from congress (sometimes laws that conflict with each other and are not well thought out). Congress can change the laws and the bureaucracy has to follow. You can’t get them off the hook that easily.

As far as Michael Reagan’s statement about his Dad; what can I say? Reagan left office with the largest deficit on record to that date. Clinton dug us out of it through policies that increased revenues and reduced spending. He put a plan in place and during the first half of his 2nd term we were bringing in more than we put out. I sure miss those days……

Tell Connie Mack that since spending is currently at 24% of GDP, we aren’t going to be able to balance the budget from cuts alone. How about increasing taxes for people who can afford it and we can balance the budget a whole lot sooner; before the economy goes in the hole deeper and before more people lose their jobs and houses, etc.

"LBJ was a great president (other than not stopping the Vietnam war) and did not contribute to this debt. He did create a “Great Society” by waging a war on poverty and increasing educational opportunity for all."

"He was responsible for laws for right to vote, the civil rights act, protecting our environment, the dept of Transportation, and Medicare/Medicaid."

Ms. Williams, you are citing myths. Abraham Lincoln was a Republican. Democrats supported slavery. Democrats created the Klu Klux Klan (KKK) and Jim Crow. Northern Democrats still support segregation. Take a look at Chicago-one of the most segregated cities in America. Take a look at the public schools in our cities-why do those schools do such a bad job of educating minorities? Yes, it's intentional-keep them dumb to keep them on the Democrat plantation.

If the "war on poverty" is such a great concept, why after 40 years does poverty still exist? In fact, the "war on poverty" is responsible for poverty. Most of the problems in minority communities are directly caused by programs which are part of the "war on poverty".

The "war on poverty" programs are hand-outs meant to bribe black folks into voting for Democrats. Instead of hand-outs, why not a hand-up? Why not give black folks a good education instead?

Medi-care and Medi-caid are responsible for the hugh national debt today. To say that LBJ didn't leave America in debt is simply wrong. LBJ planted the seeds of the "debt time-bomb".

Ms. Williams, it appears that you have bought into the Democrat line. The Government's social engineering has brought the economy to the point where we are at now.

The unemployment rate of black adults is near 16 percent and the unemployment rate of black teens is in excess of 40 percent. Are the lives of black folks better under President Bush or President Obama?

I'll leave you with this article:

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2011/08/18/allen_west_plans_to_lead_black_voters_away_from_democrat_plantation

"Runaway Slave is a new documentary that exposes the economic slavery of the Black community to the Progressive policies of the US government and how Black Conservatives are leading the fight so all Americans can be “free at last.”

Runaway Slave follows, C.L. Bryant, former NAACP Chapter President and self-professed “Democratic radical” turned pastor, political activist and Black Conservative. As a first-hand witness of the civil rights movement and a member of an interracial family; C.L. provides unique insight into an issue that is rarely black and white."

Ms. Williams, I was reading an article on the American Thinker website titled "Are You Calling Me a Marxist?" and it reminded me of your commentary above. You may find this article interesting.

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2011/08/are_you_calling_me_a_marxist.html

Sarah Palin:

“What his jobs plan will be — I guarantee you, it will be based on this foundation: Spend more money, incur more debt, spend money that we do not have so we’ll have to borrow money from foreign countries like China or print more money so that we can spend more money,” Palin said. “And it all has to do with government — his ideal that government is the answer — when it’s proven in these last two-and-a-half years that government is not the answer.

“Too often, it is the problem — and truly, he needs to allow the private sector to start stimulating the economy the way that America used to,” she said. “And you know what that was based on? That stimulation of the economy was based on development of our natural resources and reward for work ethic. And we’ve gotten so far away from that in our political — the policies coming out of Washington — that, you know, it’s going to take a while to get this train back on the right track.”

Newsmax.com: Palin: Obama 'Burying His Head in the Proverbial Sand'

http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/Palin-Obama-vacation-fiscal/2011/08/19/id/407915?s=al&promo_code=CDF1-1

Rep Schakowsky fails to say whose going to pay the salaries of these people after TWO years. Since she wants to reemploy some 40000 teachers that current state budgets couldn't afford . Assume these teachers be layed off again in two years.
She is also hiring people to work around schools and parks. What happens to the people doing some of this stuff now.

THERE AREN'T ENOUGH MILLIONARIES AND BILLIONARIES TO PAY FOR ALL THE THINGS THE ADMINISTRATION IS CLAIMING. IF THEY WANT TO GET RID OF THE BUSH TAX CUTS GET RID OF ALL OF THEM THEN REALLY WATCH THE SCREAMING.

AND BEFORE ANYONE DECIDES ONLY THE RICH GOT THEM. DO SOME RESEARCH

The Republican party originally was a very good party. They understood that the masses were not educated and did not understand businesses, or politics. They were trusted to know what was good for the country as a whole was good for the rich also, and for the most part, they did their best to look out for the interests of all. But over the years they have become greedy, mean, and uncaring of their fellow man. It’s all about me is their motto. No longer do they follow the teachings of the bible to be charitable to their fellow man, yet most claim to be good Christians. They begrudge those less fortunate even the smallest bit of compassion, and it’s disgusting and sad.

I know what Marxism is and I am not naïve enough to believe that one day we will have a classless society. That isn’t realistic. Plus I am aware that communist principles applied in the Soviet resulted in a lack of choices in products, services, and ingenuity. I am a strong believer in capitalism for most things; just not everything. Balance is the key. We weren’t meant to have partisanship in our politics, and now we see it is causing our destruction. You know the old saying, United we stand, divided we fall?

You ask why we still have poverty even 40 years after implementing the Great Society programs. I didn’t say he won the war on poverty. Just that the programs he started improved poverty rates. Over the years some of those programs ended, and just look around you; don’t we still have rich people? There can be no rich people without poor people. Who would the rich folks have work for them? Ok, I admit that was a bit sarcastic.

"I’m sure you don’t value her [Palin's] opinion. She’s such an airhead and everyone knows it. Everyone criticizes everything Obama does, why should she be different. If he found the cure for the common cold, Republicans would have something negative to say about it. I haven’t heard a positive statement out of their mouths about him yet."

It's interesting how Democrats try to define the opposition candidates. Ronald Reagan was called stupid too. Sorry, not buying that. Sarah Palin is very sharp. Simply because she didn't go to an Ivy League school is not a disqualification. Our last 4 president went to either Harvard or Yale and we know how that turned out. Yes, I respect Sarah Palin's opinions and think she would probably make an excellent president.

With respect to President Obama, there is nothing positve to say about the man. (He is a socialist/Marxist.) President Obama is either incompetent or the economic disaster which he has caused is intentional. During his first year in office, President Obama had a filibuster-proof Congress and could do anything he wanted (and did). The economic policies which the Democrats implemented were a failure.

The election in 2010 was a Republican landslide and it appears that the 2012 election will be a continuation of the results of the 2010 election. It's my opinion that President Obama will not run for re-election in 2012. The Democrat candidate will be Hillary Clinton.

Ms. Williams, an excellent brief summary of the history of the Klu Klux Klan and Jim Crow can be found on a PBS website on the subject:

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/jimcrow/stories_events.html

Yes, the KKK was a terrorist arm of the Democrat Party.

When you look at Chicago (and other major cities controlled by Democrats), you see that Democrats are still involved in segregation. The fact that large American cities have poor school systems is no accident.

Interestingly enough, it is conservatives who are advocates for improving our schools and it is Democrats who oppose changes in our education system. Why would that be? Educated people might understand that the Democrat social welfare programs are destructive and may not vote for the Party.

The Democratic plan is neither cheap nor paid for. Making permanent all tax cuts for the middle class will cost the Treasury $2.7 trillion over 10 years, according to the Joint Committee on Taxation, at a time when Washington has already added trillions to the debt. Extending the tax cuts for the very wealthiest Americans would drain an additional $678 billion. But fiscal responsibility is not the intent of this proposal.

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,2005389,00.html#ixzz1VZWahG6Y

"Hope and Change" just isn't working out very well. President Obama is an ineffective and polarizing political figure. In fact, President Obama is a failure.

It's time for real change. Let's put America back to work and get America's fiscal house in order. Now, that's "change you can believe in". The "Taxed Enough Already (TEA)" party folks are right.

The November 2012 election just can't come soon enough. Hopefully, President Obama won't destroy what's left of America before he is defeated at the polls. President Obama should do the right thing and resign his office when he comes back from his vacation in Martha's Vineyard.

By: Neil Roland And Richard Truett, Automotive News on 3/30/2009

"Let me say this as plainly as I can. If you buy a car from Chrysler or General Motors, you will be able to get your car serviced and repaired just like always," Obama said in a speech. "Your warranty will be safe. In fact, it will be safer than it has ever been. Because starting today, the United States will stand behind your warranty."

Read more: http://www.autoweek.com/article/20090330/CARNEWS/903309977#ixzz1VfjfmTZ1

Now General Motors is refusing to honor warranties on cars bought before the bankruptcy. Once again, what President Obama said in 2009 isn't true.

And now you know why nobody listens to the President talk anymore-nothing he says is actually true.

Read more: http://www.autoweek.com/article/20090330/CARNEWS/903309977#ixzz1VfjTRc72

“The fact that we are here today to debate raising America's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the US Government cannot pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government's reckless fiscal policies. Increasing America's debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that, "the buck stops here.' Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better.”

-- Senator Barack H. Obama, March 2006

I must admit that I am in complete agreement with Senator Obama.

President Obama: “I am absolutely convinced that this tax cut plan, while not perfect, will help grow our economy and create jobs in the private sector. ... I urge members of Congress to pass these tax cuts as swiftly as possible. Getting that done is an essential ingredient in spurring economic growth over the short run.” (Remarks, 12/15/10)

President Obama: “By a wide bipartisan margin, both houses of Congress have now passed a package of tax relief that will protect the middle class, that will grow our economy and will create jobs for the American people.” (Remarks, 12/17/10)

President Obama: “By putting more money in people's pockets, and helping companies grow, we're going to see people being able to spend a little more, we're going to spur hiring - we're going to strengthen our entire economy.” (Weekly Address, 12/11/10)

President Obama: “[Y]ou don't raise taxes in a recession...” (MSNBC, 8/5/09)

Ava Williams, thank you for posting some intelligent thoughts. It is nice to read someone else's perspective on here for a change.

The bottom line is that we need fiscal policies that will stimulate the economy and that will not contract it. And yes, if you read any text book on macroeconomics, it will tell you that cutting taxes is a correct fiscal policy for stimulating the economy, and/or increase government spending to increase aggregate demand. Cutting taxes should not be coupled with cutting government spending. Now we have a recipe for disaster. Republicans who were in favor of using the fed to control inflation and stimulate employment are now calling on the fed not to get involved (at least not between now and the election). So does that mean forever, or that it’s ok after the election is over, and if a Republican is in charge?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-republicans-new-voodoo-economics/2011/08/18/gIQAxhyRQJ_story.html

BTW: GM was restructured under TARP. That’s why they didn’t go bankrupt and you can contact GM regarding their warranties. They are still honoring them, and they have the ability to do so because the government helped them to be successful and the government (through a loan to GM) saved thousands of jobs. And you said the government can’t do anything right. Shame….

Another program our government runs efficiently is Medicare. Administrative costs for Medicare are 3% while private insurers are struggling to try to keep their admin costs down below 20%, and many are as high as 40%. That money comes from our premiums and into the pockets of Health Insurance CEOs and drives up the overall cost of health care, but adds zero value to our health. It’s obscene. In our county government we were not allowed to award a contract that exceeded 10% overhead costs, and it was usually only non profits who were able to meet that requirement, but government has to manage the contract to make sure all the requirement are met and the services are provided, so I really don't believe that government does nothing correct. Private businesses make lots of mistakes and aren't alway efficient.

And now that the Affordable Health Care Act requires birth control to be covered in health insurance, there are special interest groups trying to lobby against birth control. They make it sound like it’s about morals, but we know it’s about the money, since it didn’t come up until this new provision was required of health insurance companies. They are so transparent.

"New congressional estimates say the trust fund that supports Social Security disability will run out of money by 2017, leaving the program unable to pay full benefits, unless Congress acts. About two decades later, Social Security's much larger retirement fund is projected to run dry as well.

Much of the focus in Washington has been on fixing Social Security's retirement system. Proposals range from raising the retirement age to means-testing benefits for wealthy retirees. But the disability system is in much worse shape and its problems defy easy solutions."

http://news.yahoo.com/social-security-disability-verge-insolvency-090119318.html

From the Chicago Daily Observer:

"Which raises several questions: Could Barack Obama be planning to pull a Lyndon Johnson and say he will not run nor will he accept nomination for another term? Could he tell the nation that he has accomplished what he wanted to accomplish in passing his Health Care program and now wants to step down to do other things? Could he be planning an honorable exit rather than face defeat in November 2012? Could his approval numbers be so low that he has become unelectable and toxic for the entire Democratic slate? Is there a move afoot to have him step down and name a new Presidential candidate?"

"The office of Management and Budget has found that his health care law – which the majority of Americans oppose –will actually raise costs, not lower them.

As for his record in office, President Obama has broken his promises to close Gitmo, and to end the practice of sending prisoners to foreign countries, and to veto the Patriot Act. He has not lived up to his promise to keep unemployment under 8% and now has more Americans living on food stamps than at any time in history. And now he tells the nation that he will have a jobs plan…next month."

Mary Laney, August 18, 2011

"Unfortunately, your extreme hatred for our President clouds your ability to use your critical thinking skills."

Ms. Williams, your characterization of my opinion of President Obama as "extreme hatred" is erroneous. President Obama is a socialist/Marxist. I am opposed socialism and Marxism because it is extremely destructive. If one were to use their critical thinking skills and powers of observation, you will see that socialism/Marxism has failed wherever it's been tried.

Examples of this failure include Cuba and Chile, along with Greece, Portugal, Spain and Italy, to name just a few examples.

The economic problems in Europe and in the United States are directly tied to the adoption of socialist policies. Both European countries and the United States have made promises to their citizens which they cannot possibly keep, as illustrated by several posts on this thread.

Actually, it's just common sense. . . .

"What conservatives believe, rather, is what America's Founders believed: that that government is best which governs least, and that human freedom and dignity are likeliest to thrive not when power is centralized and remote, but when it is diffuse, local, and modest."

"While curbing the federal behemoth is important in its own right, it is indispensable to the moral health of a nation rooted in the conviction that men and women can govern themselves. Our social arrangements tend to work best when they are organized at the lowest possible level, closest to concrete, day-to-day experience. Only as a last resort should we seek to transfer power upward, from individuals and families to city hall, or from city hall to the statehouse, or from the statehouse to Washington, DC. This is the principle of subsidiarity that historically underpinned American federalism."

"But as government grows larger and more powerful, it crowds out private action. It replaces local, familiar, and organic institutions with remote bureaucratic ones. As state and federal governments swell, taking over functions that used to be left to individuals and voluntary organizations, communities are weakened."

http://townhall.com/columnists/jeffjacoby/2011/08/22/when_inconsequential_means_better/page/2
Jeff Jacoby

To mij: You are correct. Medicare needs to be addressed because it is facing a shortfall. Just like any business, you have to adjust the premiums paid by beneficiaries to cover the costs. With almost 43 million people enrolled it would not take much to cover those increased costs through a premium increase (if needed for Part B) or Medicare tax increase (if needed for Part A). Based on your projected shortfall in 8 years and the fact that there are about 43 million folks on Medicare, it would cost about $1000 per person, per year, so the increase would be about $85.00 more a month. Still a bargain in comparison. At least with Medicare you know that your dollars are going towards paying providers with only a small portion going for administration. The government does not have to worry about getting a profit and their entire focus is to pay providers who gave you medical services. When you pay premiums to private companies they have to make a profit off of you to pay their stockholders, so of course the overhead/admin costs are going to be more, plus you sometimes have to wait for approval for certain procedures, or they cancel you for various reasons. That's why goods and services that mean life or death to citizens should not be placed in the hands of private industry.

To Mr. Schulte:
You are funny. Crook County? I’m not in the County of which you speak. I doubt you have a clue about the requirements of local government. I am quite sure that they are much stricter than Congress as is evidenced by the fact that Congress seems to have lots of conflicts of interest and conduct that county government staff would NEVER get away with.

Just because a country provides some social programs for their people, does NOT make them Marxist/Socialist. In the US we provide social programs, but we are very capitalistic as well and therefore are not considered a Socialist country.
You are stretching the interpretation/definition of Socialist countries. Check reality.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_socialist_countries

Info about the cost savings of the Affordable Healthcare Act, per the CBO:
http://www.cbo.gov/publications/collections/health.cfm

Social Security is funded through 2038, when we will have to start dipping into cashing out treasuries at a rate of 25% of social security costs per year. As I said before, they’ve already crunched the numbers and Social Security can easily be fixed by removing the cap on wages for FICA taxes. For more info about Social Security:
http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=12376

Medicare funding:
http://www.medicare.gov/Publications/Pubs/pdf/11396.pdf

Yes, Obama has not lived up to all of his promises, and GITMO is one of them. Not everyone is pleased with his performance in all areas, that’s true. If anything, most of his base believes he hasn’t been progressive enough in putting forth an agenda to bring this country forward. If Republicans want a chance to win the Presidency back they have to run someone who has a brain and is not a nutcase. The only one who is close to normal is Huntsman, but since the Tea Party has control of Republican politics right now, they’ll probably put their money behind someone radical instead of a respectable Republican, so good luck with that.

We have a revenue problem more than a spending problem. Right now federal taxes are at a historic low at 15% of GDP and spending at 24% GDP. There is no way to totally close the gap by just cutting spending. We have to increase taxes or eliminate loopholes/deductions. We must create jobs. Cutting more spending is not going to help our economy, so we have to raise taxes on those who it hurts the least; even if only slightly and temporarily. The middle class and poor cannot take all of the cuts.

Mr. Schulte;
Went to the last link you sent and clicked some of the authors links supporting his argument and it seems that we are in agreement. One of the constitutional duties of the government is to provide for its welfare. That's all I've been saying. Capitalism for everything you want; but government for our needs, posterity, and welfare. Let's not choke off what provides for our welfare.
http://www.usconstitution.net/glossary.html#WELFARE
Welfare
welfare n. 1. health, happiness, or prosperity; well-being. [<ME wel faren, to fare well] Source: AHD

"Nowhere has the economic turnaround been more immediate than in Virginia. When Governor Bob McDonnell [R] took office in January 2010, he was faced with a $2.2 billion shortfall bequeathed to him by outgoing Democratic governor (and now Senate candidate) Tim Kaine. In less than two years, McDonnell has delivered two budget surpluses without raising taxes or causing harm to the "most vulnerable." Instead, he has judiciously cut spending."

"Virginia's "6.0 percent unemployment rate is tied for eighth lowest in the nation," though the Washington Times reports, "the state will likely have to borrow an additional $251 million ... to pay back the federal government for loans to its unemployment insurance trust fund." The loans were necessary because of the economic recession and the aftermath of the Kaine administration, which ran out of money in 2009 and had to visit the federal trough."

"The reason Washington -- and especially the Obama administration -- has difficulty replicating what is occurring in Virginia and those nine other states is because it's incapable of abandoning a failed ideology. When old ideologies have proven bankrupt, they are mostly discarded and replaced with something new that has a better chance of working."

Cal Thomas

http://townhall.com/columnists/calthomas/2011/08/23/yes,_virginia,_there_is_a_surplus

This morning I heard that the EPA has adopted regulations which will cause the shut-down of 20 percent of the coal-fired power plants in the United States in the next few years. Electric rates will necessarily rise because the lost electric capacity will need to be replaced and rolling "brown-outs" are expected. The EPA has acted administratively without a vote on the regulations by Congress.

If the Administration's objective is to spur the economy, why would the Administration adopt new environmental regulations which will cause extensive damage to the US economy? It seems reasonable to question whether or not the Administration actually wants the economy to improve.

Just another shining example of government gone awry.

Governing by administratively issuing regulations rather than having Congress vote on the new regulations is tyranny. How does this differ from King George's government prior to the American Revolution?

"In the last week, we've [the Tea Party] sent over 62,000 letters to Congress urging them to support Rep. Connie Mack's (R-FL) "One Percent Spending Reduction Act." This bill, H.R. 1848, will cut 1% of the federal budget each year for the next six years. By 2018, it will install a cap on federal spending, limiting it to just 18% of GDP. By 2019, the federal government will have a balanced budget and a spending cap. We will have cut up Washington’s credit card and forced them to live within their means!"

This sounds like a reasonable solution to the deficit spending problem to me.

Another Government failure-The New York Times on "green" technology jobs:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/19/us/19bcgreen.html?_r=3&utm_source=Newsletter&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=Morning%2BBell

"Updated numbers for the national debt are just out: It's now $14,639,000,000,000.

When Barack Obama took the oath of office twice on Jan. 20, 2009, CBS' amazing number cruncher Mark Knoller reports, the national debt was $10,626,000,000,000.

That means the debt that our federal government owes a whole lot of somebodies including China has increased $4,247,000,000,000 in just 945 days. That's the fastest increase under any president ever."

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2011/08/obama-national-debt.html

"There's no doubt federal spending has exploded in recent years. In fiscal 2007 [Republican Congress], the last year before things went haywire, the government took in $2.568 trillion in revenues and spent $2.728 trillion, for a deficit of $160 billion. In 2011, according to Congressional Budget Office estimates, the government will take in $2.230 trillion and spend $3.629 trillion, for a deficit of $1.399 trillion.

That's an increase of $901 billion in spending and a decrease of $338 billion in revenue in a very short time. Put them together, and that's how you go from a $160 billion deficit to a $1.399 trillion deficit."

"But today's deficit crisis is not one of entitlements. It was created by out-of-control spending [by Democrats] on everything other than entitlements."

Byron York

http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/article/york-spending-not-entitlements-created-deficits

"Last week, the Obama administration found itself in a legal battle with Exxon over the largest find in the company's history, a field of over 1 billion barrels off the coast of Louisiana. This represents 5% of total U.S. oil reserves and there's supposed to be a lot more out there. The Marcellus Shale field in New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Maryland contains between 160 and 500 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. Out in North Dakota, Montana, and Saskatchewan, the Bakken deposit is estimated to contain from 10-40 billion barrels of oil equivalent according to industry experts. This doesn't include large deposits in Colorado, Wyoming, and elsewhere. Even if Bakken comes in at the low end it, represents another 40-50% increase in onshore American oil reserves.

In the meantime, the oil companies drilling in the Gulf of Mexico are still reporting incredible delays in re-opening even the inshore oil rigs. Offshore fields have become almost impossible to develop despite the incredible size of some of these discoveries. The government shut down even the inshore oil fields in the Gulf after the Deepwater Horizon disaster last year. The Department of the Interior just announced the first auction of oil leases since the Deepwater Horizon tragedy in April of last year, to be held in December."

Another example of the anti-jobs attitude of the Obama Administration.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/08/obamas_real_energy_policy.html

"Thanks, Frank, but it would be nice to hear from others also. Mr. Schulte and I seem to be monopolizing the conversation."

Ava, you're right. I wish more people would chime in. I think they learned what I learned months ago. Mr. Schulte ALWAYS has to have the last words(s)! He seems to have a lot of time on his hands to research websites and quote articles ALL day long. I have a family and a job that I love and both take up the majority of my time, therefore I choose not to argue with someone that is NEVER going to be open-minded that always HAS TO HAVE the last word. I choose not to waste my time arguing with know-it-alls.

I prefer to stay away from the political threads on the Evanston Patch so I don't have to be annoyed by the aforementioned individual.

Thanks, Frank: I understand.

In Response to mij regarding "why play Robin Hood?"

Why not play Robin Hood? What will it hurt you if it isn't taking food out of the mouth of your family, or the roof from over you head?

Since Robin Hood took from the Rich to give to the poor, I must assume that you are referring to TANF (Temporary Assistance to Needy Famiies) Food Stamps, SSI, and Medi-Cal, since all of the other programs such as Social Security, Unemployment, State Disability and Medicare are paid for by payroll taxes from employees and employers.

cont to mij;
Keep in mind that you have to be very poor to qualify for these programs:
TANF-This program provides cash (about the same amount that it paid in 1987) to families when they have either no other source of income or their income is not sufficient to meet basic needs. Average family size is 3 (mom and 2 kids) and average length of time on aid is 2 years. About 50% of these folks are working at least part time. The monthly grant amount does not even cover rent and most families are either homeless, or they have to live with someone else to share rent/utilities. A lucky few are able to receive housing subsidies.
Food Stamps-Puts food on the table for low income people, but also serves as a subsidy to farmers and businesses in the food business and stimulates the economy. Without it, we would all pay higher prices for food. This way we employ farmers, feed the hungry, and keep food prices as reasonable as possible.
3) SSI-for those who are disabled. Hopefully you don't expect someone who is unable to work to go totally without shelter and food, do you?
4) Medicaid-To allow low income people to see a doctor and receive medication and medical treatment.

cont to mij;
From a humanitarian perspective, It's the right thing to do.
If you believe in the bible, let me remind you of these teachings:
“To whomever much is given, of him will much be required; and to whom much was entrusted, of him more will be asked.”
– Luke 12:35-48, World English Bible

________________________________________
Proverbs 14:31 He who oppresses the poor shows contempt for their Maker, but whoever is kind to the needy honors God.

Proverbs 19:17 He who is kind to the poor lends to the LORD, and he will reward him for what he has done.
Mathew 25:40
Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.

And from nature:
In a beehive you have the Queen and the Worker Bees. Without worker bees, the Queen cannot survive. Think about it.

To Mr. Schulte;
What you describe is Reagonomics. Didn't work then, won't work now. Even Bush Sr. called it Voodoo Economics because it doesn't work. Too bad we didn't listen to him.

Private industry has done more damage to our economy and environment,than any government program. For example, Enron, Exxon, BP, and many other companies that bankrupt everyday. Private companies are not perfect and neither should you expect the government to be. We just don't want private companies making decisions for us about life or death matters, like our health care.
You said: "Ms. Williams, you didn't explain how borrowing (or printing) money to pay for our government benefits provides for the welfare of our posterity (our children). What you advocate is shifting the cost of maintaining our standard of living to the future (our children) by borrowing (or printing) money."

Nope. you raise taxes (revenue) so that you don't have to have the fed print money.
You said, "Even if tax rates on the wealthy were increased to 100 percent, there still isn't enough tax revenue generated to cover the budget deficit. In other words, the deficit cannot be addressed by raising taxes. That's a fact. The only conclusion which can be reached from this bit of information is that we have a spending problem."

Not true if we raise revenue to 24% of GDP.

Cont. response to Mr. Schulte:
"The problem with socialism advocted by Ms. Williams is that sooner or later you run out of other people's money to spend. That's where we are at right now-the United States is close bankruptcy."

Remember the 14th amendment, Section 4? The US can't go bankrupt. Besides, we have the fed to buy our bonds, if needed.

You said, "And you wonder why we suspect that the Obama Administration is actually try to destroy the US economy? Here is just one example of the Administration's destructive policies."

What possible motivation would Obama (or any President, for that matter) have to destroy our economy? If he wants to be re-elected the economy is going to need to improve. Republicans don't want the economy to improve because they want Obama to be a one term President, and they've said as much. They have not made it a secret, and I find that line of thinking despicable; to put politics above the well being of the country.

Cont response to Mr. Schulte
You said, "By 2018, it will install a cap on federal spending, limiting it to just 18% of GDP. By 2019, the federal government will have a balanced budget and a spending cap. We will have cut up Washington’s credit card and forced them to live within their means!"

This sounds like a reasonable solution to the deficit spending problem to me."

You must not be paying attention, if you bring in 15% of GDP as revenue and you place an 18% of GDP spending cap, you still have a deficit. You'd still need to increase revenue by 3% of GDP. I do actually believe in balancing the budget like Clinton did.

cont. to Mr. Schulte
You attached an article about how green jobs aren't doing as well as expected.
Well, that's a no brainer.
1) Our economies in the toilet and folks don't have a bunch of money sitting around
2) Many of the tax credits went away and folks can't afford the investment up front. If you don't have cash you have to take an equity loan out against your home. How many people do you think have equity in their homes these days?
3) These solar and wind power companies don't receive big government subsidies (corporate welfare) like the oil companies do so they are at a disadvantage.

If they had an even playing field they could compete better.

I don't even understand why the Tea Party started. Taxes did not go up when Obama took office, so what are they complaining about. The only thing I can figure is that they must have feared that money was going to have to come from somewhere, and out of fear, said to themselves, "OMG, the economy is going in the crapper, what if they want those of us who've had a free ride for so long to actually pay more? We better form an organization as a defense against losing our wealth. We'll call it the Tea Party since that sounds like a patriotic name and that way we can try to brainwash some everyday folks (who aren't that wealthy) into joining us, even if it is against their best interests. Who cares about everybody else, as long as we keep up our standard of living."

"llinois lost more jobs during the month of July than any other state in the nation, according to the most recent Bureau of Labor Statistics report. After losing 7,200 jobs in June, Illinois lost an additional 24,900 non-farm payroll jobs in July. The report also said Illinois’s unemployment rate climbed to 9.5 percent. This marks the third consecutive month of increases in the unemployment rate.

Illinois started to create jobs as the national economy began to recover. But just when Illinois’s economy seemed to be turning around, lawmakers passed record tax increases in January of this year. Since then, Illinois’s employment numbers have done nothing but decline.

Data released today by the bureau confirms this downward trajectory. When it comes to putting people back to work, Illinois is going backwards. Since January, Illinois has dropped 89,000 people from its employment rolls."

http://www.illinoispolicy.org/news/article.asp?ArticleSource=4362

Thank you Governor Quinn.

It's rather interesting that President Kennedy (D) utilized cuts to increase economic activity in the early 1960's. President Reagan (R) was just following in the foot steps of President Kennedy with the Reagan tax cuts 20 years later.

When Ms. Williams criticizes the Reagan tax cuts, she is criticizing President Kennedy's economic policies.

The experience with increases tax rates in Illinois in the last 7 months should be a warning to all who think that increasing taxes is a good idea.

"Hope and Change" just isn't working out too good. Time for real change-conservative economics. Tax cuts work every time they are tried.

In the 2010 election, Wisconsin voters elected a Republican governor and voted for a Republican majority in both the House and Senate. In other words, the voters replaced Democrats with Republican. In February, we were treated to the teachers' riot in Madison and the shut down of the legislature for 3 weeks. After an electoral battle over the Wisconsin Supreme Court and recall elections, Republicans still maintain majorities on the Court and in both houses of the legislature. Governor Walker's reforms are working and the State of Wisconsin is doing much better.

The State of Indiana is also doing much better economically than its neighbor, the State of Illinois. Illinois chose to go the other route. The Illinois governor is a Democrat and the legislature is still controlled by Democrats. Guess what-the number of unemployed workers in Illinois is now increasing.

The examples of Wisconsin and Indiana shows us what works and the example of Illinois shows us what doesn't work.

Conservative economics works every time its tried. Liberal economics fails every time its tried. Hmmm. . . .what lesson can be learned from the above?

Budget cuts-the Obama vacations:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2029615/Michelle-Obama-accused-spending-10m-public-money-vacations.html

"Center for Policy Innovation Senior Fellow and Why Obamacare is Wrong for America co-author Bob Moffit details just some of the Obamacare claims that have been exposed as fictions:

•“Obamacare will bend the cost curve downward.” Not according to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), whose April 22, 2010, report shows Obamacare adding more than $310 billion more in health care spending;

•“People who like their health plan can keep it.” Not according to CMS, which estimates that 14 million Americans will lose their current coverage if Obamacare is not repealed;

•“The middle class will not see tax increases.” Yes, they will. In fact, most of Obamacare’s tax increases hit the middle class."

http://www.askheritage.org/one-year-later-is-obamacare-any-more-popular/?utm_source=AH_Weekly&utm_medium=Email&utm_content=2011-03-25&utm_campaign=2011_Brand

Reagan-supply side economics. Kennedy was talking about demand side economics. Tax rates for the wealthy were 90%, so I can see why Kennedy wanted to cut them to 70% as it probably induced more investment as well as greater demand. We could back to a 70% tax rate for the wealthy. That would be fine with me and it would probably help our economy so that we don't have to have the feds print money.

I don't know which survey results you were citing with regard to the percentage of folks who want to repeal the Affordable Healthcare Act as you didn't say. I hear so much about what the American people want and results from various biased surveys. I'm going to find out for myself what they want by conducting my own survey.

As far as Illinois is concerned with jobs. Don't confuse microeconomics with macroeconomics. A governor can do any policy they want for their state, but if the feds cut funding to that state you can still end up losing jobs overall. Find out how many of those jobs were private sector and how many were public sector.

Walker is facing a recall in January, and last month the state of Wisconsin lost jobs. They are in big trouble and two other Republicans were recalled this month and replaced with Democrats. This is related to stripping workers of their bargaining rights.

You're not sharing the whole story and your sources are iffy.

Also, we were both wrong about when the Tea Party started and why.
The bottom line is the rich are getting richer.

Mr. Schulte:
You continue to label my as a socialist, but I am not. I believe in capitalism, as well as a government that protects citizens from being harmed by some of those unscrupulous capitalists, and that also provides for the welfare (including health) of its citizens. This is the function of our government. It is not socialism. Please read the definition below to help you clarify in your mind what a true socialist is.

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

Ms. Williams, you would like to deny that you are a socialist, however, your support for Obamacare, higher taxes (70 percent) on the "wealthy" and the take over of GM by the government would indicate otherwise. Socialized medicine is pure socialism.

In order for capitalism to work, capital formation is necessary. If the government confiscates private sector capital with high taxes, capitalism can't function properly.

Democrats know that the American people would never support their goal of socialism, so they cover it up with claims that they believe in capitalism. President Obama's campaign is the perfect example. President Obama would never have been elected if he had ran on his actual agenda. Instead he covered up his agenda up with slogans, "Hope and Change" and "Yes we can".

President Obama says one thing and then does another-the classic socialist. President Obama's economic programs have failed to revive the economy. Of course, that was a given. Government interference in the private sector doesn't work. The government can't create real jobs-the government can only create "make work" jobs. Government interference in the private sector has prolonged this recession.

Unfortunately, it appears that the recession will continue until at least election day in 2012. If President Obama is re-elected, it will be the end of America as we know it.

"At the start of the Great Society, in 1965, revenues and expenditures were nearly equal, with expenditures only slightly higher, leaving a manageable deficit of $1.4 billion. By 2009, however, annual expenditures ($3.5 trillion) had far outpaced annual revenues ($2.1 trillion), leaving a record deficit of $1.4 trillion."

"At the OMB link is Table 1.1, titled, “Summary of Receipts, Outlays, and Surpluses or Deficits: 1789-2016.” That is an official scorecard of spending by the federal government since the founding of the republic.

Looking closely at the chart is an eye-opening experience. As the first two columns show, receipts (i.e., revenues) and outlays (i.e., expenditures) moved up and down throughout our history. In 1965, however, something historically unusual, something literally deviant, began: Spending increased every single year, non-stop, consistently, without exception, into the Obama presidency, from 1965-2009."

http://townhall.com/columnists/paulkengor/2011/08/24/its_the_spending,_stupid_a_crucial_historical_look_at_federal-government_spending

Mr. Schulte:
I see that if you base your opinions on your own contrived definitions rather than reality. This makes it difficult to take you seriously and impacts your credibility.

Socialists never admit to what they are actually doing. They can't, because if they did, the American people would reject it. So they proceed stealthfully step by step.

Despite the misery, President Obama is a blessing in at least one way. The President has exposed what is going on with the socialist agenda for all to see. Single-handedly, the President has invigorated the American people, the silent majority. He has woken up a sleeping giant.