If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Gallup)   Gallup poll says Americans feel that creating jobs is the key to improving the economy, starting with creating positions for 535 new people to run Congress   (gallup.com) divider line 54
    More: Obvious, Gallup, congresses, Americans, double coverage, opinion polls  
•       •       •

370 clicks; posted to Politics » on 16 Oct 2013 at 11:34 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



54 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-10-16 10:27:30 AM  
And that's clearly NOT going to happen until we defund Obamacare, outlaw abortion, and slash entitlements.
 
2013-10-16 11:25:38 AM  
I'm game. No I do not like any of my State or Federal representatives.

In b4 people want to get rid of all congress critters but their own.
 
2013-10-16 11:35:33 AM  
Sorry, have you met my friend Gerry?
 
2013-10-16 11:35:53 AM  
Where's our New Deal? Shunting cash to Big Defense in a couple districts doesn't count, goddammit. We need public infrastructure built in the U.S. by Americans.
 
2013-10-16 11:36:54 AM  
I'm alright keeping the young Tea Party members. They're not selling out the country.
 
2013-10-16 11:38:09 AM  
No, increasing demand will create more jobs and improve the economy. Too bad that the job market is too weak enhance demand to improve the job market.
 
2013-10-16 11:38:12 AM  
Those Americans are right!
 
2013-10-16 11:39:28 AM  

sammyk: I'm game. No I do not like any of my State or Federal representatives.

In b4 people want to get rid of all congress critters but their own.


I actually like my Congressman.  MY US Senators:  Pretty much a love/hate for the senior one, and surprisingly pleased by the junior one.  I need to do more research on my State Assemblyman and State Senator though.

And yes, I realize you're pointing out that apparent paradox where the majority of people disapprove as Congress as a whole, but approve of their own Congressman or Congresswoman.
 
2013-10-16 11:39:57 AM  
Do the same a-holes that elected them in the first place get to vote again?
 
2013-10-16 11:39:57 AM  
Such an oversimplistic outlook.  Yes, we just need to create jobs.  What the people responding really mean is that they think that the key to a strong economy is "good, high-paying jobs with good benefits and job security are created that are available to me."
 
2013-10-16 11:41:52 AM  

Sybarite: And that's clearly NOT going to happen until we defund Obamacare, outlaw abortion, and slash entitlements.


You forgot eliminate corporate taxes (and reduce taxes on the rich), remove all regulations, eliminate food stamps, get rid of unemployment benefits, outlaw civil lawsuits,  and leave the United Nations.

Then, wow, the jobs will just keep rolling in.
 
2013-10-16 11:44:01 AM  

johnnyrocket: Sybarite: And that's clearly NOT going to happen until we defund Obamacare, outlaw abortion, and slash entitlements.

You forgot eliminate corporate taxes (and reduce taxes on the rich), remove all regulations, eliminate food stamps, get rid of unemployment benefits, outlaw civil lawsuits,  and leave the United Nations.

Then, wow, the jobs will just keep rolling in.


Don't forget to outlaw unions, repeal child labor laws, end women's suffrage, reinstate segregation, and reinstate the draft.
 
2013-10-16 11:44:48 AM  

monoski: Do the same a-holes that elected them in the first place get to vote again?


How about the Democrats shut down the government, until they are allowed pass a law that sterilizes anyone who voted for a Tea Party Republican?
 
2013-10-16 11:45:24 AM  
This get rid of all current politicians is exactly how somebody like Hitler gets into power. Seriously.

If you were to throw out all incumbents and have one big election, you'll get the Tea Party all over again. The vote out all incumbents mentality in 2010 is how the Tea Party got into power in the first place!
 
2013-10-16 11:45:50 AM  
More immigration.    The next big push for the WH and Congress.     Awesome.
 
2013-10-16 11:46:18 AM  
I was told Congress had a laser-like focus.
 
2013-10-16 11:46:57 AM  
yeah last time they thought new blood in congress was a good idea we got the tea party idgits
 
2013-10-16 11:47:16 AM  

TofuTheAlmighty: No, increasing demand will create more jobs and improve the economy. Too bad that the job market is too weak enhance demand to improve the job market.


Pfft the market is too rational to have feedback loops.
 
2013-10-16 11:48:30 AM  

Spanky_McFarksalot: yeah last time they thought new blood in congress was a good idea we got the tea party idgits


And not to worry!  All the tea party idiots will keep their jobs!  It's only the ones from moderate districts who will face the wrath of scorned voters.  The extremists will continue to damage the government.
 
2013-10-16 11:49:01 AM  

Lord_Baull: I was told Congress had a laser-like focus.


Oh they did. But on torpedoing the nation to serve the interests of a few neo-feudalist bastards that want us all poor and desperate for whatever table scraps they deign to throw our ways.
 
2013-10-16 11:50:03 AM  

johnnyrocket: Sybarite: And that's clearly NOT going to happen until we defund Obamacare, outlaw abortion, and slash entitlements.

You forgot eliminate corporate taxes (and reduce taxes on the rich), remove all regulations, eliminate food stamps, get rid of unemployment benefits, outlaw civil lawsuits,  and leave the United Nations.

Then, wow, the jobs will just keep rolling in.


I'm sure running huge deficits will create jobs. Should we make 7/8ths of the Bush tax cuts permanent? Maybe increase employer costs by requiring them to provide health insurance? That might create jobs. Any other ideas?
 
2013-10-16 11:50:40 AM  

johnnyrocket: Sybarite: And that's clearly NOT going to happen until we defund Obamacare, outlaw abortion, and slash entitlements.

You forgot eliminate corporate taxes (and reduce taxes on the rich), remove all regulations, eliminate food stamps, get rid of unemployment benefits, outlaw civil lawsuits,  and leave the United Nations.


All of which are absolutely meaningless unless they ban gay marriage.
 
2013-10-16 11:51:23 AM  

UrukHaiGuyz: Where's our New Deal? Shunting cash to Big Defense in a couple districts doesn't count, goddammit. We need public infrastructure built in the U.S. by Americans.


Well if we had not elected a conservative president in 2008 we might have had a New Deal II, instead we got weak health insurance reform, which the Republitards are still screaming about like they are a stuck pig.
 
2013-10-16 11:51:23 AM  

netcentric: More immigration.    The next big push for the WH and Congress.     Awesome.


Right. Forgot about that one. More competition from immigrants is sure to help the American working class. Talk about jobs.
 
2013-10-16 11:52:38 AM  

netcentric: More immigration.    The next big push for the WH and Congress.     Awesome.



Your focus on the economy in this thread rivals the GOP House.
 
2013-10-16 11:52:56 AM  

johnnyrocket: monoski: Do the same a-holes that elected them in the first place get to vote again?

How about the Democrats shut down the government, until they are allowed pass a law that sterilizes anyone who voted for a Tea Party Republican?


No easy answer here was my point. Throwing the current bunch out is not likely to really fix much but we can't decide who can vote based on the quality of their selections.
 
2013-10-16 11:53:22 AM  

Granny_Panties: This get rid of all current politicians is exactly how somebody like Hitler gets into power. Seriously.

If you were to throw out all incumbents and have one big election, you'll get the Tea Party all over again. The vote out all incumbents mentality in 2010 is how the Tea Party got into power in the first place!


Pretty much this. Also less jobs is better for our corporate overlords/job creators - they can choose the cream of the crop and care fark all about everyone else. Its really great business in the short-term and disastrous in the long-term when you realize that there are very few left to consume the products and services produced.

/ If you build it (demand), they will come (jobs).
 
2013-10-16 11:53:45 AM  

Debeo Summa Credo: johnnyrocket: Sybarite: And that's clearly NOT going to happen until we defund Obamacare, outlaw abortion, and slash entitlements.

You forgot eliminate corporate taxes (and reduce taxes on the rich), remove all regulations, eliminate food stamps, get rid of unemployment benefits, outlaw civil lawsuits,  and leave the United Nations.

Then, wow, the jobs will just keep rolling in.

I'm sure running huge deficits will create jobs. Should we make 7/8ths of the Bush tax cuts permanent? Maybe increase employer costs by requiring them to provide health insurance? That might create jobs. Any other ideas?


7 Trillion dollar Employer of Last Resort (ELR) program. Literally after 6 months unemployed the US government gives you a job doing whatever that pays $30 an hour, 40 hours a week, 26 days off a year, 20 sick days a year, both bankable, health, dental, vision and life insurance included.
 
2013-10-16 11:55:17 AM  

Slaves2Darkness: UrukHaiGuyz: Where's our New Deal? Shunting cash to Big Defense in a couple districts doesn't count, goddammit. We need public infrastructure built in the U.S. by Americans.

Well if we had not elected a conservative president in 2008 we might have had a New Deal II, instead we got weak health insurance reform, which the Republitards are still screaming about like they are a stuck pig.


Wait wait wait. I know you're the special kind of f*cking stupid, but this is beyond the pale.

You admit that Barack the Islamic Shock is a moderate, and you've seen how the GOP paints him as Mao + Lenin * Stalin / Draco, but you think if we had elected an even more liberal president we would have LESS gridlock and MORE progressive policies?

Holy feces of St. Kitts and Nives. I've got to hear this. Please, continue.
 
2013-10-16 12:00:25 PM  

Obama's Reptiloid Master: Slaves2Darkness: UrukHaiGuyz: Where's our New Deal? Shunting cash to Big Defense in a couple districts doesn't count, goddammit. We need public infrastructure built in the U.S. by Americans.

Well if we had not elected a conservative president in 2008 we might have had a New Deal II, instead we got weak health insurance reform, which the Republitards are still screaming about like they are a stuck pig.

Wait wait wait. I know you're the special kind of f*cking stupid, but this is beyond the pale.

You admit that Barack the Islamic Shock is a moderate, and you've seen how the GOP paints him as Mao + Lenin * Stalin / Draco, but you think if we had elected an even more liberal president we would have LESS gridlock and MORE progressive policies?

Holy feces of St. Kitts and Nives. I've got to hear this. Please, continue.


I don't admit that he is moderate, he is a conservative and a fiscal conservative at that. He would be a Regan Republican if he was not Black and the Republicans had not become the party of stupid.

He has lowered the deficit, forced sequester on the US, and improved the long term outlook for US debt by cutting social programs while leaving the military mostly intact. He is a fiscal conservative and a social liberal. His fiscal policies trump his social policies every time. The ACA will lower the deficit and it will be an improvement for both citizens and corporations.

Anybody who can't see that Obama is a conservative is truly blind or willfully ignorant. He is the best conservative president we have had since Ronald Reagan.
 
2013-10-16 12:02:17 PM  

Slaves2Darkness: Employer of Last Resort


If you want to talk about plans that would work and help people, but will never happen because republicans are petulant children, just talk about GMI instead.
 
2013-10-16 12:03:20 PM  

Slaves2Darkness: Debeo Summa Credo: johnnyrocket: Sybarite: And that's clearly NOT going to happen until we defund Obamacare, outlaw abortion, and slash entitlements.

You forgot eliminate corporate taxes (and reduce taxes on the rich), remove all regulations, eliminate food stamps, get rid of unemployment benefits, outlaw civil lawsuits,  and leave the United Nations.

Then, wow, the jobs will just keep rolling in.

I'm sure running huge deficits will create jobs. Should we make 7/8ths of the Bush tax cuts permanent? Maybe increase employer costs by requiring them to provide health insurance? That might create jobs. Any other ideas?

7 Trillion dollar Employer of Last Resort (ELR) program. Literally after 6 months unemployed the US government gives you a job doing whatever that pays $30 an hour, 40 hours a week, 26 days off a year, 20 sick days a year, both bankable, health, dental, vision and life insurance included.


Great. And we can just borrow or print that money.

Wait, why only $30 per hour? The economy would do much better with $60 per hour wages. We can just borrow it! Better make it $80, just to be sure.

And only 26 days off? You plutocratic scum.
 
2013-10-16 12:03:26 PM  
we ain't got money for that!  Corporations need higher profits and more off shoring.
 
2013-10-16 12:04:26 PM  

ikanreed: Slaves2Darkness: Employer of Last Resort

If you want to talk about plans that would work and help people, but will never happen because republicans are petulant children, just talk about GMI instead.


Must every thread devolve into a discussion of the German-Malaysian Institute?
 
2013-10-16 12:04:55 PM  

Slaves2Darkness: Obama's Reptiloid Master: Slaves2Darkness: UrukHaiGuyz: Where's our New Deal? Shunting cash to Big Defense in a couple districts doesn't count, goddammit. We need public infrastructure built in the U.S. by Americans.

Well if we had not elected a conservative president in 2008 we might have had a New Deal II, instead we got weak health insurance reform, which the Republitards are still screaming about like they are a stuck pig.

Wait wait wait. I know you're the special kind of f*cking stupid, but this is beyond the pale.

You admit that Barack the Islamic Shock is a moderate, and you've seen how the GOP paints him as Mao + Lenin * Stalin / Draco, but you think if we had elected an even more liberal president we would have LESS gridlock and MORE progressive policies?

Holy feces of St. Kitts and Nives. I've got to hear this. Please, continue.

I don't admit that he is moderate, he is a conservative and a fiscal conservative at that. He would be a Regan Republican if he was not Black and the Republicans had not become the party of stupid.

He has lowered the deficit, forced sequester on the US, and improved the long term outlook for US debt by cutting social programs while leaving the military mostly intact. He is a fiscal conservative and a social liberal. His fiscal policies trump his social policies every time. The ACA will lower the deficit and it will be an improvement for both citizens and corporations.

Anybody who can't see that Obama is a conservative is truly blind or willfully ignorant. He is the best conservative president we have had since Ronald Reagan.


Quit dodging the question.

How could a more liberal president have created less gridlock and achieved more progressive policy changes.
 
2013-10-16 12:34:25 PM  
I'd like to see term limits of one 4 year term, maybe it a lottery system too, think of it like jury duty.
 
2013-10-16 12:47:37 PM  

Obama's Reptiloid Master: How could a more liberal president have created less gridlock and achieved more progressive policy changes.


Well, the ACA only got through when the Democrats held the House. Presumably a more liberal president would not have rolled over so easily on things like single-payer, would have instituted much heavier regulation on Wall Street after the financial crisis, etc.

The gridlock would be the same now, most likely, but the positions the Democrats would be defending would have had some actual soshalizms, instead of the moderate-conservative positions Obama seemingly took as a starting point to negotiations.
 
2013-10-16 01:03:22 PM  

Slaves2Darkness: 7 Trillion dollar Employer of Last Resort (ELR) program. Literally after 6 months unemployed the US government gives you a job doing whatever that pays $30 an hour, 40 hours a week, 26 days off a year, 20 sick days a year, both bankable, health, dental, vision and life insurance included.


It's incredible that there are people out there who believe something like this would work. Just pay the unemployed $60k per year plus benefits to do "whatever" and the economy will take off!
 
2013-10-16 01:03:29 PM  

Slaves2Darkness: Anybody who can't see that Obama is a conservative is truly blind or willfully ignorant. He is the best conservative president we have had since Ronald Reagan.


The only problem with this statement is Reagan's legacy is one of pretty much abject failure, in hindsight.

But to the bigger point, (while I admit the site is flawed--- it is what it is...) I'd love to see political compass placement of all our past presidents?
Who is truly the most 'central' on both axes?
 
2013-10-16 01:06:08 PM  

Koalacaust: Slaves2Darkness: 7 Trillion dollar Employer of Last Resort (ELR) program. Literally after 6 months unemployed the US government gives you a job doing whatever that pays $30 an hour, 40 hours a week, 26 days off a year, 20 sick days a year, both bankable, health, dental, vision and life insurance included.

It's incredible that there are people out there who believe something like this would work. Just pay the unemployed $60k per year plus benefits to do "whatever" and the economy will take off!


Well, building and repairing large-scale infrastructure would be a great relief program with tangible benefits for American individuals and companies that would persist for years. It works especially well if the jobs are fed by a gov-subsidized job training program to give workers the necessary skills.
 
2013-10-16 01:08:46 PM  

Koalacaust: Slaves2Darkness: 7 Trillion dollar Employer of Last Resort (ELR) program. Literally after 6 months unemployed the US government gives you a job doing whatever that pays $30 an hour, 40 hours a week, 26 days off a year, 20 sick days a year, both bankable, health, dental, vision and life insurance included.

It's incredible that there are people out there who believe something like this would work. Just pay the unemployed $60k per year plus benefits to do "whatever" and the economy will take off!


$60 is ridiculous, but something like $12/hr (indexed to CoL in city/region) combined with medicare, on the condition that you clean streets, apprentice in a trade { train for infrastructure repair in particular}  'volunteer' at charities, etc  would be far more productive to society overall, and the individual as well than the current system is.
 
2013-10-16 01:12:07 PM  

Slaves2Darkness: 7 Trillion dollar Employer of Last Resort (ELR) program. Literally after 6 months unemployed the US government gives you a job doing whatever that pays $30 an hour, 40 hours a week, 26 days off a year, 20 sick days a year, both bankable, health, dental, vision and life insurance included.


I only came up with $998.4 billion for that plan.

How much have we spent on the Iraq and Afghanistan wars again?
 
2013-10-16 01:13:15 PM  

UrukHaiGuyz: Obama's Reptiloid Master: How could a more liberal president have created less gridlock and achieved more progressive policy changes.

Well, the ACA only got through when the Democrats held the House. Presumably a more liberal president would not have rolled over so easily on things like single-payer, would have instituted much heavier regulation on Wall Street after the financial crisis, etc.

The gridlock would be the same now, most likely, but the positions the Democrats would be defending would have had some actual soshalizms, instead of the moderate-conservative positions Obama seemingly took as a starting point to negotiations.


Those options were never achievable though.
 
2013-10-16 01:17:52 PM  

Obama's Reptiloid Master: UrukHaiGuyz: Obama's Reptiloid Master: How could a more liberal president have created less gridlock and achieved more progressive policy changes.

Well, the ACA only got through when the Democrats held the House. Presumably a more liberal president would not have rolled over so easily on things like single-payer, would have instituted much heavier regulation on Wall Street after the financial crisis, etc.

The gridlock would be the same now, most likely, but the positions the Democrats would be defending would have had some actual soshalizms, instead of the moderate-conservative positions Obama seemingly took as a starting point to negotiations.

Those options were never achievable though.


*shrug* We'll never know at this point. I think single-payer could have had a (small) chance to pass if the Democrats had thrown support behind the idea.
 
2013-10-16 01:23:13 PM  

UrukHaiGuyz: Obama's Reptiloid Master: UrukHaiGuyz: Obama's Reptiloid Master: How could a more liberal president have created less gridlock and achieved more progressive policy changes.

Well, the ACA only got through when the Democrats held the House. Presumably a more liberal president would not have rolled over so easily on things like single-payer, would have instituted much heavier regulation on Wall Street after the financial crisis, etc.

The gridlock would be the same now, most likely, but the positions the Democrats would be defending would have had some actual soshalizms, instead of the moderate-conservative positions Obama seemingly took as a starting point to negotiations.

Those options were never achievable though.

*shrug* We'll never know at this point. I think single-payer could have had a (small) chance to pass if the Democrats had thrown support behind the idea.


There's still the problem of who controls the message.
 
2013-10-16 01:56:35 PM  

UrukHaiGuyz: Well, building and repairing large-scale infrastructure would be a great relief program with tangible benefits for American individuals and companies that would persist for years. It works especially well if the jobs are fed by a gov-subsidized job training program to give workers the necessary skills.


I'm not disparaging the idea that the government can improve the economy by investing in public infrastructure. It certainly can, so long as whatever infrastructure it is building is in fact needed and provides a tangible economic benefit (to see the opposite effect in play, consider the "ghost cities" in China). The post that  Slaves2Darkness made seemed to imply that the nature of the work being done by beneficiaries of this unemployment program is immaterial, and that is just wrong. While paying people with borrowed money to build a highway can be a sound investment for a society to make, paying people $30/hr to dig ditches and fill them back in would not be. This is an important distinction.
 
2013-10-16 02:03:23 PM  

Obama's Reptiloid Master: Quit dodging the question.

How could a more liberal president have created less gridlock and achieved more progressive policy changes.


By using the Green Lantern ring that Obama refused to wear. If Obama led harder and used the bully pulpit, Joe Lieberman and Ben Nelson would've supported single payer.

UrukHaiGuyz: *shrug* We'll never know at this point. I think single-payer could have had a (small) chance to pass if the Democrats had thrown support behind the idea.


The votes were not (and still aren't) there for the public option much less single payer. A lot of people don't understand how negotiation works, much less negotiation with hundreds of people, the vast majority of whom are completely fine with nothing happening. Most negotiation was with *Democrats* in Congress; except for Snowe and Collins, Republicans weren't included. It was just politically convenient to portray concessions to conservative Democrats as being concessions to Republicans for the benefit of liberal/moderate voters with a bipartisanship fetish.

They also don't understand how progress works - it's a little bit at a time. It's beating a dead horse but even FDR had to heavily compromise to get what he passed and the liberals of the day considered him to be a sellout beholden to Wall Street.
 
2013-10-16 02:17:19 PM  

Koalacaust: While paying people with borrowed money to build a highway can be a sound investment for a society to make, paying people $30/hr to dig ditches and fill them back in would not be. This is an important distinction.


It wouldn't be a *bad* investment since people would be spending that money back into the economy and the interest rate for borrowing is pretty much free.

That said, there are much better options.
 
2013-10-16 02:19:58 PM  

Aexia: FDR had to heavily compromise to get what he passed and the liberals of the day considered him to be a sellout beholden to Wall Street

Really I think that's the fundamental problem. Financial institutions throw so much money at the campaigns of both parties that the only good leverage politicians have in the face of Wall Street is immediately after an economic crash/downturn instigated by Wall Street itself. We had that, and we squandered the opportunity.

I do think the ACA is a step in the right direction, but a frustratingly small one.

Koalacaust: While paying people with borrowed money to build a highway can be a sound investment for a society to make, paying people $30/hr to dig ditches and fill them back in would not be. This is an important distinction.


I don't disagree. Our existing infrastructure could use a lot of work though, from crumbling bridges on interstate highways to high speed rail and improved electrical grids.
 
2013-10-16 02:26:46 PM  
nelson-haha.gif

The GOP has put Georgia, a very red state, into play for next year's senate election:

-In Georgia voters oppose the shutdown 61/31, and it's just another factor helping make this seat competitive for Democrats next year. Michelle Nunn is knotted with a generic Republican opponent at 42%.

The shutdown will be particularly problematic for the GOP if it nominates one of the House members seeking a promotion to the Senate- 47% of voters say they're less likely to vote Paul Broun, Phil Gingrey, or Jack Kingston for the Senate because of their support for the shutdown to only 32% who think it's a positive. After being informed that her most likely opponents were among those House Republicans who favored the shutdown, Nunn improves to a 48/42 lead lead on the generic ballot.


Source
 
Displayed 50 of 54 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report