>The photo below and this blog post were forwarded from the office of John Boehner.
>Boehner, GOP Governors-Elect Focus on Creating Jobs, Cutting Spending
>The photo below and this blog post were forwarded from the office of John Boehner.
This entry was posted on December 2, 2010, 9:18 pm and is filed under Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through RSS 2.0. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
jackpriceblog
#1 by Anonymous on December 2, 2010 - 10:06 pm
>Seems like Boehner's currently focused on making sure millionaires (like him) keep their tax cuts. His Christmas present to hundreds of thousands of unemployed? No more unemployment benefits.
#2 by Anonymous on December 2, 2010 - 10:15 pm
>creating jobs for the Chinese, you mean.
#3 by Anonymous on December 2, 2010 - 11:58 pm
>Politics is just a "Dog & Pony Show"! They, (the Duly Elected) only act on what benefits them and their own special interest groups. Don't ever think for a minute that anyone is fighting for you, whether it be on the Federal, State or Local levels.
#4 by B. E on December 3, 2010 - 1:00 am
>Hilarious, to the people crying about the millionaires 'getting tax cuts', you are aware it's an issue of keeping the CURRENT tax rates, and not getting additional cuts right? Secondly, you do know, it's those very same millionaires that the majority of Americans can thank for their paycheck. The ignorance on this issue is astounding. Barry gets up and cries about it costing 700 billion since that is what the government would supposedly (even the government accounting office agrees these numbers depend on many variables aligning just right) bring in in the form of additional tax revenues. Now answer me this, how can they truthfully tell you this is going to cost us 700 billion if we never had it in the first place? They are playing word games and the sad fact is the majority of Americans are too stupid to see through it. Even the presidents puppet debt committee agreed that the best move would be dropping tax rates, as every time the tax rate was dropped, tax revenues into the government went UP, not down. Every time the tax rates went up, tax revenues pretty much stayed the same or went DOWN. If you raise the tax rates on the rich, they will merely move their investments to non-taxable investments such as municipal bonds and such.Wake up people, this is the Democrats doing nothing but playing class warfare, don't be stupid enough to fall for it.
#5 by Anonymous on December 3, 2010 - 1:17 am
>They arent stopping umemployment benefits. They arent giving that extention to people currently filing. I dont think they should pass it. I work my butt off to pay my bills.I dont work that hard to pay my taxes and watch the government give it to people sitting on their butts and expect to get a paycheck.
#6 by Anonymous on December 3, 2010 - 2:19 am
>You can't say no to unemployment benefits because we dont have the money to pay for them yet continue low tax rates(for anyone)that we don't have the money for. I find it funny how these big spenders are suddenly watching out for us when they are all guilty of helping to create the problem. If these great tax rates create jobs, or maintain jobs, then why did the economy and jobs go down the drain in the last years of Bush with these rates in place? Blaming one party over the other is being out of touch. They are all guilty!We have lived too big for too long. We need to cut spending and raise taxes. Doing only one or the other will get us nowhere.
#7 by B. E on December 3, 2010 - 2:41 am
>The economy went down due to the sub-prime housing market sparked by banks being forced to give loans to people who couldn't afford them and had no business owning a home. That is not a disputed fact. If you do not believe lower taxes spur growth, you need to do your homework. Every time that tax rates have been cut, the economy grew and revenues to the government grew. When Bush cut taxes, the revenues to the government went up hundreds of billions. I find it more than ironic that this is the same ugly witch who when the Democrats began their 5.5trillion dollar spending spree when they took power in 2006 was the one chanting Pay-Go and now she doesn't care, and has never once instituted the Pay-Go promise. The Republicans are changing their tune now because they got a rather rude awakening thankfully to the Tea Party. They know, if they do not listen to the people, they will be the next to be booted from power. Raising taxes has NEVER gotten any government out of a crisis, it has only stunted economic growth and cost jobs. Same way Keynesian economics has NEVER worked. Same way the government is monetizing our debt has NEVER worked.When do you draw the line and say enough is enough, and it's time to get these unexperienced clowns out of office.
#8 by Guest#1 on December 3, 2010 - 12:24 pm
>"The economy went down due to the sub-prime housing market sparked by banks being forced to give loans to people who couldn't afford them and had no business owning a home. That is not a disputed fact."That is a simplistic answer that is sort of right, there are far more complex reasons than the one you provided about why the economy tanked.Too bad people don't realize that if you cut taxes you also have to cut spending.Apparently Bush, Boehner & Co. did not understand that hence the 400 billion plus year to year deficits they ran for years.Someone should tell Boehner and Kasich that the Gov. doesn't create jobs, the private sector does,
#9 by Barb on December 3, 2010 - 12:41 pm
>Don't know who B.E. is, but he/she has a real grasp of economics and government. the liberals in congress are ALL millionaires, but they bring up class warfare to shake more money out of others.
#10 by Anonymous on December 3, 2010 - 1:57 pm
>The economic downturn was related to much more than the sub-prime mortgage fiasco. While that was one factor, the spending by these clowns in the picture during the Bush years were just as much at fault. The Dems as well. Both parties are at fault and the only reason these boys are catering to the Tea Party is to cater to their base. They talk the Tea Party talk but none have any specifics as to what needs cut because they don't want to tick off those folks either. To think that only one party is at fault, or to think that these folks suddenly "get it" is a pipe dream. If you want things you have to pay for it. If not, cut it. We, as a country, are bloated and deeply in debt. If you found yourself in the same situation at home, you would cut spending AND try to earn more money to fix the problem faster. One without the other is just a half-ass attempt. These people need to go as well!
#11 by Anonymous on December 3, 2010 - 3:12 pm
>Looks like our governor elect is saying "I don't know" by his hand motion…..LOL.
#12 by Anonymous on December 3, 2010 - 4:07 pm
>BE, wrong. It IS disputed that the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) to which you refer was the cause of the sub-prime meltdown (no matter how many times Rush says it to be so). You are kidding yourself if you think that banks let the government force them to make bad loans and ruin themselves. That's factually inaccurate and defies logic. And, if anything is ironic, it's that you are accusing people of class warfare when your theory suggests this meltdown is to be blamed on all these poor people who bought homes and then lost everything they own as opposed to all the white collar folks who made a LOT of money doing these deals. The sub-prime meltdown was caused by deregulation of the mortgage industry and the securitization of mortgages. People made these loans and got rich off the transactional costs. Then they bundled them and sold them. The result was the consequences of bad unwriting practices were separated from those doing the underwriting. The absence of regulation (and greed), not government involvement, was the biggest cause of the meltdown. On a brighter note, if I possessed your fundamental misunderstanding of complicated, major issues, I would see it the way you do.
#13 by B. E on December 3, 2010 - 7:01 pm
>You mean the same banks that got secret loans worth hundreds of billions that the Fed kept secret and are now just telling us about, by the administration that had the former head of ACORN in it, ACORN being the prime proponent for the CRA? No conflict of interest there I am sure. Please, there were people receiving loans for homes when they couldn't even provide proof of income. I am supposed to feel sorry for those people who went out and bought a house they KNEW they couldn't afford? I don't think so. The only thing funnier is the right being blamed for being cozied up to the Wall Street banks when we are now finding out it is the Obama administration that was in bed with them for 2.2 trillion dollars worth of secret loans, loans also made to Harley Davidson, GE (which needed a 150 million dollar bailout why?). It is only disputed by those who wish to blame all of this on the Bush ere.
#14 by Anonymous on December 3, 2010 - 7:03 pm
>Barb, you think BE knows what he's talking about because you listen to the same talk radio entertainers he does. It's an echo chamber. It's really not political for me. It's just depressing to think that so many people don't vote and so many of those that do, don't understand things.
#15 by Guest#1 on December 3, 2010 - 7:15 pm
>Actually the banks WERE pressured into making dicey loans by regulators, even here in Greenville, A banker told me after this mess blew up that they had to be aware of their numbers or the regulators would be asking questions.That is just part of the whole equation though.
#16 by Curt on December 3, 2010 - 7:24 pm
>Guest#1, 400 billion dollar deficits would look pretty good now compared to the 1.3 trillion we have now. Projected to be over a trillion for yrs to come.
#17 by Anonymous on December 3, 2010 - 7:51 pm
>Guest #1: Banks are obligated pursuant to the CRA to not "redline" certain areas/neighborhoods and, in general terms, not to avoid serving the communities in which they are located. What your local banker friend described is consistent with that. However, there is nothing about the CRA which requires banks to make risky loans and certainly not on the scale that caused the meltdown. That is one of the most patently ridiculous arguments I hear people make. Imagine the CEO of 5th/3rd being told by regulators to make all these loans to people that didn't qualify. Does he risk his bank, his shareholders, his job to do it? How many of these CRA loans do you think he would need to make for a bank to go under? It didn't happen that way. That's Rush's political spin. People got greedy/speculative. Sound underwriting principles were not followed. A house of cards was created because we decoupled the underwriting from those holding the mortgages (by allowing mortgages to become securitized). Homeowners were foolish/greedy to take out these loans. Lenders were foolish/greedy to make the loans. However, it did not happen because of the CRA (regulation/government involvement in the process). It happend because the free market spun out of control and, apparently (and unfortunately), will now be regulated more.
#18 by Mike Stegall on December 3, 2010 - 7:55 pm
>A fundamental understanding of government spending needs to be addressed. ALL spending bills originate in the house of Representatives. Period. The house and senate were controlled by the democrats from 2006 to 2011. The republicans did not have enough votes, if every one of them voted against spending increases, to stop them. Just a simple fact. I am not saying all of them voted against increases, because they did not, but the truth is it would not have mattered. The spending problem ALWAYS starts in the House, no matter which party is in charge. If the Republicans in charge, or the Democrats in charge overspend, that is the way it is, assuming they have enough votes to override a veto.
#19 by Anonymous on December 3, 2010 - 8:39 pm
>It's about jobs. In 1962, President Kennedy and Congress recognized that American workers were being adversely affected by foreign ownership and foreign competition. Foreign ownership was allowed in the 50's. Without jobs for the middle class, paying living wages we are dead in the water, no matter who is in office. It's about jobs.
#20 by Anonymous on December 3, 2010 - 8:49 pm
>The overspending and increased debt is something that has built for many, many years and at the fault of both political parties. Even the great Ronald Reagan never submitted a balanced budget (sorry to those that think he was a great fiscal conservative). The problem today is that there is so much misinformation out there that many people are fooled into believing that one party or one part of the financial crisis is totally at fault. Unemployment benefits are a good example. Yes, there may be a few (compared to the overall) that make more money sitting at home. But these few are used as examples of the entire system being flawed. The same happens with items related to Social Security, tax issues, bank and auto bailouts and many other issues.You cannot be informed unless you look at all sides and consider all sides. Watching FOX or MSNBC only is not getting the whole story. Same way with talk radio. But for many, it is safer to sit in your comfort zone and blame the other guy for your lot in life.
#21 by Guest#1 on December 3, 2010 - 9:04 pm
>Curt I love how people try to excuse a 400 billion dollar deficit by comparing it to the monstrous current deficit.That is a poor excuse IMHO, Bush had the most discretionary spending percentwise of any republican president.The budget has got to be balanced and soon, otherwise we will see an economic meltdown of the likes most have never witnessed in this country.
#22 by Bill on December 3, 2010 - 9:22 pm
>Mike, you're fogetting one important thing: Since 2001 the Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were fought off ther books; entirely with money borrowed from China and Saudi Arabia. As a result, they hold trillions (that's with a T) in Treasury Notes that we now have to pay back, and which as sent the deficit soaring. both parties got us into this mess because neither had the balls to level with the American people and say that the caost of bringing Western civilization and flush toilets to the heathens was going to bankrupt the country. but it did make Dick Cheney richer.
#23 by Anonymous on December 3, 2010 - 9:57 pm
>Obama's spending makes Bush look like a piker. We have never had a president spend like he has. By the way, the dems won the congress thus held the purse strings from the start of 2007.
#24 by Anonymous on December 4, 2010 - 1:20 pm
>4:57: Bush's policies led to the deaths of 1000s of American soldiers and tens of thousands of innocent people. However, like your comment about spending, the story is a little more complicated than that. But, if you want to engage in shallow, simplistic rhetorical barbs, I'll play.
#25 by B. E on December 5, 2010 - 12:38 am
>Ah yes, compared to the dictator who killed ten times as many of his own people.
#26 by Anonymous on December 5, 2010 - 1:33 pm
>B.E.: By your standard, we'd invade 10% of the world's nations. I guess liberals like you don't mind running around spending our blood and treasure policing the world. I'd rather not.
#27 by B. E on December 5, 2010 - 4:20 pm
>I am not a liberal, if I was I wouldn't have been for the invasion and subsequent fall of Saddam. I am amused that you would get that I am a liberal by wanting a terrorist dictator toppled. So by your reasoning, we shouldn't ever take out evil dictators who slaughter tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of people because it cost money and lives. Thankfully for us, our founding fathers weren't as weak spined as you or we would still be under British rule sipping tea and paying taxes to the throne.Freedom isn't free.
#28 by Anonymous on December 5, 2010 - 7:54 pm
>Keeping the current tax rates is what our economy needs. Raising taxes on higher income people would only give fuel to the liberals. They could say that the Republicans couldn't make jobs either. They know that it is the higher income people and small business that make jobs & hire people. Middle & lower income people do not make jobs. All the uncertainty about what our tax payers would face has hurt the economy already. We need to feel a little security for our future. If we are going to pit tax payers against each other, we will need a flat tax plan. I am ready!P.S. Believe me, if I had a chance to cut & balance the budget, you would hear squeels and hear the pain for miles around. Go for it… cut, cut, cut! First, to start off with, stop the stupid grants and free monies. Go on from there…
#29 by Anonymous on December 6, 2010 - 1:36 pm
>B.E.: You are apparently a little dense if you didn't realize I was messing with you about being a liberal. Your position is not conservative. Cartoonish? Yes. Conservative? No. Also, please enlist, pick up a rifle and stand a post in Kandahar, then Darfur. Then invade China, the Sudan and Iran if you want to start to rid the world of "evil dictators." I prefer to live in the real world. PS. Say hello to Paul Wolfowitz for me.