Decision 2012: Jobs

Jobs are the big issue in the next election. Which party has the more the credible plan? The GOP, with tax cuts for the rich? Or the Democrats, with nothing whatsoever?

5 thoughts on “Decision 2012: Jobs

  1. In the entire “discussion” of the budget, it is CREEPY how the tax cuts aren’t even mentioned as part of the issue. Revenue inputs just aren’t on the table, tax cuts for the rich are sacrosanct in “austerity measure” rhetoric. And, at this point, it’s really not even about jobs anymore…..we’re doing fine if you just ignore half the population of the country…….just like the 1950s….sorta….without any actual economic prosperity.

    All I can say, is: Bravo Sierra – Whiskey Tango Foxtrot!?!?

  2. That’s a Beaut of a comic. Make me LOL. Aggie_Dude you are dead on also, its all good if you IGNORE the un/under-employed youth not to mention the not so youthful who had their lives ripped out from under them.

  3. That sums it up well. Nicely done.

    It’s all about how we define the word “invest”, isn’t it?

    If I’m rich and I invest in a nice yacht, country club membership, and dinner at Chez Faux Classe for myself and my cronies, arguably this also stimulates the local economy. Unfortunately such economic investment happens at a somewhat sluggish pace. No matter sick and hedonsitic our nation’s invaluable contemporary elite “venture capitalists” may be, the amount of stimulus our economy receives, and the sectors of the economy which benefit are in direct proportion to these wackos’ deranged appetites from day to day, and, sadly, that’s not going to be enough improve the economy of the nation as a WHOLE in any meaningful way.

    Maybe if it becomes the latest vogue for the extremely wealthy to be transported from point to point upon humongous, ornately carved marble thrones, lifted and moved by masses of grateful new job recipients (think of Xerxes, in the movie “300”) this kind of economic plan would benefit large numbers of unemployed people. It might not be the kind of job anyone WANTS, but that’s another story…

    …so I guess it’s also about how we define the word “job”, too, isn’t it?

    To slightly modify a well-known proverb:

    “You can lead a [wealthy person] to [a tax break], but you can’t make them [invest in a socially responsible manner].”

    If you TAX them, though, the government can invest the money in a socially responsible manner. That’s the ROLE of government. Any Republican moron who denies / decries this should be removed from office (for being incompetent / for being wasteful excess) on the spot. That’s not to say the government is always GOOD at spending responsibly, but the government is (at least in theory) more answerable to “We, the People” than your local Ebeneezer Scrooge.

    Obama’s “shared sacrifice” rhetoric rings hollow. You can’t call it “shared sacrifice” if only one class of society gets taxed by government (and receives less in return for what they pay) while another is left untouched, and given the option of being philandering or philanthropic as they see fit.

  4. «Which party has the more the credible plan?» Isn’t that the essence of the problem – the assumption that there are only two possible political parties ? Neither of them could care less about the unemployed or the so-called «working poor» or any others than the top 1 % – see, e g, Joseph Stiglitz’s recent «Vanity Fair» article (http://www.vanityfair.com/society/features/2011/05/top-one-percent-201105) for more on this matter. If ordinary people allow their political endeavours to be restricted to voting for or against candidates from these two parties, they are most likely to continue being the objects, rather than the subjects of political development in the United States….

    Henri

Leave a Reply