Quick Clip
Print

Malkin Calls Valerie Jarrett "Magical Thinking Czar" For Accurate Statement About Unemployment Insurance

February 23, 2012 7:54 am ET

From the February 23 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends:

Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.

EMBED

Previously:

Fox Celebrates Labor Day By Denying Stimulative Effect Of Unemployment Insurance

Right-wing media renew assault on unemployment insurance

Limbaugh Pushes Myth That Unemployment Benefits Have "No Stimulative Effect"


Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by panzer (February 23, 2012 7:58 am ET)
      5 55
      If unemployment checks stimulate the economy, why don't we give every person in the country an unemployment check? Just imagine how great the economy would be!
      Report Abuse
      • Author by teh.stoopid.lib (February 23, 2012 8:04 am ET)
        43 3
        You're an idiot.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by grmce (February 23, 2012 8:26 am ET)
          30  
          That's an unfair reflection on idiots!
          Report Abuse
          • Author by marco21 (February 23, 2012 10:59 am ET)
            11  
            Panzer is the perfect Fox viewer. WHen faced with a fact, he runs and BS's.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by progressivevoicedaily (February 23, 2012 12:28 pm ET)
              8  
              These people are complete idiots. You have to pay federal and state taxes on unemployment. The lack of actual reality in their discussion is quite startling.....but then again it is FoxPAC.
              Report Abuse
            • Author by Boswell (February 23, 2012 8:58 pm ET)
                 
              well, he get's the runs anyway...
              Report Abuse
        • Author by PurpleState (February 23, 2012 8:41 am ET)
          19  
          Now, now. He's not an idiot. He's perfect pundit material.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by teh.stoopid.lib (February 23, 2012 8:52 am ET)
            14  
            It may seem that way but my research has determined that this one is indeed an idiot. Idiotum Moranus to get technical.
            Report Abuse
          • Author by captaincrunch (February 23, 2012 9:19 am ET)
            10  
            He's the reason Newt is running...voters like this fool!
            Report Abuse
        • Author by kabniel (February 23, 2012 9:26 am ET)
          12 2
          panzy is a punk. That was a pure troll post.
          Report Abuse
        • Author by truth4me (February 23, 2012 9:28 am ET)
          9  
          You're being too kind.
          Report Abuse
      • Author by BDA (February 23, 2012 8:05 am ET)
        32  
        Why doesn't your beloved Job Creators magically create some jobs instead of shoveling hundreds of millions into Gop campaigns. Its amazing to me how these job creators can afford to contribute to a campaign because I've heard nothing except that Obama's punitive tax policies are killing those fine Americans. They will spend hundreds of millions to prevent having to pay tens of millions.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by nerzog (February 23, 2012 8:06 am ET)
          28  
          I've wondered that, myself. A Billionaire will spend millions buying a politician, then whine if his taxes go up a few thousand.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by teh.stoopid.lib (February 23, 2012 8:13 am ET)
            19  
            I can't remember who I was listening to but they were talking about Adelson and Foster Freiss contributing millions to Gingrich and Santorum and how the amount they were contributing was basically equivalent to you or I giving forty bucks to a friend. So then I thought to myself, "So how is a couple higher percentage points in income tax going to end up making these 'poor' guys have to live in their Bentleys?"
            Report Abuse
          • Author by chuckie (February 24, 2012 1:00 pm ET)
               
            Well I whine too when my investments lose money. They have the expectation of making more maney then they spend. Most times it is a very good investment. Why do you think that the tobacco industry gave so much money to Boehner to distribute on the House floor, or the oil companys gave so much money to Bush and Cheney, or the Defense contractors and the Banks gave so much money to the Republicans AND to the Democrats. I've slways thought that I work for the people that give me a paycheck. When you get a lot of paychecks you work for the people that give you the biggest paycheck.
            Report Abuse
        • Author by oscar the grouch (February 23, 2012 9:57 am ET)
          8 1
          Is the millions they are spending (and the millions the O will spend) just disappearing down a gopher hole? People have to be involved in producing the ads, catering the meals, promoting the events, etc, and within the country for a change. That money is being ciculated in the economy, especially those big donations from the 1% (going to both sides and super PACS on both sides) that would have probably been sitting idle in some account (maybe even off-shore). This is one reason economies get a boost every four years, probably more so this year because of the shear number of R candidates.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by n'est-ce pas (February 23, 2012 10:21 am ET)
            10  
            That was actually a reasonable post. But I think the point being, with the hundreds of millions spent on attack ads and character assassinations, these Titans of trickledown could build factories, put people to work, and make stuff they could sell for a profit. I think most people would agree that that's a preferable outcome to the campaign economic boost.
            Report Abuse
          • Author by Conchobhar (February 23, 2012 10:24 am ET)
            8  
            That is true, and may all of their adds, after stimulating the economy, come back to bite them in the booty, the way Hoekstra's racist (and now pulled and scrubbed from his website) one did. Debbie Stabenow is presently up by almost 30 points. They were close to even when the add started airing.
            Report Abuse
          • Author by politeradical (February 23, 2012 12:26 pm ET)
            5  
            Nasty vicious ads slandering your opponent made right here in the US of A!

            Meth producers create jobs too.
            Report Abuse
          • Author by blk-in-alabam (February 23, 2012 1:21 pm ET)
            3  
            How much extra money does a media company spend using the same 24/7 air time that they use anyway.Broadcast media companies is where the bulk of the money goes.Then after the elections media companies cry broke with a full stomach................It is a money laundering game with very few benefactors when compared to the hundreds of millions,now approaching billions of dollars spent
            Report Abuse
          • Author by Another_Cat (February 24, 2012 12:24 pm ET)
               
            But then why is it a bad thing when the economy gets a boost every ten years from the government hiring census workers? Really, there's no difference aside from where the money comes from, and that's not a huge difference either...where does the money coming from corporations come from...product markups (think of it like a "profit tax"). Both examples, while they do indeed provide some stimulous to the economy, are temporary, and whereas the census workers are mandated by law, there is no reason aside from greed for corporations to spend money on either lobbying or political campaigns.

            Since you brought it up, though, I thought the whole point behind the last 20 years of lower and lower effective tax rates and loopholes created for corporations was supposed to allow them to be the savior job creators, not parking that extra money in an offshore account or otherwise sitting on it? Creating jobs that are not temporary would do more to boost the economy in the long run than spending gobs of moolah every four years in an attempt to get someone in office who will continue our government welfare-state...corporate welfare, that is.
            Report Abuse
      • Author by nerzog (February 23, 2012 8:05 am ET)
        19  
        Because, people who have jobs don't need unemployment checks. Far better for the economy to let the unemployed become homeless, don't you think? I'm sure the additional foreclosures would boost the housing market.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by grmce (February 23, 2012 8:32 am ET)
          10  
          And, of course, the beauty of foreclosures is that it seems the bank doesn't need to hold a mortgage in order to foreclose on a person and sell their house for a pittance - that does wonders for the economy as well as the rule of law!
          Report Abuse
      • Author by einreb (February 23, 2012 8:32 am ET)
        12  
        You obviously slept through the entire Econ 101 class and flunked.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by Boswell (February 23, 2012 10:18 am ET)
          6  
          your implication that pansy was able to make it to high school let alone graduate is not supported by the contents of it's posts seen on this site. 3rd grade seems about the limit of his matriculation...
          Report Abuse
          • Author by xlrrp173 (February 23, 2012 3:32 pm ET)
            3  
            Panzy and Jethro Bodine were classmates. After 12 years of school, both "grajiated" from 6th grade.
            Report Abuse
      • Author by gmccpa (February 23, 2012 8:51 am ET)
        18 1
        If drinking water is healthy, why not pour gallons of it down people's throat? Just imagine how healthy they would be.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by CoolSlaw (February 23, 2012 3:35 pm ET)
          3  
          That was my assessment, typical non-thinking republican to go right to the absurd extreme.

          Why not have the death penalty for all crimes? I bet the crime rate drops.

          Why not abolish all taxes? The Air Force could hold bake sales. Police would show up to work without pay because they don't need to feed their families.

          Why not get rid of all regulations? The free market will correct itself after the first few hundred salmonella outbreaks and oil spills.

          Imagine if we could think beyond inflexible dogmatic absolutes, we'd almost sound like reasonable liberals!

          Report Abuse
      • Author by GreenLantern (February 23, 2012 8:54 am ET)
        16 1
        nazi war machine says If unemployment checks stimulate the economy, why don't we give every person in the country an unemployment check? Just imagine how great the economy would be!

        Ha ha you are really dense. If lowering taxes increases revenue then why don't we have everyone pay zero taxes so revenue would go through the roof. (Oh you only want your billionaire masters to pay zero taxes.....)
        Report Abuse
        • Author by CrashGordon (February 23, 2012 9:59 am ET)
          9  
          More importantly, if lowering taxes raised revenues then why is the debt so high when taxes are the lowest they've been in over fifty years? If lower taxes on the wealthy promote job creation, then why haven't they been creating jobs in record numbers since taxes are the lowest they've been in over fifty years?
          Report Abuse
        • Author by xlrrp173 (February 23, 2012 3:45 pm ET)
          4  
          If unemployment checks stimulate the economy, why don't we give every person in the country an unemployment check? Just imagine how great the economy would be!


          Can't make myself call Panzy a nazi war machine. Nazi, fair enough, but war machine? If Panzy ever found himself in a shootin' war, he'd pi$$ himself.

          If Panzy thinks unemployment is so great, why doesn't he quit his job, or maybe volunteer for a lay-off, and then he could experience it first hand. AAAAH livin' the good life on unemployment. You'll be surprised at how fast your unemployment check will stimulate the economy. In fact, after you stimulate the economy so much on the day you get your check, you probably won't have two nickels to rub together until you get your next check. Try it Panzy, I guarantee you'll never forget it.
          Report Abuse
      • Author by Crumble (February 23, 2012 8:57 am ET)
        13  
        Hey, Panzer... call for you from Fox News. You're hired!
        Report Abuse
        • Author by MiniTru (February 23, 2012 11:17 am ET)
          6  
          Hey, Panzer... call for you from Fox News. You're hired!
          Now get in there and sweep up that studio!
          Report Abuse
          • Author by Boswell (February 23, 2012 9:03 pm ET)
            1  
            Hercules would have problems cleaning up all the Horse droppins in those studios...
            Report Abuse
      • Author by Egbert Sousť (February 23, 2012 9:01 am ET)
        11  
        Could it that they haven't yet become unemployed in the Bush Great Recession and thus they do not qualify for unemployment insurance? Moron.

        What Jarrett said:
        "Even though we had a terrible economic crisis three years ago, throughout our country many people were suffering before the last three years, particularly in the black community[.]" "And so we need to make sure that we continue to support that important safety net. It not only is good for the family, but it's good for the economy. People who receive that unemployment check go out and spend it and help stimulate the economy, so that's healthy as well."


        Perhaps what really irks Malkin is that the unemployed use their checks to pay for food, rent, utilities, etc. instead of Tweety Bird suits.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by captaincrunch (February 23, 2012 9:17 am ET)
        6  
        Boy, the ignorant and uninformed are getting up early these day! Mommy change your nappy yet?
        Report Abuse
        • Author by kabniel (February 23, 2012 9:21 am ET)
          6 2
          What is worse is that the BLINDINGLY ignorant like panzy are so PROUD of how stupid they are
          Report Abuse
      • Author by kabniel (February 23, 2012 9:18 am ET)
        6 3
        panzy

        Are you still trying this ignorant bit of stupidity? If vitamin A is good for you why dont you eat six pounds of it? IT is sad that you are this stupid. But this is about the sixth go around with this ignorant talking point for you because you are a LIAR. You know it doesnt make a point you just love to tell lies
        Report Abuse
      • Author by papa bear3 (February 23, 2012 9:23 am ET)
        8  
        . . .we will be if any of your clowns get in office
        Report Abuse
      • Author by bintx (February 23, 2012 9:27 am ET)
        9 2
        Wow, that was one of the most ridiculously stupid comments I've ever seen you make, panzer.

        It was really sad.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by yadadoo20 (February 23, 2012 9:45 am ET)
           
        70% of the economy is driven by consumer spending in US. Reducing unemployment benefits to those who need will lead to less Consumer expenditure in the private sector. Less demand for private firms will mean less revenues. Less revenues leads cutting of jobs by firms
        Report Abuse
      • Author by johnny_nyc (February 23, 2012 9:56 am ET)
        4  
        It wasn't an unemployment check but way back in 2008, just as the economy was collapsing, W did mail every taxpayer a rebate check to... guess what.... stimulate the economy.

        "The government hopes the measure, which will send most Americans tax rebate checks by May, will either prevent a recession or make one relatively brief."

        http://articles.cnn.com/2008-02-13/politics/bush.stimulus_1_rebate-checks-economic-stimulus-act-stimulus-bill?_s=PM:POLITICS
        Report Abuse
        • Author by xlrrp173 (February 23, 2012 3:50 pm ET)
          1  
          Only one problem with that check Chucklenuts mailed out to everybody. I had to PAY IT BACK when I filed my federal income tax.
          Report Abuse
      • Author by F.U.Corporatocracy (February 23, 2012 10:10 am ET)
        4  
        Taking things to the extreme isn't what is needed now. What is needed is temporary help in a time of crisis. If the economy tanks and millions of people are out of work, common sense will tell you that you don't want all these people going broke and losing everything they own.

        Your stupid question, panzer, is like me asking, "If you don't like taxes, why don't we eliminate all taxes?" But maybe you think that is a good idea.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by pete592 (February 23, 2012 11:09 am ET)
        4 1
        I wish we could give a properly functioning brain to everyone that doesn't have one.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by MiniTru (February 23, 2012 11:19 am ET)
          1 2
          It would be a form of unemployment benefit, because their brains are certainly unemployed.
          Report Abuse
      • Author by lynneg (February 23, 2012 12:16 pm ET)
        2  
        Jobs, of course, are the most stimulative, but when there are not enough jobs available (1 job for every 5 looking)then unempoyment checks are not only stimulative, but keep millions of Americans alive.
        Now do you understand Panzer
        Report Abuse
      • Author by jeff7545 (February 23, 2012 12:55 pm ET)
        1 8
        The checks do provide some stimulus. Obviously, money in the hands of needy will be readily spent and put back into the economy. Most on the right believe in unemployment, we just don't think it should go on for a year, or two years... Make it last a few months, and if at that time, you still can't get a job, get off unemployment, and get on welfare. People tend to actually find work fairly quickly after their unemployment benefits run out. Not all, but most. That might mean taking a lower paying job than you want, but oh well, at least you're earning your money and can do so until you find something better. Employers frown upon hiring someone who has been out of work fo 99 weeks, and providing people with endless access to unemployment benefits ultimately makes it much harder for them to find work.

        And while I'll once again admit the checks do provide some stimulus, those checks come from somewhere. The money backing those checks comes out of the economy from somewhere else.

        Report Abuse
        • Author by xlrrp173 (February 23, 2012 3:56 pm ET)
             
          The money backing those checks comes out of the economy from somewhere else.


          See my post above. When I filed my federal income tax, I had to pay back the money. It came from the government, and six months later, the government got it back.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by Stop the madness (February 23, 2012 11:51 pm ET)
            1 1
            They don't hear you. When you speak the truth about redistribution of wealth, all they hear is blah, blah, blah. They don't care that our debt has actually surpassed our GDP. They want more taxes on the "rich", but can't comprehend that the amount of taxes collected under Obama's current plan would run this country for a number minutes. They don't understand that if the government took all of the money from the "super rich" that we could run the country for days, not years. And, what they don't understand, most of all, just as you've stated twice, is that nothing is free.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by jjamele2880 (February 24, 2012 8:11 am ET)
              2  
              Last Thanksgiving, every right wing radio yakker in the United States devoted chunks of their shows to berating the "whiny, lazy, pathetic" mall and big box store workers who were angry at having to leave their families and go to work Thanksgiving evening instead of the usual 3 AM for "Black Friday." The gist of their arguments was "hey, times are tough, lots of people are looking for work, how can these losers be so lazy," etc.

              This is the mentality that drives people to oppose extending unemployment benefits, and the world we can expect if they ever get their way and cut deep holes in the social safety net. One percent making huge piles of money on the backs of the Everyone Else, who had better just keep working as the whip cracks behind them, and don't even think of stepping out of line if you want to keep your means of support. Disgusting.
              Report Abuse
        • Author by jjamele2880 (February 24, 2012 7:58 am ET)
          1  
          Cut off unemployment benefits, and yes, people will find work- low-paying, degrading work which amounts to exploitation. Nations without unemployment benefits and minimum wage tend to feature something approaching slave labor, because people need to eat and feed their families, no matter what. You seem to be proposing a system in which employers dangle jobs over the desperate masses like bits of bread for said masses to jump for. Yes, under such a system everyone would be working. And 99 percent of the workers would be desperately poor. The other 1 percent however would be fabulously wealthy, getting the benefits of that work for next to nothing.
          Report Abuse
      • Author by NiceguyEddie (February 23, 2012 12:56 pm ET)
        3  
        Well... It WOULD. And what's more we've already done it! What do you think the difference is, purely economically speaking, between what you're proposing, and the Bush Tax Cuts? Or the Bush Stimulus Checks that we all got?

        Let's see...:

        1) More money in people's pockets
        2) Less tax money left in (or ending up in) the treasury
        3) Proportionate increase to the deficit
        4) Proportionate benefit to the economy

        The only difference is that UNEMPLOYMENT CHECKS are given on the basis of NEED, and that NEED is what drives the spending that would otherwise not be happening, and THIS is where the STIMULUS comes from. But when Bush did it, he gave money to people who DIDN'T need it, and thus didn't SPEND it - or spend AS MUCH of it. So the defict part was larger, relative to the stimulus part.

        And BTW, the ongoing need for all this unemployment? Represents a FAILURE of our free-market economy; A FAILURE of capitalism, nothing more. If the private sector can't (or won't) create jobs and income for people, then they will be taxed to pay for the gov't programs that provide what they have failed to.

        Keynes has never been proven wrong: An economy needs SPENDING to succeed.

        ------------------------------
        IMHO
        UTOPIA
        Report Abuse
        • Author by poproxx77 (February 23, 2012 4:51 pm ET)
          1 4
          As you cohorts here at MMFA are so quick to point out, the free-market doesn't exist.

          bintx
          angels4light
          Maimon
          Andy Kreiss

          Can it really fail if it doesn't exist?


          Report Abuse
          • Author by Deluded (February 23, 2012 7:10 pm ET)
            3  
            You're taking them out of context.

            The first link already shows btinx saying the free market doesn't work. And the "free market" that is being related to here is basically one without any regulations, the Adam Smith invisible hand, strictly no government intervention market.

            Such responses are given to those who make posts begrudging legislations and saying "the market can handle it". Well, the concept of the market "handling it" without need of government regulations is a proven fantasy given the economic crisis where banks behaved badly in the light of LACK of regulations! And that's just one example, I myself have made references to how a totally non-regulated market will end up being manipulated by the players themselves, resulting in monopolies and unfair competition. It's something I learned in Econs 101.

            The truly lassiez faire market envisioned by Adam Smith cannot be put into place. America's economy is far from that ideal, and even then it's not functioning so well....
            Report Abuse
            • Author by jjamele2880 (February 24, 2012 8:02 am ET)
              2  
              The closest thing we had to a free market in the US was during the Gilded Age, 1870s to early-1900s, with no unemployment benefits, no health benefits, no income tax, no minimum wage, etc....

              But it wasn't a true free market because we DID have tariffs to protect the capitalists from European competition, courts and a government firmly in the pockets of those capitalists, an army willing to brutally crush strikes, an open immigration policy which kept the population of low-skill workers way up and therefore wages down, etc. None of these would have existed under a true "free" market system.

              As you say, a "free market" is inevitably manipulated by the players, at the expense of the masses of wealth creators (the workers.)
              Report Abuse
          • Author by NiceguyEddie (February 24, 2012 7:58 am ET)
               
            What an odd interpretation of my cohorts comments, my statement and the Amercian Economy.

            Plus... I have "cohorts"? Who knew? Can I have "minions" instead? I think I'd prefer some "minions."

            I'm going to leave your statement alone. (as you essentially left mine.) It's a cross between sarcasm and semantics, and I know that neither of us really believes what you just said anyway. And what's more, correctly interpretted the points made by my "cohorts" (MINIONS! ASSEMBLE THE MINIONS!!!) all still stand. As does mine.

            Let's not start playing semantic games.

            ------------------------------
            IMHO
            UTOPIA
            Report Abuse
      • Author by Turey (February 23, 2012 5:02 pm ET)
        2  
        You do know that the soviet T-34 defeated the german tiger in WWII. Right?
        Report Abuse
      • Author by Deluded (February 23, 2012 7:03 pm ET)
           
        You are leaving out the part about them being stimulating by getting UNEMPLOYED people to spend.

        Employed people have no need for these checks to stimulate the economy.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by jjamele2880 (February 24, 2012 8:19 am ET)
        1  
        Jobs stimulate the economy better. So why don't we just cap personal income at $5 million by taxing every dollar over that amount at 100 percent, and use the revenue to create infrastructure-rebuilding jobs (roads, schools, high-speed rail, etc?) We know that an economy in which 100 people possess a third of the wealth isn't stimulative. Let's try dropping that percentage to .0001 percent and see how that works.

        I know it's just a theory, but I suspect that if more people had more money in their pockets, more money would get spent, and this would have a stimulative effect. I know, sounds kind of crazy, but I think it might be worth a try. God knows the Rich get Richer, Poor get Poorer, Middle Class Vanishes policies of the last decade sure haven't worked.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by The Liberal Republican (February 24, 2012 10:04 am ET)
           
        Actually, that has been done to some extent...

        Remember those checks you received for tax rebates given by the Bush administration? Actually one of the smarter moves he made.

        That's the same principle. Get money into the hands of people who will spend it. They use it to buy goods and services. The Stores and restaurants, etc. in turn by goods and services from other companies. And then they buy goods and services from others, and others, and others.

        Get it?

        Econ 101
        Report Abuse
        • Author by jjamele2880 (February 24, 2012 11:04 am ET)
             
          The problem with tax rebate checks is that all they really do is create a spike which quickly fades. For long-term growth, we need programs that put money into people's pockets over a long period of time. This creates confidence and more spending. I bet that a huge chunk of that rebate money was forwarded to VISA and AMEX and did next to nothing to stimulate anything other than the bonuses enjoyed by their CEOs.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by The Liberal Republican (February 24, 2012 12:50 pm ET)
               
            I wasn't trying to start a debate on the effectiveness of a short term infusion of cash on an economy. I was simply trying to point out that "Giving everyone a check" has been tried.
            Report Abuse
      • Author by chuckie (February 24, 2012 1:28 pm ET)
           
        If unemployment checks stimulate the economy, why don't we give every person in the country an unemployment check? Just imagine how great the economy would be


        And if you are dieing of thirst, leaving you at the bottom of the ocean is what's best for you, right.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by BDA (February 23, 2012 8:00 am ET)
      14  
      Does these idiots think that someone without a job will be able to stimulate this economy without any money? Yes, having a job would be better than unemployement checks, but dont they remember that the job creators are creating jobs because of all this "uncertainty". They act as though the unemployed person has a choice; collect unemployment checks or get a job. Not everyone has that option.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by BDA (February 23, 2012 8:07 am ET)
        10  
        sorry .... creators aren't creating
        Report Abuse
      • Author by papa bear3 (February 23, 2012 9:28 am ET)
        6  
        . . .I saved my unemployment checks for 18months and didn't buy food, eat or pay rent, sat around, and then put it in my off shore account
        Report Abuse
        • Author by jjamele2880 (February 24, 2012 8:05 am ET)
          2  
          If you actually did that, and then told the average right-winger about it, his head would literally explode over the conflicting emotions of disgust and admiration for you.
          Report Abuse
    • Author by nerzog (February 23, 2012 8:04 am ET)
      11  
      Oh... wait. You mean, instead of Unemployment checks, we should give them jobs? Wow! Why didn't we think of that? I suppose Malificent Malkin has a few million jobs hidden in her brazier?

      I'd say these cretins are incredibly stupid, but I think they know what they're saying is bullsh*t. They're just incredibly dishonest.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by GBU-15 (February 23, 2012 8:28 am ET)
      12  
      The supposed credit downgrade occurred due to Republican intransigence. The magical "job creators" are not creating jobs. According to Fox Newsers the government has no role in creating jobs. So what to do? People like Panzy believe jobs just come and knock at your door! Hello! Job! Besides what kind of living can you make making 8 to ten dollars an hour at the big box store? And what about the biggest welfare Mama out there? The U.S. military. The third rail that NeanderCons won't touch. Obama tried a stimulus to create jobs. The NeanderCons made sure it was pared down to almost nothing. And yet they cry about joblessness in America! How does cutting regulations and taxes turn into more jobs? Panzy? Boxhead? Anyone?
      Report Abuse
      • Author by teh.stoopid.lib (February 23, 2012 8:34 am ET)
        10  
        You just don't understand! Less taxes for the benevolent job creators means freed up money so they can do what they just really really want to do which is create jobs. You don't honestly think the benevolent job creators that are reaping huge profits with the work force they already have would just pocket the extra dough, do you?
        Report Abuse
        • Author by blk-in-alabam (February 23, 2012 8:52 am ET)
          7  
          They need the money to buy elections,and pay their bought,and paid for congressmen,and senators,for a few more handouts of millions/billions of dollars of government money to help them think about creating jobs
          Report Abuse
      • Author by tbone (February 23, 2012 8:52 am ET)
        5 2
        How does cutting regulations and taxes turn into more jobs?


        Streamlining the permitting process for a refinery, a power plant, a factory reduces the time to market / provides competitive edge and may encourage them to actually be built.

        Cutting corporate taxes increases profits which some (not all) companies will reinvest in new facilites and/or R&D.

        In each case there may be net jobs lost or gained.

        The important question is what do the regulations achieve and is it a necessary goal? Is 10 ppm arsenic in water safe, is 20 ppm in apple juice safe? Is new regulation needed? Will the cost borne by manufacturers to comply cause net job gain or loss (i.e., can they retool that older production facility or will they just close it and import juice from Brazil).

        These are complex questions with complex answers.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by globalRower (February 23, 2012 10:46 am ET)
        5 2
        Cutting regulations means: freedom to pollute wantonly, freedom to ignore safety and efficacy, freedom to manipulate prices, freedom to calculate that an employee's life costs less than implementing safeguards (especially with life insurance payments), and so forth. All these freedoms create jobs for clean-up inventors and implementers, the medical industry (and it's a neat cycle when the medical device industry creates the conditions which lead to a greater demand for medical devices and services - positive feedback baby!), accountants who create profitable manipulations, and the funeral industry! What's not to like?
        Report Abuse
    • Author by galmud (February 23, 2012 8:34 am ET)
      11  
      How about this for "magical thinking". Cut taxes for the wealthy -> increase revenue, eliminate debt and deficit, create millions of jobs
      Report Abuse
      • Author by jeff7545 (February 23, 2012 4:52 pm ET)
          7
        How about this for magical thinking. Increasing a business expense (taxes) will require that business to offset that expense but cutting another expense, but no business would decide to let an employee go, or not hire a new one to make up for that exense.

        Letting the wealthy keep more of what they earn may or may not lead to econimic growth, but taking their money surely can't help the people employed by them.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by highlyunlikely (February 23, 2012 5:01 pm ET)
          3 2
          james would be so grateful for this one's company.

          Wait...
          Report Abuse
          • Author by jonimacaroni1 (February 23, 2012 5:14 pm ET)
            2 2
            Yeah, this is "jamesB". I outed him back in August of 2011. This was back when "tommy" was dishonestly claiming that he minimized my posts - that's why he supposedly never replied to me. Of course, then I pointed out that he couldn't see any of the replies to my post if he'd truly minimized my posts, and pointed out that he was replying to them, and so outed him as being dishonest as well as being a person who is/was using multiple screen names at the same time.

            Or as I outed him in September too. He can't seem to stop using sockpuppets, despite the fact that it never does him any good nor gains him any credibility.

            I know that there are plenty of idiots in the world. I also know that there are plenty of trolls who post online. And I also know, of the many rightwing trolls who post here, one person, YOU, post under multiple screen names. I know that "slooop" and "jamesB" and "right ON" and "southernlady" and "southerngal" and "pongowhistleton" and "westla" and "JamesBond" and "right ON2" and "Jeff7545" and "eLeetist" and "Riverdog" and "bludog3" and "CenterRight" and likely 3 or 4 others I can't think of right now are all one person. Based upon what some of the more tenured people have said, you likely started out here using the name "tommy".

            Report Abuse
            • Author by highlyunlikely (February 23, 2012 6:17 pm ET)
              2 2
              and he made himself so transparent with this new name it was almost scary, I think. Did you see him blow up at me on the Doocy thread - in his james persona - after the slightest bit of provocation on my part?

              You want someone to admit the obvious? Make him angry. He can't contain his natural impulses after that.
              Report Abuse
        • Author by kabniel (February 23, 2012 7:23 pm ET)
          3 1
          jeff

          Think of THIS. Since taxes are paid on PROFIT it cannot possibly be considered a business expense. You really are too stupid to be in an adult conversation.

          Show me the business that is keeping people around that they dont NEED to make a profit. Since only THAT business would think it rational to let someone go because their taxes, PAID ON PROFIT, goes up, then you have no point.

          Yeah this is another really stupid Randinista talking point you have been brainwashed with. If you ever in your LIFE get the ability to think for yourself dont rush to the hospital when that first thought comes thinking it is a stroke.

          You are right though. Your entire post was a good example of magical thinking, IF it could be called thinking at all instead of regurgitation
          Report Abuse
          • Author by jjamele2880 (February 24, 2012 11:29 am ET)
               
            Exactly right. In the 1950s, we had extremely high income tax rates, so there was no incentive for business owners to maximize profits at the expense of growth. In fact, there was every incentive for those owners to pour money gained through sales right back into the business rather than take it as income. That's how the economy grew so quickly in the 50s and 60s and why the Middle Class grew right along with it.

            With falling tax rates comes the hoarding of money- there's no penalty for maximizing profits and then sitting on them. Everyone suffers- even the 1% in the long run, though they are too focused on the Current Quarter to care.
            Report Abuse
    • Author by blk-in-alabam (February 23, 2012 8:42 am ET)
      9  
      Michele Malkin is like a canary in a coal mine at fox news...When ever one of fox news attacks on President Obama hits mine shaft full of poison gas in their undermining of the USA.Rodger tells them to put the camera on Michele Malkin coughing ,and wheezing for breath.Michele Malkin put on her canary suit,so that all fox news.and republican party talking heads will see the warning.............Just as in the first 10 minutes of fox and friends read the days memos for fox news,and republican party radio..Michele Malkin is the signal that fox news undermining of the USA has hit another mine shaft full of poison gas.....................Rodger calls for the oxygen tanks to be delivered,and repeats his instructions to his undermining the USA crew of cave dwellers.....Dig,Dig,Dig!!1 None of you are getting out of here alive.And if you did you will not survive,because I Rodger The Great Uck Up have made you unemployable anywhere else but here.So you may as well stay for the cave-in
      Report Abuse
    • Author by j238 (February 23, 2012 8:55 am ET)
      9  
      "...interminable, temporary..."

      She managed to contradict herself with two consecutive words. That's got to be some sort of record.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by David2012 (February 23, 2012 9:41 am ET)
      6  
      I wonder whether Fox is coming around to the view that taxes need to go up. It's starting to sound like it. They are just convinced that it is the poor who need to be taxed more, rather than the job-creating pundits.

      I noticed that Gretchen showed her independence again, just asking the question, "Is there sort of a correlation between all these things that we are discussing?"
      Report Abuse
    • Author by foole (February 23, 2012 10:13 am ET)
      7  
      I still find it weird that people who claim to love their country and capitalism so much, can't figure out how a consumer economy works. The fact is, for our consumer society to continue to function, we have to have consumers! If the "job creators" refuse to hire people and keep exporting jobs, then something has to fill the monetary gap and that something is the government. Bring back the jobs and the people on the government dole will drop quickly. Don't bring back the jobs, and for the continued existence of the country, we run the risk of becoming the welfare state the trogs seem so scared of. That or we become France in the late 1700's.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by n'est-ce pas (February 23, 2012 10:27 am ET)
        8 3
        It's the Dunning-Kruger effect. These people would SWEAR to you that they know what they're talking about, despite all the times they're proven wrong by people who actually do know.

        I got into a tiff with Dana Loesch on Twitter a couple of days ago, in which her constant refrain to people trying to educate her on the concept of an effective mandate (we're talking about the Virginia state-sanctioned rape anti-abortion bill). Her constant rebuttal, despite dozens of thoughtful posts on the resolution requirements of the fetal visualization, and the inability of transabdominal sonograms to detect heartbeats in very early developmental stages, was, "Show me where it says that in the bill." Even when the Governor of Virginia admitted that the requirement was incredibly invasive and degrading, she stuck to her guns.

        These wingnuts all remind me of trolls like tommy. They don't know anything, can't be bothered to research, and disdain people who actually HAVE expertise and education. Charlie Pierce was dead on in IDIOT AMERICA, these people think with their guts, and their guts are morons.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by shaggles (February 23, 2012 10:34 am ET)
      6  
      Malkin is always trying to come up with some clever quip or one liner. As usual she fails here.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by blk-in-alabam (February 23, 2012 11:34 am ET)
      5  
      George H.W, Bush said the Reagan economic plan,the basis for all current republican,and so-called conservative economic plans is Voodoo Economics
      Report Abuse
    • Author by clearstate (February 23, 2012 11:36 am ET)
      4  
      These guys love giving our money away to the wealthy because they feel entitled to bigger tax breaks than what we get. But when someone talks about giving money to the middle class then its class warfare, entitlement spending, nanny state, bribery, etc.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by foole (February 23, 2012 11:45 am ET)
        3  
        The GOP are experts at poor-mouthing and projecting.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by jeff7545 (February 23, 2012 4:59 pm ET)
          5
        Exactly who is taking your money and giving it to rich people? And you know what, if you don't make very much money, you can't get a very big tax break. You actually have to pay taxes to get the tax break. Also, tax breaks are not the government giving money to people, it's the government taking less from the people who have earned it.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by highlyunlikely (February 23, 2012 5:00 pm ET)
          5 1
          the con-post generator has been moved to a new location, with the same old worn-out arguments. It will go into tilt before whoever programs it bothers to update it.
          Report Abuse
        • Author by kabniel (February 23, 2012 7:29 pm ET)
          3 1
          Jeff

          Or it is people paying back LESS of their portion of the investment society has made in EVERYONES ability to make money. See brainwashed Randinista morons like you always pretend that societal investment didnt happen.

          We redistribute income upward all the time. When we do international imperialism like the Contras or overthrowing the governments of Iran in 53. Guatemala 54, invaded the Dominican Republic in 64. overthrow the government of Brazil in 64 or Chile in 73 to help our overseas investments THAT is redistributing money upward. When we give low interest loans to other countries to BUY our products, THAT is redistributing upward. When we use the Pentagon to do R&D for high tech industry, when the National Institute of Health develops drugs then GIVES them to big Pharma, I could go on for DAYS. A whole LOT of our economy is public cost turned into private profit and THAT is redistributing money UPWARD.
          Report Abuse
    • Author by rat101 (February 23, 2012 11:42 am ET)
         
      Only an idiot would buy the notion that unemployment checks stimulate the economy.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by jjamele2880 (February 24, 2012 11:26 am ET)
           
        So only an idiot would buy the notion that if I give someone money, and that person takes that money and buys something he otherwise would not have, that creates a benefit for the store owner by putting money into the economy, thereby STIMULATING it? Really?
        Report Abuse
    • Author by politeradical (February 23, 2012 12:21 pm ET)
      4  
      Magical thinking?

      Um, the GOP front runner's entire strategy is "because Jesus"?
      Report Abuse
    • Author by windos (February 23, 2012 12:28 pm ET)
         
      I was unemployed in the past and I HAD TO PAY income tax on that unemployment check. I did not have to play state taxes on it though. One more thing, it did help me get through that period without having to get behind on my bills and house payment..... without it, I would have probably lost most of what I have.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by bewarebias (February 23, 2012 12:57 pm ET)
         
      How do you give $100 million to a candidate, knowing 10,000 middle Americans can't come up with that money combined, and not consider yourself a tyrant? Aren't you shoving your views and policies down the throats of the Americans? Where's the due process? What kind of American can think this is okay to do? It's the same when they say, "leave it to states' rights." What they mean is, let the tyrrany of the majority work locally.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by endvoyeur (February 23, 2012 5:14 pm ET)
         
      The people who have worked so hard to export our jobs over the last 40 years are of course the people complaining the loudest we have so few. Go figure!
      Report Abuse
    • Author by The Liberal Republican (February 24, 2012 9:56 am ET)
      1 1
      How do these people get through economics in college? They would fail any econ class I ever took.
      Report Abuse