Why does the left think the government can create jobs?

[Bern80]

That is Bull Shit.

No, its not. Any rich person who makes most of their income from long term capital gains - which includes almost all of the uber-rich (the top 400) - pays 15% - which is a lower rate than much if not most of the middle class.

You make wealth in this country you are going to pay taxes on it. If there are un fair breaks for those who use them, them why din't BHO get rid of them from 09-10 when he had close to a super majority?

Was he playing horse shoes or hand grenades?

I think 9-9-9 that Cain is talking about hits the spot

That's because you can't comprehend anything with a longer description than "9-9-9" - its a perfect sound bite sized idea that the stupid can easily digest.

Hey - why not "1-1-1" ? Who cares if that's not enough to cover our expenses -we'll just cut spending. We'll cut spending enough so we can be on a 1-1-1 system. I'm going to run with that one- because I can beat Cain by telling folks I'll charge 9 times less than his money grubbing "9-9-9" approach!

What is clear Pooh head is that it is you that isn't serious about the fiscal issues facing the country. You said a key phrase. 'Who cares if it doens't cover our expenses". Here is a crazy idea. CUT YOUR FUCKING EXPENSES INSTEAD OF TRYING TO FIGURE OUT MORE WAYS OF GETTING YOUR GRUBBY LAZY FUCKING PAWS ON MY MONEY!

 

[Skull Pilot]

The reality is that the government can create jobs but those jobs do not add to the tax base.

Government jobs shift the tax burden to those in the private sector, the smaller the private sector the r smaller the tax base. The smaller the tax base the higher the taxes must be.

It's very simple.

 

[JRK]

That is Bull Shit.

No, its not. Any rich person who makes most of their income from long term capital gains - which includes almost all of the uber-rich (the top 400) - pays 15% - which is a lower rate than much if not most of the middle class.

Was he playing horse shoes or hand grenades?

I think 9-9-9 that Cain is talking about hits the spot

That's because you can't comprehend anything with a longer description than "9-9-9" - its a perfect sound bite sized idea that the stupid can easily digest.

Hey - why not "1-1-1" ? Who cares if that's not enough to cover our expenses -we'll just cut spending. We'll cut spending enough so we can be on a 1-1-1 system. I'm going to run with that one- because I can beat Cain by telling folks I'll charge 9 times less than his money grubbing "9-9-9" approach!

What is clear Pooh head is that it is you that isn't serious about the fiscal issues facing the country. You said a key phrase. 'Who cares if it doens't cover our expenses". Here is a crazy idea. CUT YOUR FUCKING EXPENSES INSTEAD OF TRYING TO FIGURE OUT MORE WAYS OF GETTING YOUR GRUBBY LAZY FUCKING PAWS ON MY MONEY!

Pooh upuah is clueless
He has no idea how stupid he looks with those comments he is making to people who have real jobs and really pay taxes
Hey pooh, You calling me stupid s only doing harm to you.

The get your fucking hands off of my wealth is taking hold pooh, you better get a fucking job and stop cussing grown men who are being part of the solution
9% sales'
9% income
9% corporate is about right

 

[toxicmedia]

The reality is that the government can create jobs but those jobs do not add to the tax base.

Government jobs shift the tax burden to those in the private sector, the smaller the private sector the r smaller the tax base. The smaller the tax base the higher the taxes must be.

It's very simple.

It's the private sector that has let us down. The pay a government worker recieved didn't matter in the 1990's when nobody could lose in the stock market. The private sector funds our government....and right now the American private sector worker is, on the average, one of the least cost effective workers in the world. Indians and Chinese are the ones innovating, and making sure their kids are educated with college degrees. Untill Chinese and Indian salaries are comparable with Americans, with the same education and drive....this situation will continue.

The private sector is really just a marketplace for American labor....which is too expensive and lacks dedication. However....losing all the middle class jobs will make Americans hungry again...instead of lazy uneducated entitled post WWII laborers.

Wake up Americans....it's Americans who are supposed to create jobs....not the president.

I know many of you anti Obama folks want the opposite to be true.

 

[JRK]

The reality is that the government can create jobs but those jobs do not add to the tax base.

Government jobs shift the tax burden to those in the private sector, the smaller the private sector the r smaller the tax base. The smaller the tax base the higher the taxes must be.

It's very simple.

It's the private sector that has let us down. The pay a government worker recieved didn't matter in the 1990's when nobody could lose in the stock market. The private sector funds our government....and right now the American private sector worker is, on the average, one of the least cost effective workers in the world. Indians and Chinese are the ones innovating, and making sure their kids are educated with college degrees. Untill Chinese and Indian salaries are comparable with Americans, with the same education and drive....this situation will continue.

The private sector is really just a marketplace for American labor....which is too expensive and lacks dedication. However....losing all the middle class jobs will make Americans hungry again...instead of lazy uneducated entitled post WWII laborers.

Wake up Americans....it's Americans who are supposed to create jobs....not the president.

I know many of you anti Obama folks want the opposite to be true.

I like your "get off of your ass" thought. You know what is getting on every-ones nerves about Govt workers/UAW?
Legacy cost. Those cost in the 90s were not booming like there booming now. It broke GM
Your right, Toyota is using help in the south, non union, paying a descent wage and Benny's, there doing okay

 

[toxicmedia]

The reality is that the government can create jobs but those jobs do not add to the tax base.

Government jobs shift the tax burden to those in the private sector, the smaller the private sector the r smaller the tax base. The smaller the tax base the higher the taxes must be.

It's very simple.

It's the private sector that has let us down. The pay a government worker recieved didn't matter in the 1990's when nobody could lose in the stock market. The private sector funds our government....and right now the American private sector worker is, on the average, one of the least cost effective workers in the world. Indians and Chinese are the ones innovating, and making sure their kids are educated with college degrees. Untill Chinese and Indian salaries are comparable with Americans, with the same education and drive....this situation will continue.

The private sector is really just a marketplace for American labor....which is too expensive and lacks dedication. However....losing all the middle class jobs will make Americans hungry again...instead of lazy uneducated entitled post WWII laborers.

Wake up Americans....it's Americans who are supposed to create jobs....not the president.

I know many of you anti Obama folks want the opposite to be true.

I like your "get off of your ass" thought. You know what is getting on every-ones nerves about Govt workers/UAW?
Legacy cost. Those cost in the 90s were not booming like there booming now. It broke GM
Your right, Toyota is using help in the south, non union, paying a descent wage and Benny's, there doing okay

Toyota, Mercedes, and Volkswagon have all started up plants in the south I believe, and they did so because the labor is cheaper in the south than it is on the west and east coasts. Texas is doing well comparativelly because they have the second lowest wages in the country after Tennessee, and Texas has the highest percentage of workers without medical insurance in the country.....but that's the way the ball bounces.

Obama says Americans have gotten soft.....I think they've been soft since 1950. At that time....no other significant country in the world had money to loan and a country that wasn't devastated by war. It took untill 1990 or so...but the world tightened their belts and saved money, and educated their kids, so when they had saved up enough capital, after investing in their infrastructure...they would be ready to take on the US. Japan reached that point in the 70's...when their auto industry surpassed the US manufacturers in sales. China reached that point in the 90's by selling just about everything we buy at Target and Kmart, and India got many of the call centers and high tech work away from us in the 00's. Brazil is next, and the pacific rim as a whole, and even south Americans are chipping away at the US's produce industries, especially the Chileans and the Mexicans.

In Brazil...in the 70's and 80's....their currency was absolutely crazy and unstable, and so was the leadership. People were angry, and opportunity existed only for people wealthy enough to afford private school for thier kids, and had CASH to start a business. The US is headed that way.

I have faith in America, and Americans. In the coming years...we're gonna find out what we, and our neighbors, are made of. Those who don't pull thier own weight, are gonna have to learn to, and America will be stronger in the end.................but it's not Obama's fault....and he's not making it much worse.

 

[Skull Pilot]

It's the private sector that has let us down. The pay a government worker recieved didn't matter in the 1990's when nobody could lose in the stock market. The private sector funds our government....and right now the American private sector worker is, on the average, one of the least cost effective workers in the world. Indians and Chinese are the ones innovating, and making sure their kids are educated with college degrees. Untill Chinese and Indian salaries are comparable with Americans, with the same education and drive....this situation will continue.

The private sector is really just a marketplace for American labor....which is too expensive and lacks dedication. However....losing all the middle class jobs will make Americans hungry again...instead of lazy uneducated entitled post WWII laborers.

Wake up Americans....it's Americans who are supposed to create jobs....not the president.

I know many of you anti Obama folks want the opposite to be true.

I have faith in America, and Americans. In the coming years...we're gonna find out what we, and our neighbors, are made of. Those who don't pull thier own weight, are gonna have to learn to, and America will be stronger in the end.................but it's not Obama's fault....and he's not making it much worse.

Those that don't pull their own weight form groups like OWS .

That is the type of citizen we have created with the nanny state; one who truly believes they deserve to take from others so they don't have to take care of themselves.

 

[IndependntLogic]

When the US Govt takes 1 trillion dollars of our wealth to "create a job" as Obama did, then all they have done is take 1 trillion dollars (really about 800 billion) of our wealth and re distributed it
It is wealth destruction is all it is

the private sector with the right conditions can create real jobs. How many jobs would that same 800 billion create in the private sector If the those who really pay taxes were allowed to keep that wealth?
What we purchase with that wealth would create work and we would get too keep the end product, instead of it becoming part of Obama's re-election campaign fund
That is real trickle down economics made simple. Allow the tax payer to keep more of his wealth, show him you can be trusted and watch him use it to grow the economy

let me preface by saying that Obama sucks, his domestic agenda has been a disaster and his priorities were pure whackjobbery.
That being said, I think both the Left AND Right are wrong about this. Both sides just regurgitate the opinions fed to them by the THought Masters at either MSNBC or FOX - and it's all BS.
Some guy making $10,000,000 a month isn't shetting his pants over the possibility that he might someday only make $9,800,000 a month. If he's at that level, he's smart enough to know how to avoid a couple points anyway.
We hired a new person this year. Taxes didn't affect or decision this year and guess what, it never has. Same when I headed a 200 person division of the largest privately held company in the country. You hire people when you need them.
First the mantra of the Right was "Well, govt jobs are no good! Leave those people unemployed. They'll be happier! And when the private sector is profitible again, they'll take care of all of us!" Heard that for a year. Then the reports came out. Corporate America was already profitable. More than ever.
So now it's "Well the mere fact that Obama even exists - a guy who probably won't even be in officer a year from now, is preventing those poor companies from hiring because they're just so scared!" Please. Really people? You're actually drinking that kool-aid?

Companies aren't hiring Americans because of the tax structure that has been in place for almost ten years, gives more advantages for sending jobs overseas, than for keeping them here.
Companies aren't hiring Americans because unions have driven the price of labor up way beyond the level of "fair & competitive wage".
Companies aren't hiring because the government is so busy handing money over to banks, auto companies and foreign countries, there's nothing left for the only entities that hire 100% American: small businesses.
Companies aren't hiring because what used to take ten people to do, now takes one robot and one person. Because every means of delivery and service that once required people, now requires hitting "send".

I could go on but the gist is simple. Our problems haven't been caused by evil CEO's alone. They haven't been caused by evil unions alone. They sure as hell haven't been caused by a guy who hasn't made a single change to the tax code and probably will be out of office in a year.

What can be done? That's another thread altogether...

 

[Dragon]

The reality is that the government can create jobs but those jobs do not add to the tax base.

Government jobs shift the tax burden to those in the private sector, the smaller the private sector the r smaller the tax base. The smaller the tax base the higher the taxes must be.

It's very simple.

Since government employees pay taxes, too, it's also very incorrect.

 

[Skull Pilot]

The reality is that the government can create jobs but those jobs do not add to the tax base.

Government jobs shift the tax burden to those in the private sector, the smaller the private sector the r smaller the tax base. The smaller the tax base the higher the taxes must be.

It's very simple.

Since government employees pay taxes, too, it's also very incorrect.

You really are simple.

If 100% of my tax money pays a government worker and some of the money paid to the government worker is withheld as taxes the taxes are still completely paid by my money.

Put it this way

If 10 people each make 100 dollars and 10 dollars is taken out of their pay to pay you to sweep the streets that means the 10 private workers made 1000 dollars and paid 100 in taxes to pay you.

If you pay 10 dollars in taxes where did that 10 dollars come from? It came from the taxes already paid by someone else hence your job did not add to the tax revenue of the government.

It's very simple if you realize you can't count dollars twice.

 

[JRK]

When the US Govt takes 1 trillion dollars of our wealth to "create a job" as Obama did, then all they have done is take 1 trillion dollars (really about 800 billion) of our wealth and re distributed it
It is wealth destruction is all it is

the private sector with the right conditions can create real jobs. How many jobs would that same 800 billion create in the private sector If the those who really pay taxes were allowed to keep that wealth?
What we purchase with that wealth would create work and we would get too keep the end product, instead of it becoming part of Obama's re-election campaign fund
That is real trickle down economics made simple. Allow the tax payer to keep more of his wealth, show him you can be trusted and watch him use it to grow the economy

let me preface by saying that Obama sucks, his domestic agenda has been a disaster and his priorities were pure whackjobbery.
That being said, I think both the Left AND Right are wrong about this. Both sides just regurgitate the opinions fed to them by the THought Masters at either MSNBC or FOX - and it's all BS.
Some guy making $10,000,000 a month isn't shetting his pants over the possibility that he might someday only make $9,800,000 a month. If he's at that level, he's smart enough to know how to avoid a couple points anyway.
We hired a new person this year. Taxes didn't affect or decision this year and guess what, it never has. Same when I headed a 200 person division of the largest privately held company in the country. You hire people when you need them.
First the mantra of the Right was "Well, govt jobs are no good! Leave those people unemployed. They'll be happier! And when the private sector is profitible again, they'll take care of all of us!" Heard that for a year. Then the reports came out. Corporate America was already profitable. More than ever.
So now it's "Well the mere fact that Obama even exists - a guy who probably won't even be in officer a year from now, is preventing those poor companies from hiring because they're just so scared!" Please. Really people? You're actually drinking that kool-aid?

Companies aren't hiring Americans because of the tax structure that has been in place for almost ten years, gives more advantages for sending jobs overseas, than for keeping them here.
Companies aren't hiring Americans because unions have driven the price of labor up way beyond the level of "fair & competitive wage".
Companies aren't hiring because the government is so busy handing money over to banks, auto companies and foreign countries, there's nothing left for the only entities that hire 100% American: small businesses.
Companies aren't hiring because what used to take ten people to do, now takes one robot and one person. Because every means of delivery and service that once required people, now requires hitting "send".

I could go on but the gist is simple. Our problems haven't been caused by evil CEO's alone. They haven't been caused by evil unions alone. They sure as hell haven't been caused by a guy who hasn't made a single change to the tax code and probably will be out of office in a year.

What can be done? That's another thread altogether...

Tax policy needs 100% overhaul, I agree (9-9-9 would work i think)
Every sector that has left, some will come back
those that do not, need replacement (oil shale, nuclear, clean coal, refineries)

 

[Dragon]

If 100% of my tax money pays a government worker and some of the money paid to the government worker is withheld as taxes the taxes are still completely paid by my money.

[snip]

It's very simple if you realize you can't count dollars twice.

But you can count dollars twice. All of the money that is paid to the government employee and isn't retaken in taxes is spent on consumption or saved, contributing to capital. It goes to businesses that provide goods and services, helping to keep them profitable and motivating them not to lay people off, and maybe to hire new people.

That the money comes from taxes initially is no more significant than the fact that in the private sector, the money people receive in paychecks comes initially from customers. In all cases the money is circulating around, and gets counted multiple times for varying purposes.

The real question to ask is not who is creating a job but whether the job is being created. If paying 100 people to, say, repair a highway means that XYZ Co. stays profitable and doesn't lay off 500 people, the net outlay by the government is not to lose the pay to those 100 people less their tax bill. And if the highways and bridges being repaired mean that several dozen companies that are dependent on shipping goods over them will continue being able to do that and not go belly-up and lay off several thousand people, then the IRS comes out ahead of the game.

So it really isn't as simple as you are painting the picture.

 

[Skull Pilot]

If 100% of my tax money pays a government worker and some of the money paid to the government worker is withheld as taxes the taxes are still completely paid by my money.

[snip]

It's very simple if you realize you can't count dollars twice.

But you can count dollars twice. All of the money that is paid to the government employee and isn't retaken in taxes is spent on consumption or saved, contributing to capital. It goes to businesses that provide goods and services, helping to keep them profitable and motivating them not to lay people off, and maybe to hire new people.

That the money comes from taxes initially is no more significant than the fact that in the private sector, the money people receive in paychecks comes initially from customers. In all cases the money is circulating around, and gets counted multiple times for varying purposes.

The real question to ask is not who is creating a job but whether the job is being created. If paying 100 people to, say, repair a highway means that XYZ Co. stays profitable and doesn't lay off 500 people, the net outlay by the government is not to lose the pay to those 100 people less their tax bill. And if the highways and bridges being repaired mean that several dozen companies that are dependent on shipping goods over them will continue being able to do that and not go belly-up and lay off several thousand people, then the IRS comes out ahead of the game.

So it really isn't as simple as you are painting the picture.

Government jobs do not add to the tax base.

It is simple if you don't start adding value judgements to the math.

If I bake 100 pies and 10 pies are taken from me to pay you there are still only 100 pies not 110. Your pies do not add to the total.

Just as taxes taken from government employees do not add to the total revenue of the government

The best way to add to the tax base is o shrink the size of government and increase the private sector.

 

[Dragon]

Government jobs do not add to the tax base.

Sometimes they do. I explained how, but let me explain again.

This is true even in prosperous times. The services the government provides are in many cases necessary for all economic activity in a modern society. Without those services, the economy, and hence the tax base, would shrink dramatically. So those government jobs DO expand the tax base -- a LOT.

In times of economic slump, like the present, it becomes even more true, because capital is not being invested in job-creation. So the government can take some of the idle capital and create the jobs itself, as a temporary stimulus measure. If it doesn't do that, this will not result in more investment by the private sector, it will result in less investment period, because the capital will remain idle.

The best way to add to the tax base is o shrink the size of government and increase the private sector.

Shrinking the size of government doesn't necessarily increase the private sector. It often reduces it.

 

[JRK]

If 100% of my tax money pays a government worker and some of the money paid to the government worker is withheld as taxes the taxes are still completely paid by my money.

[snip]

It's very simple if you realize you can't count dollars twice.

But you can count dollars twice. All of the money that is paid to the government employee and isn't retaken in taxes is spent on consumption or saved, contributing to capital. It goes to businesses that provide goods and services, helping to keep them profitable and motivating them not to lay people off, and maybe to hire new people.

That the money comes from taxes initially is no more significant than the fact that in the private sector, the money people receive in paychecks comes initially from customers. In all cases the money is circulating around, and gets counted multiple times for varying purposes.

The real question to ask is not who is creating a job but whether the job is being created. If paying 100 people to, say, repair a highway means that XYZ Co. stays profitable and doesn't lay off 500 people, the net outlay by the government is not to lose the pay to those 100 people less their tax bill. And if the highways and bridges being repaired mean that several dozen companies that are dependent on shipping goods over them will continue being able to do that and not go belly-up and lay off several thousand people, then the IRS comes out ahead of the game.

So it really isn't as simple as you are painting the picture.

Those jobs you speak of are being paid for by people who have less private wealth to spend on items they want, not what BHO wants
Simply put your destroying wealth, not creating it. That 4 trillion dollars that has been printed sense BHO took office would and could create millions of jobs if the REAL tax payers were allowed to keep all of that wealth and invest it, build a home, buy a car, etc...
When it comes to getting a product from point A to point B

 

[Skull Pilot]

Government jobs do not add to the tax base.

Sometimes they do. I explained how, but let me explain again.

This is true even in prosperous times. The services the government provides are in many cases necessary for all economic activity in a modern society. Without those services, the economy, and hence the tax base, would shrink dramatically. So those government jobs DO expand the tax base -- a LOT.

In times of economic slump, like the present, it becomes even more true, because capital is not being invested in job-creation. So the government can take some of the idle capital and create the jobs itself, as a temporary stimulus measure. If it doesn't do that, this will not result in more investment by the private sector, it will result in less investment period, because the capital will remain idle.

The best way to add to the tax base is o shrink the size of government and increase the private sector.

Shrinking the size of government doesn't necessarily increase the private sector. It often reduces it.

Broken window fallacy.

You're basically saying that taxes taken somehow have a more beneficial impact if spent by government workers than if those same dollars were kept in the private sector.

It's simply not true.

 

[Dragon]

Those jobs you speak of are being paid for by people who have less private wealth to spend on items they want, not what BHO wants
Simply put your destroying wealth, not creating it.

No, this is a right-wing myth, which Skull Pilot is also repeating: that there is a simple reciprocal relationship between money spent by the government and money invested by the private sector. That's not true.

There is always, in a mature economy, more capital available than can be profitably invested in things that create jobs. Taking some of that idle capital in taxes, therefore, does NOT reduce investment by the private sector.

The amount of investment in things that create jobs depends, not on the amount of money left in the private sector, but on the amount being spent by consumers. When that's high, there is incentive to invest in things that create jobs. When it's low, there isn't.

Payouts by the government to individuals, such as in the form of paychecks, increase consumer spending and thus increases investment in things that create jobs.

 

[Bern80]

Those jobs you speak of are being paid for by people who have less private wealth to spend on items they want, not what BHO wants
Simply put your destroying wealth, not creating it.

No, this is a right-wing myth, which Skull Pilot is also repeating: that there is a simple reciprocal relationship between money spent by the government and money invested by the private sector. That's not true.

There is always, in a mature economy, more capital available than can be profitably invested in things that create jobs. Taking some of that idle capital in taxes, therefore, does NOT reduce investment by the private sector.

The amount of investment in things that create jobs depends, not on the amount of money left in the private sector, but on the amount being spent by consumers. When that's high, there is incentive to invest in things that create jobs. When it's low, there isn't.

Payouts by the government to individuals, such as in the form of paychecks, increase consumer spending and thus increases investment in things that create jobs.

And payouts from a private employer are different how exactly? Other than as Skull said you can't count the tax revenue they pay because it already came out of the taxpayer that paid him.

 

[JRK]

Those jobs you speak of are being paid for by people who have less private wealth to spend on items they want, not what BHO wants
Simply put your destroying wealth, not creating it.

No, this is a right-wing myth, which Skull Pilot is also repeating: that there is a simple reciprocal relationship between money spent by the government and money invested by the private sector. That's not true.

There is always, in a mature economy, more capital available than can be profitably invested in things that create jobs. Taking some of that idle capital in taxes, therefore, does NOT reduce investment by the private sector.

The amount of investment in things that create jobs depends, not on the amount of money left in the private sector, but on the amount being spent by consumers. When that's high, there is incentive to invest in things that create jobs. When it's low, there isn't.

Payouts by the government to individuals, such as in the form of paychecks, increase consumer spending and thus increases investment in things that create jobs.

I will give you kudos for not screaming you fucking liar like some do here. Look from 2001 to 2010 I had brought home 33,000.00 more due to Bushes tax cuts.
I have spent that money on a travel trailer and a pick up truck. I am one of millions in that tax bracket that have spent trillions of cash that would have been thrown away to god knows what if the Federal govt would have kept it

That's real dollar earned dollar spent cash, not a redistributed dollar that gets hacked into 100 different pieces for 10 different people, or the great horny toad or what ever. I would guess based on your verbiage and that theory you are a scholar. I know of no business that sits on capital but for one reason. They are afraid to invest it, the risk out weighs the reward.
That is where we are. capital that sits will become capital that leaves. The problem with a govt check is it took my wealth to make that govt check, the scholar cannot grasp that but for every dollar you take from me to make a govt check does not mean that govt check will be equal to $1.00

I can spend money to create jobs as good as my money being gave to some else to create 1/2 job. every time the govt take our wealth it loses a certain value as well as I lose wealth that I EARNED

 

[toxicmedia]

I have faith in America, and Americans. In the coming years...we're gonna find out what we, and our neighbors, are made of. Those who don't pull thier own weight, are gonna have to learn to, and America will be stronger in the end.................but it's not Obama's fault....and he's not making it much worse.

Those that don't pull their own weight form groups like OWS .

That is the type of citizen we have created with the nanny state; one who truly believes they deserve to take from others so they don't have to take care of themselves.

I'm not familiar with the abbreviation "OWS".

Entitlement parasites are only part of the problem. When the economy is good they're no big deal. But unless American workers start considering the concept of sacrifice, and American businesspeople are willing to innovate...we're dead in the water...and no amount of tossing people off welfare and cutting government worker benefits will make any difference. The American economic machine was once described as a sleeping giant in 1940 or so....now it's a very sick patient. It's overweight, malnourished, and has stable angina (for the moment). It needs a sensable diet and an exercize plan. Not for the entitlement folks, as much as for the average tax paying American worker and businesman.

I didn't vote for Obama in 2008, and I'm not sure who I'll vote for in 2012....but I cannot emphasize enough how very little he is in terms of the problem.