Republicans are ignorant about the most basic FACTS about welfare in this country

[Andylusion]

This is literally as absurd as saying "gravity is a lie".

Trickle down is just an undeniable reality of life (like gravity). Wealthy people create jobs. A poor person never created even a single job in world history.

Wealthy people have money to spend on goods and services. That causes a portion of their wealth to "trickle down" to those people providing the goods and services.

It always amazes me how completely ignorant of even basic economics liberals are. I guess because they don't hold jobs and thus don't participate in the work force they are baffled by economics? I'm not sure what else it could be...

So, if tickle down is a fact, then how come trickle down led the US from having a pumping economy to being in the worst recession since WW2?

If you give a person with $5 million in their bank another half a million, what will they do with it?
If you give 500,000 people living on the bread line $1 each, what will they do with it?

The problem we have here is that the economy is a massive thing, it takes a lot of brains to try and figure out one aspect of the economy and even then they don't necessarily get it.

The Tories in the UK are basking in the glory that their economic policy (cut taxes, cut spending, try and cut the debt level but increase it) has worked. However unemployment in the UK is HIGHER than in the US right now (or at least was when I last looked a few months back).

Why?

You are correct in one area. The economy is not the sum of a single policy. One policy alone does not solve everything.

In order to have a growing economy, there are three fundamentals you must have.

First, you must have a product that people want. If you come up with bricks made out of dog turds, chances are no matter how cheap they are, people are not going to buy them. People don't want a house that stinks year round, and falls apart after a rain storm.

Second, you must have the money to invest in creating the business. If you and I, decide we want to sell cars, and neither of us has the money to build the factory, buy the materials, or the equipment and tools, there will not be a factory no matter how profitable, or desirable to the public, our car would be.

Third, you must be able to produce the product profitably. Even if we have all the money to build the factory, and even if we have all the demand for the product by the public, if we can't build the products profitably, we'll eventually go broke and close... thus we wouldn't do the project to begin with.

So we need a product people want, the money to start production, and the ability to produce the product profitably.

If you have those 3 things, the economy will grow.

Now generally, the product demand is a given. In most cultures around the world, there is always things and stuff people want. I was reading about a specific middle east country, where their religious doctrine made material possession a negative, and as such it was very hard for them to develop a domestic economy. But for most of the world, that's not an issue.

That leaves the other two, having capital to invest in growing the economy, and being able to produce stuff profitably. Simply put...

Even if you have a trillion dollars, if you can't build the product profitably, nothing else matters.

Yet, even if you can build the product with even the largest of profits, if you don't have the money to build the factory to make the product, nothing else matters.

Both are absolute requirements.

So let's talk about the UK for a moment. The top marginal rate in the UK, dropped from 50% on wages over £150,000, to 45% on wages over £150,000 ($250,000).

I highly doubt a mere 5% cut on wages over £150,000, is going to make a big difference in anything. But, you are right, it is a cut, and thus the wealthy should have a few thousand pounds more to invest.

But you are ignoring the other key. Like I said, even if you had £1 Trillion pounds, would you invest into a manufacturing plant that was not profitable? If the cost to make the product was too high to make a profit, would invest into something that would lose money until you were broke? No. No one would.

What's the number 1, top cost in any business? Labor.

Rising U.K. Labor Costs Show Productivity Puzzle - WSJ.com

The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, a Paris-based think tank, said in a report this month that unit labor costs in the U.K. rose 2.4% in the second quarter compared with the first, outpacing the rate of growth in Germany, France, Italy and the U.S. The average rise in unit labor costs in the OECD's 34 members was just 0.3%.

U.K. labor costs rise despite weak wage growth - MarketWatch

The ONS said labor costs per hour rose 2% in the first quarter compared with the same period a year earlier. The bulk of the increase in labor costs came from non-wage inflation, such as higher taxes, sickness and maternity pay and employer contributions to pensions. Non-wage labor costs rose 4.3% on the year in the first quarter, the ONS said, while wage costs rose 1.6%.

There is the problem. You have a higher unemployment rate, which should cause wage costs to fall. Supply of labor high, demand for labor low, cost should go down.

Instead, because of government policies, taxes, labor laws, pension payments, sick pay.... instead of going down, labor costs in the UK are going UP, even while the economy is weak, and unemployment is high.

So even if we have the money to open a new car plant, and even if we have a car the people want to buy, if the cost of labor makes building the car unprofitable, then we don't build it, jobs are not created, and the economy doesn't grow.

That's your answer sir. That's why just cutting taxes alone, doesn't solve it. You have to also lower the cost of labor. And you people on the left, don't like that, but that's how the world works.

 

[Andylusion]

Lol the longer you rant the more apparent your soreness is. It's rather transparent.

LOL the longer you deny it, the more everyone on this entire thread is mocking and laughing at you. It's rather obvious to everyone else but you.

Why should be bothered by people who are dumb? I'm right and you know I am right.

Oh yes... yes of course.... don't we all know it.....

 

[Papageorgio]

Why are you people so ignorant to not even know what was in the stimulus package?

Oh and I am not saying supply side is important. I just mean it means dick without spending power. Supply side depends on consumer spending.

How are you people not getting this? Bush job growth was pathetic. Obama did much more for the middle class specifically.

Is that why the divide of the middle class and the rich is getting wider since Obama got into office?

 

[Contumacious]

The truth of the matter is that the wealthy receive enormous gov assistance through subsidies. The poor on the other hand get peanuts.
.

Government handouts to either the poor or rich are UNconstitutional.

.

 

[Billy000]

Why are you people so ignorant to not even know what was in the stimulus package?

Oh and I am not saying supply side is important. I just mean it means dick without spending power. Supply side depends on consumer spending.

How are you people not getting this? Bush job growth was pathetic. Obama did much more for the middle class specifically.

Is that why the divide of the middle class and the rich is getting wider since Obama got into office?

That's been happening since the 70s. It is complete fallacy to blame Obama. In fact, he is the only president to discuss the issue.

 

[Papageorgio]

Why are you people so ignorant to not even know what was in the stimulus package?

Oh and I am not saying supply side is important. I just mean it means dick without spending power. Supply side depends on consumer spending.

How are you people not getting this? Bush job growth was pathetic. Obama did much more for the middle class specifically.

Is that why the divide of the middle class and the rich is getting wider since Obama got into office?

That's been happening since the 70s. It is complete fallacy to blame Obama. In fact, he is the only president to discuss the issue.

True, having lots of part time low paying jobs has been real help to the rich, Obama has made sure good paying jobs aren't coming back.

 

[Billy000]

Is that why the divide of the middle class and the rich is getting wider since Obama got into office?

That's been happening since the 70s. It is complete fallacy to blame Obama. In fact, he is the only president to discuss the issue.

True, having lots of part time low paying jobs has been real help to the rich, Obama has made sure good paying jobs aren't coming back.

I would love to hear how that is Obama's fault. What more do you want? He passed a stimulus package that included the biggest tax cut for the middle class since Reagan that created 2.5 million jobs according to the CBO. Part of that was through the tax cut and the part was the extension of unemployment benefits which helped stimulate consumer spending. He extended Bush's tax cuts. Hes done everything you cons love and more.

Meanwhile, corporate profits are at an all time high. Tell me, how is it that Obama is more at fault for part time jobs than businesses are? They are the job creators. What are they waiting for? Where are the jobs?

 

[Missouri_Mike]

This is literally as absurd as saying "gravity is a lie".

Trickle down is just an undeniable reality of life (like gravity). Wealthy people create jobs. A poor person never created even a single job in world history.

Wealthy people have money to spend on goods and services. That causes a portion of their wealth to "trickle down" to those people providing the goods and services.

It always amazes me how completely ignorant of even basic economics liberals are. I guess because they don't hold jobs and thus don't participate in the work force they are baffled by economics? I'm not sure what else it could be...

So, if tickle down is a fact, then how come trickle down led the US from having a pumping economy to being in the worst recession since WW2?

If you give a person with $5 million in their bank another half a million, what will they do with it?
If you give 500,000 people living on the bread line $1 each, what will they do with it?

The problem we have here is that the economy is a massive thing, it takes a lot of brains to try and figure out one aspect of the economy and even then they don't necessarily get it.

The Tories in the UK are basking in the glory that their economic policy (cut taxes, cut spending, try and cut the debt level but increase it) has worked. However unemployment in the UK is HIGHER than in the US right now (or at least was when I last looked a few months back).

Why?

If you give a person with $5 million in their bank another half a million, what will they do with it?

Give them half a million? You mean write them a check, out of taxpayer funds, like Obama does for his supporters? Or cut their taxes, so they keep half a million more of their own money?

You beat me to it. This is the lefties ignorance in action though isn't it? Somehow the rich people just got half a million handed to them because they are rich. Like the rich have some kind of meeting place where they just go get their half million, a welfare line but with greater rewards.

They never consider the fact that the half million must be earned first. So at a nominal 10% profit margin they would have actually spent $10,000,000 in production costs (labor, materials, property, sales, licensing and taxes) in order to actually make 500k.

I'm not sure where in their loose ass line of thinking they lose track of the 9.5 million that was spent to actually make that money.

9.5 million put into the economy they ignore and focus on the guy that made 500k doing that. How retarded.

 

[Papageorgio]

That's been happening since the 70s. It is complete fallacy to blame Obama. In fact, he is the only president to discuss the issue.

True, having lots of part time low paying jobs has been real help to the rich, Obama has made sure good paying jobs aren't coming back.

I would love to hear how that is Obama's fault. What more do you want? He passed a stimulus package that included the biggest tax cut for the middle class since Reagan that created 2.5 million jobs according to the CBO. Part of that was through the tax cut and the part was the extension of unemployment benefits which helped stimulate consumer spending. He extended Bush's tax cuts. Hes done everything you cons love and more.

Meanwhile, corporate profits are at an all time high. Tell me, how is it that Obama is more at fault for part time jobs than businesses are? They are the job creators. What are they waiting for? Where are the jobs?

From biggest tax cut ever to biggest tax cut since Reagan, wow, you keep tripping over yourself.
Part time jobs are not helping, Obama shovel ready programs never happened, much of the stimulus went to waste.

 

[Billy000]

True, having lots of part time low paying jobs has been real help to the rich, Obama has made sure good paying jobs aren't coming back.

I would love to hear how that is Obama's fault. What more do you want? He passed a stimulus package that included the biggest tax cut for the middle class since Reagan that created 2.5 million jobs according to the CBO. Part of that was through the tax cut and the part was the extension of unemployment benefits which helped stimulate consumer spending. He extended Bush's tax cuts. Hes done everything you cons love and more.

Meanwhile, corporate profits are at an all time high. Tell me, how is it that Obama is more at fault for part time jobs than businesses are? They are the job creators. What are they waiting for? Where are the jobs?

From biggest tax cut ever to biggest tax cut since Reagan, wow, you keep tripping over yourself.
Part time jobs are not helping, Obama shovel ready programs never happened, much of the stimulus went to waste.

For the middle class it was the biggest you goon. I didn't say it was bigger than Bush's. And um no the CBO will tell you it wasn't a waste.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

That's been happening since the 70s. It is complete fallacy to blame Obama. In fact, he is the only president to discuss the issue.

True, having lots of part time low paying jobs has been real help to the rich, Obama has made sure good paying jobs aren't coming back.

I would love to hear how that is Obama's fault. What more do you want? He passed a stimulus package that included the biggest tax cut for the middle class since Reagan that created 2.5 million jobs according to the CBO. Part of that was through the tax cut and the part was the extension of unemployment benefits which helped stimulate consumer spending. He extended Bush's tax cuts. Hes done everything you cons love and more.

Meanwhile, corporate profits are at an all time high. Tell me, how is it that Obama is more at fault for part time jobs than businesses are? They are the job creators. What are they waiting for? Where are the jobs?

You're as stupid as the president you worship. Nothing this asshole has put into law is helping business. You think obiecare is actually helping? Dodd-Frank? You didn't build that, you can keep your insurance period, we're going to punish our enemies and reward our friends, Solyndra is our future, we're going to bankrupt the coal industry, your energy prices will necessarily skyrocket, don't cross this red line...ok, never mind go ahead, this is the obiecare deadline...wait, this is the deadline...no, this is it for sure, XL not approved, drilling in the gulf stopped got put down by the court? Who cares stop the drilling, We love Brazil oil we will be their biggest customer, Americans are pretty arrogant, We just don't understand Europe's leading role in the world, these people are just bible clingers and gun nutters, I'm gonna stop the sea's from rising, hope and change, Four dead in Beghazi? What difference does that make, IRS corruption? Not even a smidgeon! We take the 5th, The mandate isn't a tax! OK, nevermind it's a tax, Fast and furious is easily defensible wasn't our fault! So not our fault we claim diplomatic immunity, Those cops sure acted stupidly, If I had a son he would sure look like that guy, Shit really? You think I should fire the person that made the worst website in history to control your healthcare? Pfft, no way she is awesome, I just need some cooperation here, I have a pen you know, and a phone, Fuck it I'm taking the family on vacation, anyone up for golf? or basketball, that damn George Bush is causing me to be an idiot, 9 trillion in deficit is unpatriotic! 17 trillion heading for 20 is, I'm scared of guns and think you people should't have them! Nah I think I like all my secret service people with guns, you all need to lower your carbon footprint, I have a 747 to catch to my vacation the wife and dog took other planes, global warming is a bigger threat to us than Russia, this obiecare thing is going to work so sweet you're going to love it...in 2017.

I wonder why people don't just jump up and start a business since this asshole is so trust worthy? Where does this massive distrust of him come from?

Oh yeah, you're racist that's why.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

That's been happening since the 70s. It is complete fallacy to blame Obama. In fact, he is the only president to discuss the issue.

True, having lots of part time low paying jobs has been real help to the rich, Obama has made sure good paying jobs aren't coming back.

I would love to hear how that is Obama's fault. What more do you want? He passed a stimulus package that included the biggest tax cut for the middle class since Reagan that created 2.5 million jobs according to the CBO. Part of that was through the tax cut and the part was the extension of unemployment benefits which helped stimulate consumer spending. He extended Bush's tax cuts. Hes done everything you cons love and more.

Meanwhile, corporate profits are at an all time high. Tell me, how is it that Obama is more at fault for part time jobs than businesses are? They are the job creators. What are they waiting for? Where are the jobs?

He passed a stimulus package that included the biggest tax cut for the middle class since Reagan

How big was the cut for the middle class that Bush passed?

 

[Listening]

I would love to hear how that is Obama's fault. What more do you want? He passed a stimulus package that included the biggest tax cut for the middle class since Reagan that created 2.5 million jobs according to the CBO. Part of that was through the tax cut and the part was the extension of unemployment benefits which helped stimulate consumer spending. He extended Bush's tax cuts. Hes done everything you cons love and more.

Meanwhile, corporate profits are at an all time high. Tell me, how is it that Obama is more at fault for part time jobs than businesses are? They are the job creators. What are they waiting for? Where are the jobs?

From biggest tax cut ever to biggest tax cut since Reagan, wow, you keep tripping over yourself.
Part time jobs are not helping, Obama shovel ready programs never happened, much of the stimulus went to waste.

For the middle class it was the biggest you goon. I didn't say it was bigger than Bush's. And um no the CBO will tell you it wasn't a waste.

The CBO told us Obamacare would save money. So why do you keep using them as some kind of credible source ?

 

[Papageorgio]

I would love to hear how that is Obama's fault. What more do you want? He passed a stimulus package that included the biggest tax cut for the middle class since Reagan that created 2.5 million jobs according to the CBO. Part of that was through the tax cut and the part was the extension of unemployment benefits which helped stimulate consumer spending. He extended Bush's tax cuts. Hes done everything you cons love and more.

Meanwhile, corporate profits are at an all time high. Tell me, how is it that Obama is more at fault for part time jobs than businesses are? They are the job creators. What are they waiting for? Where are the jobs?

From biggest tax cut ever to biggest tax cut since Reagan, wow, you keep tripping over yourself.
Part time jobs are not helping, Obama shovel ready programs never happened, much of the stimulus went to waste.

For the middle class it was the biggest you goon. I didn't say it was bigger than Bush's. And um no the CBO will tell you it wasn't a waste.

Getting testy while taking an ass whooping, very funny.

Also smart not to step into the shovel ready fray, that proved to be very embarrassing.

And the CBO only computes what it is fed and is worthless as a reliable source.

 

[frigidweirdo]

You are correct in one area. The economy is not the sum of a single policy. One policy alone does not solve everything.

In order to have a growing economy, there are three fundamentals you must have.

First, you must have a product that people want. If you come up with bricks made out of dog turds, chances are no matter how cheap they are, people are not going to buy them. People don't want a house that stinks year round, and falls apart after a rain storm.

Second, you must have the money to invest in creating the business. If you and I, decide we want to sell cars, and neither of us has the money to build the factory, buy the materials, or the equipment and tools, there will not be a factory no matter how profitable, or desirable to the public, our car would be.

Third, you must be able to produce the product profitably. Even if we have all the money to build the factory, and even if we have all the demand for the product by the public, if we can't build the products profitably, we'll eventually go broke and close... thus we wouldn't do the project to begin with.

So we need a product people want, the money to start production, and the ability to produce the product profitably.

If you have those 3 things, the economy will grow.

Now generally, the product demand is a given. In most cultures around the world, there is always things and stuff people want. I was reading about a specific middle east country, where their religious doctrine made material possession a negative, and as such it was very hard for them to develop a domestic economy. But for most of the world, that's not an issue.

That leaves the other two, having capital to invest in growing the economy, and being able to produce stuff profitably. Simply put...

Even if you have a trillion dollars, if you can't build the product profitably, nothing else matters.

Yet, even if you can build the product with even the largest of profits, if you don't have the money to build the factory to make the product, nothing else matters.

Both are absolute requirements.

So let's talk about the UK for a moment. The top marginal rate in the UK, dropped from 50% on wages over £150,000, to 45% on wages over £150,000 ($250,000).

I highly doubt a mere 5% cut on wages over £150,000, is going to make a big difference in anything. But, you are right, it is a cut, and thus the wealthy should have a few thousand pounds more to invest.

But you are ignoring the other key. Like I said, even if you had £1 Trillion pounds, would you invest into a manufacturing plant that was not profitable? If the cost to make the product was too high to make a profit, would invest into something that would lose money until you were broke? No. No one would.

What's the number 1, top cost in any business? Labor.

[Apparently I'm not allowed to post URLs]

The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, a Paris-based think tank, said in a report this month that unit labor costs in the U.K. rose 2.4% in the second quarter compared with the first, outpacing the rate of growth in Germany, France, Italy and the U.S. The average rise in unit labor costs in the OECD's 34 members was just 0.3%.

[Apparently I'm not allowed to post URLs]

The ONS said labor costs per hour rose 2% in the first quarter compared with the same period a year earlier. The bulk of the increase in labor costs came from non-wage inflation, such as higher taxes, sickness and maternity pay and employer contributions to pensions. Non-wage labor costs rose 4.3% on the year in the first quarter, the ONS said, while wage costs rose 1.6%.

There is the problem. You have a higher unemployment rate, which should cause wage costs to fall. Supply of labor high, demand for labor low, cost should go down.

Instead, because of government policies, taxes, labor laws, pension payments, sick pay.... instead of going down, labor costs in the UK are going UP, even while the economy is weak, and unemployment is high.

So even if we have the money to open a new car plant, and even if we have a car the people want to buy, if the cost of labor makes building the car unprofitable, then we don't build it, jobs are not created, and the economy doesn't grow.

That's your answer sir. That's why just cutting taxes alone, doesn't solve it. You have to also lower the cost of labor. And you people on the left, don't like that, but that's how the world works.

Okay, I'm not going to say I disagree with you. Yes, you need lots of things to have a decent economy.
However no matter how good the economy, you're always going to have recessions and you'd hope you're always going to get out of these recessions.

I am pro-capitalism, to a certain extent. I do believe in helping businesses, to a certain extent.

However, let's get personal, I work for a company that is extremely capitalist, in fact they treat their workers badly. I'm in a group who get treated better but I hate the company I work for.
My quality of life for the last 6 months has sucked and I'm bailing out as soon as my contract is up and bonuses are paid.

The point I'm now making is that you can have the whole "the economy is God" attitude towards life, or you can have the "quality of life" life point of view. Or you could be ground breaking and not be on either side and go for the middle ground. I'm more of the middle ground.

The trickle down theory is merely that, a theory. It doesn't work.
Yes, if the rich have money they might invest, and yes you do need investment.

However like you said you need products that people want. You need people to buy products. How much money do you think is made by people with money to spend on stuff.

Take a look back a few hundred years and see if the rich having a shed load of money was great for the trickle down theory. No, it didn't happen, the poor were on 1 copper coin a day or something and working massive amounts of hours and buying meager food and a few essentials and not much else.
The rich merely took the taxes off the people and sat there and did nothing.

So, again, you need a middle ground.

Without quality of life, which includes TVs, phones, houses furnished and stuff like this in the middle and even the lower classes, you have nothing much for the rich to invest in.

Investment happens because there is a market, markets exist because people have money, and people have money to spend on stuff when they have jobs and jobs come from people willing to start up businesses, how many people start up businesses who are amazingly rich and how many start them up who are just your average Joe?

I once worked for a roadside restaurant that was very popular, had a lot of outlets in the country. It was sold by the original owner because he was failing with the changing times. Then it was sold off and bought up by different companies, all of them "successful" firms, some were those who bought up companies and tried to change them, others because it was their field, others bought it up to then split it up and sell it off for a profit.

All of them failed. The company is now almost non-existant. In their place, at the two places I worked, are companies run by normal people making a go of it and I suppose doing okay.

The moral of the story? Well I think I've said it already.

 

[frigidweirdo]

You beat me to it. This is the lefties ignorance in action though isn't it? Somehow the rich people just got half a million handed to them because they are rich. Like the rich have some kind of meeting place where they just go get their half million, a welfare line but with greater rewards.

They never consider the fact that the half million must be earned first. So at a nominal 10% profit margin they would have actually spent $10,000,000 in production costs (labor, materials, property, sales, licensing and taxes) in order to actually make 500k.

I'm not sure where in their loose ass line of thinking they lose track of the 9.5 million that was spent to actually make that money.

9.5 million put into the economy they ignore and focus on the guy that made 500k doing that. How retarded.

Firstly, I was making a point. At no time did I say rich people simply get handed money.

Yes, people need to earn money. However a person in the US is going to earn a lot more money for their efforts than someone in, say, Somalia, right? Why is that?

Also, who's saying anyone didn't look at what a business person puts into the economy before? Not me. But then if you want to tell me what I think, you might want to do it somewhere where I can't see it.

 

[Mac1958]

.

I would definitely agree that conservatives pay far too much attention to the dollar costs of welfare, which are not that high in the grand scheme of things, and far too little attention to the cultural costs of welfare, which not only damage the individual and our culture but plague the economy as a whole.

Worse, it's now inter-generational, and it's very doubtful that can be turned around.

.

 

[LoneLaugher]

.

I would definitely agree that conservatives pay far too much attention to the dollar costs of welfare, which are not that high in the grand scheme of things, and far too little attention to the cultural costs of welfare, which not only damage the individual and our culture but plague the economy as a whole.

Worse, it's now inter-generational, and it's very doubtful that can be turned around.

.

Is that right? The fact that we have, as a nation, refused to allow children to starve to death, elderly to die miserably and disadvantaged to live in abject squalor has caused cultural devistation that cannot be turned around?

Go ahead and offer a paragraph of evidence for that very dire claim. Show that the cause of inter generational poverty is the existence of subsistence level social welfare and that there is no remedy that we have not yet tried.

 

[Meathead]

.

I would definitely agree that conservatives pay far too much attention to the dollar costs of welfare, which are not that high in the grand scheme of things, and far too little attention to the cultural costs of welfare, which not only damage the individual and our culture but plague the economy as a whole.

Worse, it's now inter-generational, and it's very doubtful that can be turned around.

.

Is that right? The fact that we have, as a nation, refused to allow children to starve to death, elderly to die miserably and disadvantaged to live in abject squalor has caused cultural devistation that cannot be turned around?

Go ahead and offer a paragraph of evidence for that very dire claim. Show that the cause of inter generational poverty is the existence of subsistence level social welfare and that there is no remedy that we have not yet tried.

Why do you think government is the only institution capable of stopping all the "devistation" (sic) you're babbling about? Churches, charities and especially the family were quite good at it, and far more efficient.

 

[P@triot]

That's been happening since the 70s. It is complete fallacy to blame Obama. In fact, he is the only president to discuss the issue.

True, having lots of part time low paying jobs has been real help to the rich, Obama has made sure good paying jobs aren't coming back.

I would love to hear how that is Obama's fault.

I'm glad you asked. Obama (like all marxists/socialists) has demonized success. He has convinced the parasite class that wealth and success are "evil". That scares wealthy/successful people away from America and scares them away from investing in America.

Then he raised taxes on the upper class and the middle class. Since people have less money because Obama is taking it from them, they have less to spend on goods & services (which means less demand which means less jobs). They have less to invest in their own businesses (which means less jobs). They have more expense which means cutting jobs and/or shipping jobs overseas.

What more do you want? He passed a stimulus package that included the biggest tax cut for the middle class since Reagan that created 2.5 million jobs according to the CBO.

First of all, I don't care if the "stimulus packages" brought unemployment down to 0% - unconstitutionally stealing my money and tossing it around to his pals and his special interest groups is unacceptable. He burried my children, my grandchildren, and my great-grandchildren with $7 trillion in debt which can never be paid off - all because he's a power hungry asshole.

Second, and much more important, he didn't "create" 2.5 million jobs he cost America over 10 million jobs. You people are so susceptible to left-wing propaganda that it's hilarious (and tragic). Unemployment is higher under Obama than it was under Bush. How is that possible if Obama "created" so many jobs?!? Because he has cost this nation 12 million jobs, then about 2.5 million were created (and certainly not because of Obama), giving Obama a net loss of about 10 million jobs and hence an entire presidency of between 8% - 10% unemployment.

Part of that was through the tax cut and the part was the extension of unemployment benefits which helped stimulate consumer spending. He extended Bush's tax cuts. Hes done everything you cons love and more.

• He has pissed all over the Constitution (I don't love that)
  
  
• He has raised taxes (I don't love that)
  
  
• He has created roughly 40 new taxes - 18 in Obamacare alone (I don't love that)
  
  
• He has insulted our allies (I don't love that)
  
  
• He has bowed to all of our enemies every whim (I don't love that)
  
  
• He is responsible for the highest unemployment in my life time (I don't love that)
  
  
• He destroyed the free market when he bailed out GM, Chrysler, and Wall Street (I don't love that)
  
  
• He has added over $7 trillion to our national debt (I don't love that)
  
  
• He destroyed the free market and replaced it with government-controlled "regulation" (I don't love that)
  
  
• He has over seen the most corrupt administration in U.S. history - Fast & Furious, Benghazi, IRS targeting conservatives, spying on reporters, Solyndra, the Black Panthers (I don't love that)

Meanwhile, corporate profits are at an all time high.

Yeah - because corporations have taken all of their jobs overseas to nations who don't punish job creators. You know what else is at an all time high under Obama? Unemployment. Longest period of above 8% unemployment in U.S. history (sans the Great Depression).

Tell me, how is it that Obama is more at fault for part time jobs than businesses are? They are the job creators. What are they waiting for? Where are the jobs?

The jobs are overseas because that's where the Dumbocrats have forced them. And Obama is at fault for that because he has made it too expensive to conduct business in the U.S.

Anything else you would like to know?