DNC

[SubGod22]

If we really want to get our country back in good financial shape we need to cut spending and raise taxes. But no politician really wants to tell us this.

I cannot support any raise in taxes until this gov't is committed to drastic spending cuts first. Revenue is not the key issue in this country as has been pointd out previously. The addiction to spending is.

We have to do something drastic to welfare, medicare/medicade, social security and other such programs. They're abused and bleed this country in a major way.

We also need to get gov't out of things they never had any constitutional authority to be involved in. Tons of wasted money there. That would also lead to the elimination of a number of gov't agencies/organizations that would free up tax money to be spent where it should really be spent.

And I'm not opposed to cutting spending on the military side either. But that's one that has to be done smartly because that is one place where our gov't is to spend money. On protecting us from enemies.

We'd also save lots of money if the gov't would stop trying to protect us from ourselves. How much wasted time and dollars goes into that?

You start by doing these things, and more, and we can look into raising taxes IF necessary.

[Capitol Shock II]

We absolutely need to raise taxes....on all of the dead beats that aren't paying any! Good grief, the best place to start is where you are getting absolutely nothing or 50% of the population apparently.
Let's tax our producers into submission so they either quit or leave....or better yet, apply for assistance and start voting Socialist.

I'm not afraid to say it....if you're on welfare, don't vote. It's a conflict of interest.

I would like to see some of these polls indicate whether the recepients are on welfare or not. I think that would be very enlightening.

[Rocky Mountain Shock]

Sorry RMS - frankly it is people like you that scare me - you really believe it. A sign of God's judgement is when God gives you over to the desires of your heart and we no longer use wisdom to make good and righteous choicse. Boys and girls - we are there. The fed is printing money as fast as the presses will run, and it looks like we have a majority of american who really believe we don't have a spending problem, but a tax revenue problem......[sigh]

It seems to me the people who are guided by the desires of their heart and no longer use wisdom are the right wing extremist Tea Baggers, not people like myself who look for compromise, know that the truths lay in the middle ground instead of in the extremes, and who at least try to see both sides of an issue before making the best decision we can. The intolerant, erratic, judgmental, "take no prisoners", extremist segment of the Republican Party are the ones who turned me off several years ago. If the Republican Party had any ounce of moderateness left in it I'd probably still consider myself a Republican. Instead, it has moved so far right that people who were once "middle of the road" are now considered "socialists."

I have advocated for both spending cuts (Republican ideal) and revenue increases (Democratic ideal). My friends on the right seem to the think the ONLY way is their way and that means spending cuts. I believe our social safety nets need to be reformed (Republican ideal) but still serve a vital function (Democratic ideal). My friends on the right seem to think the ONLY way is their way and that practically all social programs need to be eliminated. I believe in a strong military that deters threats from other nations (Republican ideal) but which should be used sparingly and only as a last resort (seems to be only a Democratic ideal in the last 13 years). My friends on the right seem to think the ONLY way is their way and that no military spending should be cut and that we should bomb Iran into the stone age. Of course, I am a "socialist" for believing all the things that I believe, regardless of the fact I loathe socialism and that I actually know what that word means. Seems to me these days that to be included in the Republican good old boys club, the requirements are you be narrow-minded, disregard everyone else's opinion, use words such as "socialism" without any regard to their meaning, and get all your "facts" from Fox News. That's not real endearing to anyone who considers themselves moderate.

[SubGod22]

It seems to me the people who are guided by the desires of their heart and no longer use wisdom are the right wing extremist Tea Baggers, not people like myself who look for compromise, know that the truths lay in the middle ground instead of in the extremes, and who at least try to see both sides of an issue before making the best decision we can. The intolerant, erratic, judgmental, "take no prisoners", extremist segment of the Republican Party are the ones who turned me off several years ago. If the Republican Party had any ounce of moderateness left in it I'd probably still consider myself a Republican. Instead, it has moved so far right that people who were once "middle of the road" are now considered "socialists."

I have advocated for both spending cuts (Republican ideal) and revenue increases (Democratic ideal). My friends on the right seem to the think the ONLY way is their way and that means spending cuts. I believe our social safety nets need to be reformed (Republican ideal) but still serve a vital function (Democratic ideal). My friends on the right seem to think the ONLY way is their way and that practically all social programs need to be eliminated. I believe in a strong military that deters threats from other nations (Republican ideal) but which should be used sparingly and only as a last resort (seems to be only a Democratic ideal in the last 13 years). My friends on the right seem to think the ONLY way is their way and that no military spending should be cut and that we should bomb Iran into the stone age. Of course, I am a "socialist" for believing all the things that I believe, regardless of the fact I loathe socialism and that I actually know what that word means. Seems to me these days that to be included in the Republican good old boys club, the requirements are you be narrow-minded, disregard everyone else's opinion, use words such as "socialism" without any regard to their meaning, and get all your "facts" from Fox News. That's not real endearing to anyone who considers themselves moderate.

You can change a few words and say the exact same thing about the Democrats.

[Rocky Mountain Shock]

Who first invested the resources to develop the product the consumer is purchasing? Who is taking the financial risk to expand their ability to produce more? The consumer bears no risk. It was the businessman/manufacturer/inventor/etc. who created the environment for the creation of jobs, not the consumer.

Why even say "I've never seen a rich person hire someone else simply so they can benevolently help our unemployment rate"? Do consumers buy products and services so they can "benevolently help our unemployment rate"? No. You pretty much contradicted your own theory.

The term "job creator" has been used--especially by some politicians--to define an entire economic class of people, regardless of their success in actually "creating" jobs. By your definition, Steve Jobs was a "job creator" because of his success at Apple. But you can't call every rich person a "job creator"--many businesses fail, many businesses lay people off, some rich people don't even own a business. When I buy a business's product or service, regardless of what my motivation is, I help to create or sustain jobs. We ALL do that, regardless of our motivations as well. Rich people are job creators in their capacity as consumers. What we have here is a difference of view point on the cause and effect relationship. The businessman/manufacturer/inventor/etc would create no jobs if we don't buy his/her product or service. So, wait, who is creating the environment again for job creation?

What happens first in an economic downturn? Do businesses lay off people first and then consumers reduce spending? What about in a recovery--do businesses add jobs and then consumers start spending again?

Stop being the pawns of the wealthy and start thinking for yourselves guys. You are intelligent people who deserve better than to go through your lives thinking you're dependent on the "job creators."

[SubGod22]

And without that business or product there's nothing for the consumer to purchase and no job to be had. And yes, some businesses do fail, but it took that one person to take a chance to create something. Not a consumer wanting them to.

[Rocky Mountain Shock]

And without that business or product there's nothing for the consumer to purchase and no job to be had. And yes, some businesses do fail, but it took that one person to take a chance to create something. Not a consumer wanting them to.

And I will respond that on the most part, businesses do not create demand for new products. There have been some exceptions, but let's all admit that businesses create products that consumers wanted in the first place. They do this by listening to focus groups, analyzing market trends, etc. Businesses rarely create and market products in which there is no consumer desire in the first place. Marketing 101.

So it's really a "chicken and the egg" kind of scenario, isn't it? Jobs can't be had without consumer demand, and jobs can't be had without businesses to provide products and services in which to demand. Each has a integral role in our system, and each has a role in job creation.

[pinstripers]

No consumer has ever created a job. Ever. Listen to yourself.

[RoyalShock]

It's a largely symbiotic relationship. But until the consumer bears the risk and suffers the consequences when things go south, they don't get the credit.

[Kung Wu]

And I will respond that on the most part, businesses do not create demand for new products. There have been some exceptions, but let's all admit that businesses create products that consumers wanted in the first place. They do this by listening to focus groups, analyzing market trends, etc. Businesses rarely create and market products in which there is no consumer desire in the first place. Marketing 101.

So it's really a "chicken and the egg" kind of scenario, isn't it? Jobs can't be had without consumer demand, and jobs can't be had without businesses to provide products and services in which to demand. Each has a integral role in our system, and each has a role in job creation.

Just stop it.

When a diner sits down to eat his dinner in a restaurant, did he cook the meal or did the chef?

When a consumer drives his car away from an auto shop, did he fix the car or did the auto mechanic?

When you turn on your faucet, did you install the plumbing system or did a plumber do that?

Please just stop it. The consumer enabled all of those people to practice their trade by consuming, but the tradesmen are the ones that made those things happen. The consumer did nothing but consume. The producer produced. Any other argument is public school education.

Still not buying it? Go outside and install your own overhead wiring back to the electrical distribution substation, Mr. Consumer. I'd like to watch that. In fact I'll bring the marshmallows, chocolate bars and graham crackers; there should be plenty of heat to cook the smores on.

[kcshocker11]

So your saying when I went to the phonebook and hired someone to put a new roof on my house I wasnt the boss. I didnt create the job! I could of employed several different people to do my roofbut ask about several and made my choice, was this not akin to the interview prossess? I was the consumer and the boss at the same time.

[Capitol Shock II]

Really?

[MoValley John]

So your saying when I went to the phonebook and hired someone to put a new roof on my house I wasnt the boss. I didnt create the job! I could of employed several different people to do my roofbut ask about several and made my choice, was this not akin to the interview prossess? I was the consumer and the boss at the same time.

You bought a good or service, that is all. You made a decision as a consumer, but when the project gets underway, I dont think they will let you "Be the boss." I dont think you would have many companies even willing to bid your job in the first place, if you, as the consumer, demanded they hire even one more guy to get your business.

[MoValley John]

Furthermore, what would OSHA have to say about you being on your roof interrupting the contractors. Would the contractor´s insurance company be happy with the consumer "being the boss?" When you get tires installed, are you the boss, or do you have to stay behind the yellow line and the chain?

Nope, you are merely the consumer. We can make the examples as as you want, at the end of the day, you are the consumer, not the boss or job creator.

[MoValley John]

This is comic gold! We have now devolved enough in our society that liberal consumers really believe that they are the real job creators!