All of these things are great ideas. But personal responsibility is only one half of the equation. It used to be illegal to charge someone more than 10% interest. How about some reasonable regulation to protect those who are not smart enough to protect themselves? I'm not asking to dismantle our capitalist system...just swing the pendulum back a little more towards consumers, and not corporate interests. If that means it is too expensive to lend poor people money, then perhaps we shouldn't be lending poor people money.Speaking from experience, our system is heavily tilted - once you are poor, it is awfully hard to break out.

Your experience is anecdotal, and shouldn't be taken seriously. Statistically, the more educated you are, the more money you make - unless you are a teacher. These are demonstrable facts. And what is the relative cost of living in NJ? I suspect that all salaries are inflated over the national average, not just teachers.

What do you think banks do? What do you think the stock market is?

I think banks suck money out of the system through things like front-running the market. I think the stock market is largely a casino for the mega rich.

Yes, when a corporation makes a stock offering, they are raising money that will hopefully create jobs. Once that initial money is raised, however, the stock market's function as a job creating vehicle is greatly reduced. If a company's stock price goes up 10%, the value of their holding may be valued more, and they may be able to borrow more on margin, but this is negligible compared to the amount of money raised during an IPO. Moreover, that increase in value will ONLY create jobs through capital expenditure. Banks also make money loaning money to businesses, who then in turn use that money in potential job creation. However, businesses only make large capital investments like this when there is unmet demand that they see can be exploited. When there is unexploited demand in the marketplace, money comes out of the woodwork to capture that market segment. I promise you there is no business in the US that is lacking for investment funds to satisfy demonstrable unmet demand. In short, in our current economic climate, there is no unmet demand. No amount of capital investment can create demand; capital investment creates supply. This is why economists refer to your views as supply side economics, trickle down, or my preferred term, fucking voodoo. The solution to our economic woes are to increase demand. That means putting money in the hands of people who will spend it, not people who will invest it. For further information, I suggest picking up any high school level economics book. Supply and demand should be well covered.

And this is not a knock on Obama. Here is the inside baseball on the 2012 election:

The Republicans have a vested interest in the economy remaining poor. If the economy improves, Obama will be re-elected. This is almost a certainty, given his favorability numbers. Conversely, if the economy remains poor, Obama stands a good chance of losing.
The people who decide elections in this country are "swing" voters, or LIVs (low information voters). These voters tend to decide who they want to vote for based on their gut feeling, and then find reasons to justify this decision. This is why incumbent presidents almost always win in a good economy, and lose far more often in a bad one. Even if the Obama jobs proposal would completely turn the economy around, and give us all ponies, the Republicans won't let it pass. So, Obama has rolled out this package, knowing Republicans will vote against it, and then will campaign throughout this election cycle on their obstructionism. His only chance is to get those LIVs to think twice at the voting booth - to firmly implant in their minds that Republicans care more about millionaires than them. This jobs bill is not about jobs - it is about exposing Republicans for the obstructionists they (currently) are, in the most public way possible.

My brother has two masters degrees, teaches in the one of the best public schools in the country, and has for 15 years. I have a Bachelors in General Studies, and 8 years experience. I make more than he does. He also pays $800 a month to insure his family. I pay $150. I suspect you are cherry picking your statistics.

Again, feel free to get the fuck out. We know you won't though, because you want to live here. So I feel completely comfortable calling your bluff.

We tax EMPLOYERS, who pay the bulk of payroll taxes.
Or, to put it another way, we all pay payroll taxes. When I call you out on your lies, don't change the subject.

BULLSHIT. If they want to leave, let them leave. Other people will compete for the business they left behind. The fact of the matter is that the vast majority of US executives DON'T WANT TO LIVE IN CHINA, AND WILL NOT LEAVE. You must think we are all stupid.

I'm sorry, but history does not bear this out. the tax rate during Eisenhower was 90%. People still became millionaires. The tax rate during Reagan was 50%. People still became millionaires. I call bullshit. You worked hard because that is who you are. You would have done the same no matter what the financial rewards. If you really want to take your business elsewhere, go for it. There are plenty of people willing to compete for your customers. Don't let the door hit you in the ass on your way to China.

We do tax everyone. We all pay payroll taxes, even the poor. This is a right wing meme that is really kind of disgusting in its dishonesty. Tell you what. Let's stop taxing people. Let's start taxing transactions. Every time money moves from one place to another, let's let the government take a micro-portion as tax. That way, we wall get taxed exactly the same - corporations, rich people, poor people, banks, even the government. That would be fair now, wouldn't it?

I call bullshit. Corporate taxes are corporate taxes, and personal taxes are personal taxes. You cannot conflate the two. If you don't like that corporations have to pay taxes, feel free to take your corporation somewhere else. There will certainly be another that will step in to compete for your US customers.

Once you get to a certain income level, it gets difficult to spend more money. When you have enough money to literally satisfy your every whim, what else is there? You start saving it, or gambling it in the stock market, or putting it in hedge funds where it doesn't get taxed. If you were to spread that wealth out to people who can't satisfy their every whim, then it will flow back into "the system".

You are correct, you can get developers cheaper overseas. However, what most people don't realize, is that their interests do not align with yours. Employees in your company are interested in getting the job done. Employees of an outsourcing firm are interested in fulfilling the terms of their contract. These two things do not always line up. An employee of your company is willing to go the extra mile to get the job done. An employee of an outsourcing firm will be told to go home, as long as the company is within its terms of the contract. We've got an outsourcing contract with [redacted] right now. Our contact says that non-production support has a 3 day SLA. Getting the test environments up and running before a production deployment is non-production support. Getting a new environment up is not easy, there are all kind of things that can go wrong. Our db got corrupted, and we need to go back to a copy? Should only take a couple of hours. Takes three days. Every time.

...in one of the most conservative nations on earth. See? I can make logical fallacies too.

This is the same state that saw the suicide of Megan Meier.That incident got a lot of lawmakers here thinking about how to protect kids online.There is a lot of stuff in the law: about how schools have to have written policies regarding social networking, requiring background checks, etc. This line is the one that is too vague: Teachers also cannot have a nonwork-related website that allows exclusive access with a current or former student.

However, imagine you are a lawmaker, and a bill arrives on your desk with that line in it, but also these:

SECTION 168.021 - In order to obtain a teaching certificate, an applicant must complete a background check as provided in section 168.133.

SECTION 168.071 - The crimes of sexual contact with a student while on public school property as well as second and third degree sexual misconduct are added to the offenses for which a teacher's license or certificate may be revoked.

Are you really going to vote against this law?