Today's not so funny, laugh!!

[bostinks]

If they had not taken the money from the taxpayer (producer) in the first place he could have hired the guy instead of giving him a handout he does not appreciate or will take care of.

How is net gain zero? If you are solely talking about a jobs created, the indigent helped with several in this chain: the Federal HUD worker, the state administering agency worker, the private rental manager, private rental owner (whose job is investor), and a maintenance worker. Without this transfer payment, two of the positions here would possibly not exist. Thus, a net gain of two employment positions. Yes they are govt positions, but they would not exist without the poor person. And if you use the LIEAP program instead as an example, a new layer of employment is created through a local (community action or development council) administering agency. These are not govt agencies, but rather a private not-for-profits.

[anthonycacace]

As I said, the EPA has been a tool for some time now and as I pointed out, this takeover has been slowly but surely progressing for many years now. Obama has abuses his position with the aid of his cohorts and the media to great success simply by the stratagy of the race card itself. Yes they are guilty of the very thing that they accuse the right of. They know polititions and citizens would back off from attacking this president because the left has set the race card up so well.

So, you are saying Repub and Dem administrations alike are scrapping jobs because of new regulations imposed? If not, please explain this EPA slow and steady thing further. WOW, the race card? I have yet to mention this and based on some of your other comments about Obama's inabilities, you sure are giving him BIG credits on leadership related to this.

I note you chose to avoid why 'job creators' deserve their millions in salary and bonuses, despite being unable to steer their companies' future and continued regulatory compliance. Care to take a shot this time?

[anthonycacace]

If they had not taken the money from the taxpayer (producer) in the first place he could have hired the guy instead of giving him a handout he does not appreciate or will take care of.

If this is true, why are corps sitting on over a trillion in off-shore profits when they could do:

A. Hire more US workers, or

B. Declare a dividend and provide it to shareholders to spend in the marketplace, creating

C. More demand which in turn leads back to A.

[LITE-INN]

is that barries other job lol

[bostinks]

Because the tax laws the democrats have written make it a financial gain for these companies to do so. The tax laws democrats won't let the republicans change would allow the corps to bring the money back tax free but the Saul Alinskey plans which obama and many other democrats are following want to hurt the US not help us. Why do you think clinton repealed the Glass-Stegal Act? Inacted NAFTA and GATT, it sure was not for the good of the USA. Why did clinton allow the mergers of all the big oil companies and then not say anything when his own party demonizes the same companies he made to big? THEY HATE THE IDEALS OF OUR CONSTITUTION!!!!!!! and the sheople are allowing them to destroy us from the inside.

If this is true, why are corps sitting on over a trillion in off-shore profits when they could do:

A. Hire more US workers, or

B. Declare a dividend and provide it to shareholders to spend in the marketplace, creating

C. More demand which in turn leads back to A.

[Clayton_Wetter]

Anthony, you seem to support the socialist agenda totally. Surely you are not being duped and don't know it?

If the government takes over the internet too then you will not have to worry about defending them anymore. Game over!

[LITE-INN]

Because the tax laws the democrats have written make it a financial gain for these companies to do so. The tax laws democrats won't let the republicans change would allow the corps to bring the money back tax free but the Saul Alinskey plans which obama and many other democrats are following want to hurt the US not help us. Why do you think clinton repealed the Glass-Stegal Act? Inacted NAFTA and GATT, it sure was not for the good of the USA. Why did clinton allow the mergers of all the big oil companies and then not say anything when his own party demonizes the same companies he made to big? THEY HATE THE IDEALS OF OUR CONSTITUTION!!!!!!! and the sheople are allowing them to destroy us from the inside.

yes if they hate this country they need as soon as possible ,I 've told its real nice in Iraq this time of year this video kinda says it hey clayton you buying a prius http://www.break.com/index/prius-own...-owner-2217919

[t.nie]

The problem is the republicans HAVE been compromising with the democrats. They let clinton install NAFTA and GATT. They let clinton repeal the Glass-Stegal act causing the housing bubble which caused the bailouts which prolonged and deepened the rescession. They have allowed the democrats to increase regulations to the point of driving jobs out of the country. They have allowed democrats to increase regulations in the insurance industry to drive out competition. They have allowed democrats to reward failure and punish achievement. It is time to give the libertarians a chance.

Check your history. You look pretty stupid saying Clinton was "allowed" by Republicans to repeal the Glass Steagal Act, when the facts clearly show it was REPUBLICANS WHO PROPOSED IT and PASSED IT. What an idiot.

However, full credit to you for realizing that the repeal of Glass Steagal, thanks to the REPUBLICANS, led to the housing bubble and subsuquent crash of the economy. Now if you could have only been right about which PARTY did all that, we could agree. But it wasn't Clinton and the Democrats, it was THE REPUBLICANS.

The bill that ultimately "repealed" the Act was brought up in the Senate by Phil Gramm (R-Texas) and in the House of Representatives by Jim Leach (R-Iowa) in 1999. The bills were passed by a Republican majority, basically following party lines by a 54–44 vote in the Senate[15] and by a bi-partisan 343–86 vote in the House of Representatives.[16]

And NAFTA was pushed through to the very end by the original weed in the White House, George Bush, it was only signed by Clinton after he took office. Basically Clinton, while professing to support the final version of NAFTA, did make changes to what he had been handed by the Bush administration, and was the President to sign it into law. However, again, it was predominantly a REPUBLICAN endeavour:

The (NAFTA) agreement's supporters included 132 Republicans and 102 Democrats. NAFTA passed the Senate 61-38. Senate supporters were 34 Republicans and 27 Democrats.

But keep on rewriting history to suit yourselves. It sure beats facing the truth. I am just happy to see Americans finally waking up to the spin and lies spread by your kind. We will win this fight in the end, and take OUR country back from the liars and fear mongers who have dominated it and ruined it for so many for so long.

Have a nice day. Roll on 2012!

[LITE-INN]

if Clinton signed its his

[anthonycacace]

Because the tax laws the democrats have written make it a financial gain for these companies to do so. The tax laws democrats won't let the republicans change would allow the corps to bring the money back tax free but the Saul Alinskey plans which obama and many other democrats are following want to hurt the US not help us.

BHWaAAHAHAH! Dem & Repub tax laws. You mean lobbyists' tax laws? Yep, let's try that lower tax rate again. It worked so well in 2004 when corps were allowed to repatriate their income by paying less in taxes. No wait, the top 15 corps to receive this benefit STILL decreased their overall US employment by around 21,000 and simply bought back shares of the company or gave a dividend.

Now, I said sure, claim a dividend and get the money back here. But, corps have to either be a true US citizen and stop the tax evasion or the Supreme Court needs to overturn their decision regarding the Citizen's United case. You either are a citizen and bare all such rights and responsibilities or you are an alien and not offered Constitutional protections. A quick side note, aliens MUST PAY TAXES on US income too.

Why do you think clinton repealed the Glass-Stegal Act? Inacted NAFTA and GATT, it sure was not for the good of the USA.

I thought no ghosts of administrations’ past were up for discussion. I agree Clinton did some bad and some good. As to the repeal of Glass-Stegal, Clinton did sign the bill as President. However, three Republican congressmen created the bill that Clinton signed into law. It is call the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act. ( Sen. Phil Gramm (R, Texas), Rep. Jim Leach (R, Iowa), and Rep. Thomas J. Bliley, Jr. (R, Virginia), the co-sponsors of the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act)

Why did clinton allow the mergers of all the big oil companies and then not say anything when his own party demonizes the same companies he made to big? THEY HATE THE IDEALS OF OUR CONSTITUTION!!!!!!! and the sheople are allowing them to destroy us from the inside.

Not 100% sure about the oil corp mergers being referenced. Again though, I said he did some bad and some good. Not sure what you are getting at about hating the Constitution, but I will go out on a limb and say you believe some economic, and likely the Capitalist, system is constitutionally guaranteed. I invite you to read the document and give me insight to where it states such.

[anthonycacace]

Anthony, you seem to support the socialist agenda totally. Surely you are not being duped and don't know it?

If the government takes over the internet too then you will not have to worry about defending them anymore. Game over!

Come on Clayton. I usually get a better response from you then name calling. I will ask my question again in a new way. This was reported yesterday: The latest execs who will cash in as they step aside: Nabors Industries' former CEO, Gene Isenberg, due $126 million when he exits as chairman, and IBM CEO Sam Palmisano, due $170 million.

Now, why is it OK for these two to get paid for doing no work for a company? (Don't you guys blast union workers who at least must show up each day to earn their exit package?) And, why do these CEO's deserve such a high EXIT compensation? Let's say for example you took $100,000,000 and paid it out in a $40,000 salary; this could go to 2,500 people. Just a thought and that still leaves the CEO's 26 and 70 million respectively.

[halfast07]

What the CEO,s of private company,s make does not concern me..they made it they earned it... I am not forced to pay there retirements. what does concern me is the fact that ...
the salary of a retied president is $450,000.00 a year for life.
the salary of a retied house or senate member $ 174,000.00 a year for life.
the salary of a retied speaker of the house $223,500.00 a year for life.
the salary of a retied Majority/Minority leader $193,400.00 a year for life.
I am forced to pay in to this so this is inpart my company and i have no say...talk about making money for doing nothing!!!Some body else can do the math and figure out how many millions are spent each year on ex presidents/ senators and congressmen.Some like Frank kratovil who only served 2 years..

[Clayton_Wetter]

Come on Clayton. I usually get a better response from you then name calling. I will ask my question again in a new way. This was reported yesterday: The latest execs who will cash in as they step aside: Nabors Industries' former CEO, Gene Isenberg, due $126 million when he exits as chairman, and IBM CEO Sam Palmisano, due $170 million.

Now, why is it OK for these two to get paid for doing no work for a company? (Don't you guys blast union workers who at least must show up each day to earn their exit package?) And, why do these CEO's deserve such a high EXIT compensation? Let's say for example you took $100,000,000 and paid it out in a $40,000 salary; this could go to 2,500 people. Just a thought and that still leaves the CEO's 26 and 70 million respectively.

I'm not name calling. If the shoe fits wear it. With your response, I rest my cacase!!!

[t.nie]

I'm not name calling. If the shoe fits wear it. With your response, I rest my cacase!!!

You're one big Shoe Clayton.

[t.nie]

What the CEO,s of private company,s make does not concern me..they made it they earned it... I am not forced to pay there retirements. what does concern me is the fact that ...
the salary of a retied president is $450,000.00 a year for life.
the salary of a retied house or senate member $ 174,000.00 a year for life.
the salary of a retied speaker of the house $223,500.00 a year for life.
the salary of a retied Majority/Minority leader $193,400.00 a year for life.
I am forced to pay in to this so this is inpart my company and i have no say...talk about making money for doing nothing!!!Some body else can do the math and figure out how many millions are spent each year on ex presidents/ senators and congressmen.Some like Frank kratovil who only served 2 years..

You're pretty naive if you think you aren't paying the salaries of corporate America. They sure don't get paid in rupees.