published Thursday, November 4th, 2010

112th Congress

about Clay Bennett...

The son of a career army officer, Bennett led a nomadic life, attending ten different schools before graduating in 1980 from the University of North Alabama with degrees in Art and History. After brief stints as a staff artist at the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette and the Fayetteville (NC) Times, he went on to serve as the editorial cartoonist for the St. Petersburg Times (1981-1994) and The Christian Science Monitor (1997-2007), before joining the staff of the ...

93
Comments do not represent the opinions of the Chattanooga Times Free Press, nor does it review every comment. Profanities, slurs and libelous remarks are prohibited. For more information you can view our Terms & Conditions and/or Ethics policy.
SavartiTN said...

chuckle

November 4, 2010 at 1:14 a.m.
librul said...

(D) to go forward, (R) to go backward.

We'll be dancing on the Tea Party's grave in two years.

November 4, 2010 at 2:28 a.m.
alprova said...

Bravo Clay!!!

You've captured the moment perfectly and without writing a word.

For two years, the Democrats have been trying to move this country forward. The Republicans and their Tea-Party cohorts want to take us back 100 years.

All that will likely be accomplished will be to witness a Congress that will spin like a clock.

November 4, 2010 at 5:38 a.m.
ITguy said...

This may actually work. Just tell the republicans to reverse engine, and they will think that means we are backing up.

November 4, 2010 at 6:07 a.m.
AndrewLohr said...

5 words, alprova (counting "USA" as one.)

Hey, we gave the Dems 4 years of Congress and 2 of total control. Before that, the GOP establishment for 6 years. Give the more conservative GOP a chance. "When you eliminate the impossible, what remains, however improbable, must be true"--Sherlock Holmes.

Do you liberals respect "we the people," or do you want to run our lives for us as if you were superior beings? "Pride goeth before destruction, and a haughty spirit before a fall"--Proverbs.

Say, has any cartoonist drawn the "Delaware witch trial," with liberals in high hats carrying wood to burn Christine O'Donnell?

November 4, 2010 at 6:27 a.m.
EaTn said...

Prop passenger planes are old and mostly obsolete, which probably most compares this toon to Congress. If the right wing engine were pusher prop driven it would be in sync with the left engine- a novel idea that's not going to happen.

November 4, 2010 at 6:42 a.m.
woody said...

Speaking as one who really enjoys a window seat, I believe I'll opt for an aisle seat, at least for a while. I usually like to see where I am going and look forward to the trip.

However, until I am a bit more comfortable with those who are piloting this particular aircraft I think I'll just have to leave it to 'blind faith'. And hope neither is related to "Wrong-Way Corrigan."

Buckle up everyone, Woody

November 4, 2010 at 7:01 a.m.
ITguy said...

The Republicans out spent the Democrats by a margin of 3 to 1. I wonder who contributed all that money.

November 4, 2010 at 8:24 a.m.
Clara said...

I hope I'm able to live long enough to see what happens in the next few years.

November 4, 2010 at 8:34 a.m.
bret said...

I was thinking of a plane with a broken wing or maybe two right wings. A plane with only a right wing would not fly.

November 4, 2010 at 9:09 a.m.
woody said...

Clara..I'll be hoping you and I both make it long enough to see if "The Right" really is..or if there will be enough "Left" to salvage.

Looking ahead, Woody

November 4, 2010 at 9:25 a.m.

The Democrat controlled congress and Whitehouse was on a flight to utopia. But there were no maps, no coordinates, no previous records or sightings of their proposed destination, and not enough fuel. They chose an unqualifed captain and crew who didn't bother to read the flight manual and chose to fly in the dead of night so as to avoid being noticed and questioned.

This is one skyjacking that was neccessary. The plane will be brought back to reality in order to properly plan, fuel, and crew for many advertised successful flights that all Americans will be happy to fly again and again and again.

November 4, 2010 at 9:33 a.m.
whatsnottaken said...

Good cartoon. This is the only way to keep the government from hurting us - Gridlock

November 4, 2010 at 9:37 a.m.
GreenKepi said...

Librul...there will be no grave. It's a movement, not a 'party'. The "Tea Party" people involved have created a 'quiet revolution' in the country. These people are on a mission and don't really care what you may think about them. They are making noise that resonated with the sounds that many have long forgotten, its a sound rarely heard, and its a sound that must awaken us if the American Dream is to survive...it "ain't" going away as you wish....

November 4, 2010 at 9:59 a.m.
Livn4life said...

Oh Yeah the Democrats have been trying to move this country forward. But no one seems to see the cliff in front of us we are heading for pretending forward means doing things which kept the nation in a depression far longer than it would have been in the last century. Yes, let's keep that forward motion and see where it eventually leads. We have a growing discomfort with our federal government. Neither party has shown the guts to really do what is needed. It de-empowers them to do the right thing. So we go on with mumbo-jumbo. I hope we Americans are ready for how ugly things are about to get in Washington. First is the transition in the House of Representatives. Most all else will be positioning and posturing for the next election. I blame us, we continually allow our national politicians to be perpetual campaigners while little gets done to make real differences in the lives of struggling people, LIKE JOBS. So get on the plane, sit down, strap in, shut up, our folk in Washington have it all figured out. Never mind the bumps, just let them have their way. Let's see what happens in January and beyond.

November 4, 2010 at 10:03 a.m.
mmlj said...

bookie, fantastic post! Doubtful that many will find the comment useful.

I'm so glad that I live in a country where the passengers have a say in where their flight is going. There is a lot of disdain for certain passengers, however, by those who best know where they should fly us.

November 4, 2010 at 10:09 a.m.
carlB said...

Opinion » Editorial Cartoons Thursday, Nov. 4, 2010 112th Congress


Reply: This picture is worth more than a "thousand words." STALL, STALL, STALL, which means a "crash" with many more Americans at the risk of losing their American Dream and living in poverty to not any fault of their own.

What are the real purposes behind these extreme attitudes against having a government strong enough to serve it's required duties? This attitude did not just suddenly appear since there has always a group of people who do not want government interfering in the way they want to live. You certainly got your drawing correct. The Republicans are wanting to take the Tennessee Valley back to the days of the late 1920's to 1933 before FDR where the conditions were controlled entirely by the private enterprise sectors. Now we have the local governments and the Federal Government and the private sectors working together for creating of the needed jobs. If the "Big Governments" are taken out of the picture, turning everything over to the private sectors, how would this effect our life styles here in the Tennessee Valley? Who would have to continue to pay the "Bill"?
During the Cheney/ Bush administration this Republic was "setup" to actually fall into another "great depression." Apparently a certain "group" of people wanted this Nation to fall into a depression since they have opposed everything that President Obama and his administration is doing to prevent one? Thank goodness the "Anti" Obama voters " did not take over the US Senate. How long will it take for the "anti" government and the opponents of Obama voters to find out that how they voted in this election will "cut off their noses in spite of their face"?
With the "stalemate" which will be created by the "Anti voters," who is going to work for getting back our needed manufacturing jobs?

November 4, 2010 at 10:20 a.m.
GMills said...

I so agree with you Carl. I am tired of hearing ANYONE say they "want their country back". I want my country FORWARD.

November 4, 2010 at 10:49 a.m.
GMills said...

Livn4life, The earth is round. We will not fall off the edge.

November 4, 2010 at 10:50 a.m.
GreenKepi said...

While this cartoon is causing us to argue whether Democrat or Republicans are the bad guys or good guys…are any of you aware of what is happening right under our noses?

The Federal Reserve, that caused the Great Depression, is buying $600 billion of federal government debt over the next eight months. This should scare the pants off all of us!

Back then…what happened is that [the Federal Reserve] followed policies which led to a decline in the quantity of money by a third. For every $100 in paper money, in deposits, in cash, in currency, in existence in 1929, by the time you got to 1933 there was only about $65, $66 left. Do any of you see this on track to happen again!?

Every bit of it that they monetize the debt will mean a reduction in the value of the dollar. This buy out is a ‘perfect storm’…this is a disaster…getting ready to happen…while we ‘pee-on’s' argue about the election….

November 4, 2010 at 11:06 a.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

Dang, this is actually a good cartoon. Way too go clay.

I notice that you could not resist injecting your politics into it by labeling the backward engine the House.

alprova is wrong, you used two words to turn a good cartoon into a message designed to drone on over your backward beliefs. You know, if you had not labeled the engines everyone here would still have known which one you thought was the House.

Still, a good cartoon.

November 4, 2010 at 11:10 a.m.
nurseforjustice said...

ITguy states: "The Republicans out spent the Democrats by a margin of 3 to 1. I wonder who contributed all that money."

Where did you get that information. What I saw on ABC or CBS news (can't remember which) was the Repubs only spent 100 mil more than Dems. That would only be a drop in the bucket of the 3.5 billion spent. Not hardly 3 to 1 as you stated.

I personally like the check and balance that both parties bring to the table. Not sure if I would want one party in total control like it was for past 2 yrs. Legislation being passed so we could know what was in it as Pelosi said, ridiculous.

November 4, 2010 at 11:25 a.m.
champ1 said...

You liberals are such sore losers... Anything that keeps that plane grounded is o.k. by me. Just watch and see how much business improves over the next year with the tax and spend threat of the fedaral government neutralized. Better than flying into a mountain like captain Obama would have us do.

November 4, 2010 at 12:19 p.m.
rolando said...

"Say, has any cartoonist drawn the "Delaware witch trial," with liberals in high hats carrying wood to burn Christine O'Donnell?"

Careful there, Andrew, citing ANY cartoonist but this one will get your post removed.

I have had 8-10 removed for no reason but that.

This is one jealous guy we have here...and more than a bit insecure.

There was no reason or violation of rules cited either, just a simple censoring.

November 4, 2010 at 12:28 p.m.
mtall said...

if the senate is supposed to move forward shouldn't that propeller face back to propel the plane. and the house one forward to send the plane backward...pretty sure that's how propellers work. everyone is commenting like it is genius and the rep. are moving backward..if so the propellers are facing the wrong way.

November 4, 2010 at 12:40 p.m.
CP7768 said...

Rolando, If you actually read closely you would see that he is not referencing any other cartoonist. As for the "Delaware witch party," perhaps the Republicans/Tea Party members should have picked a candidate with thicker skin and who hadn't lost the election before the campaign season even began.

November 4, 2010 at 12:41 p.m.
hambone said...

Only those with Golden Parachutes will survive this flight!!

November 4, 2010 at 12:51 p.m.
rolando said...

I have just received a report that the TFP "higher ups" have directed all references and links to any other newspaper are a firm policy of TFP "higher ups".

My apologies to Clay if this is indeed the case. I understand his remaining silent on the issue.

November 4, 2010 at 12:56 p.m.
rolando said...

CP7768;

This is an ongoing issue here with a bit of a background. My comment was not a stand alone kind of thing.

November 4, 2010 at 12:57 p.m.
Leaf said...

I wonder if it would be possible for the lame duck senate to overcome the ongoing Republican filibuster and pass the DISCLOSE act. That's the law that would diminish the ability for corporations, billionaires, and foreign governments to secretly give millions of dollars to PACs in order to influence elections. I believe this is the single biggest threat to our country.

I think most citizens, regardless of party affiliation, would agree that unlimited secret contributions are not in the best interest of Democracy. It's time to do what's right for the country, instead of what's politically expedient for "your side" in the short term. If the re-elected senators who received Tea Party endorsements actually embrace the movement's Libertarian philosophy, they will break with big-money Republicans and vote for the DISCLOSE act.

November 4, 2010 at 1:05 p.m.
carlB said...

LIKE JOBS. So get on the plane, sit down, strap in, shut up, our folk in Washington have it all figured out. Never mind the bumps, just let them have their way. Let's see what happens in January and beyond. Livn4life | On: November 4, 2010 at 10:03 a.m.


Reply to Livn4life: We have already seen the past, before January 2009 and it wasn't a good movie. Now you want us to watch a rerun of the same movie when the quality of first one was bad at the start and ended with the Republic in many critical, unfinished conditions? You must be betting that President Obama will "cave" over to the new Speaker of the House's same old way of doing business. By "chewing" on the feed being fed to you by someone who has lead you astray will get you no where in the stalemate which is coming. Especially thinking we will obey your command about shutting up. Remember we want every thing "fixed" in six days and the National debt of at least the $12.0 trillion dollars, left over from the Bush/Cheney eight years paid off in two years with a 100% employment. Anything less will indicate the House as being incompetdent.

November 4, 2010 at 1:49 p.m.
Musicman375 said...

Outstanding and accurate post, Bookie!

November 4, 2010 at 1:49 p.m.
mmlj said...

Many, most recently Carl, are quick to "remember" the dark ages of P.O.--pre-Obama. For the three years prior to the ascension of President Obama, there was a Republican President, a Democratic-controlled Senate, and a Democratic-controlled House. You assign these horrible times to the President.

Your bleak prognostications of the days ahead will be the fault of the Republican-controlled House. (President, Democrat; House, Republican; Senate, Democrat).

So I just need clarification:

Bad times + Republican president = Fault of President Bad times + Democrat president = Fault of House (not Senate) provided House is Republican-controlled Bad times + Democrat president = Fault of former President if neither house is Republican-controlled

Did I get that right?

November 4, 2010 at 2:06 p.m.
Musicman375 said...

carlB, if you really think the national debt was 12T when Obama took office, you need to study the history books a little more...

November 4, 2010 at 2:26 p.m.
Lefty said...

"It's a movement, not a 'party'"

Maybe the best description of the Tea Party that I've ever seen. It certainly reminds me of a type of movement.

November 4, 2010 at 2:27 p.m.
Clara said...

Exactly when do the new Senate and House members take over their jobs?

November 4, 2010 at 2:30 p.m.
Musicman375 said...

That will be in January when the new session begins, Clara.

November 4, 2010 at 2:34 p.m.
alprova said...

Musicman375 wrote: "carlB, if you really think the national debt was 12T when Obama took office, you need to study the history books a little more..."


He's off a little, but not by much. It was just short of $10 Trillion when Obama walked in the door.

November 4, 2010 at 2:45 p.m.
softnotes37 said...

You said it ALL!!!!! I need not say a word.

November 4, 2010 at 3:20 p.m.
Francis said...

itguy....i can tell you who contributed millions and millions to the democrat party...that outstanding anti-american george soros...

cp7768....."thicker skin", huh?.....you mean like obama? i wouldn't be surprised if he wears an adult diaper for those pesky occasions when he may unexpected ly be confronted by someone who doesn't agree with his policies.

now that the wicked witch is dead, i guess it's a consolation for you libs to still have harry reid, her flying monkey, around.

November 4, 2010 at 4:01 p.m.
acerigger said...

I think it may be a bit naive to think these new clucks will be able to stop "Obama's agenda". Now that the "party of no" has become the"party of don't know", Pres. Obama can get over his bi-partisan fetish and move this country forward.

November 4, 2010 at 4:26 p.m.
Francis said...

ace...you don't get it...it's not about republican vs democrat .tuesday's results show that those who oppose obama...whether republicans, democrats, tea party people, independents...whatever...had the most success.........the new senator from w. va. was a democrat..but ran in opposition to obama's stupid vision. it not only happened in the u.s. house and senate...it happened at the state and local level. those that backed obama's and pelosi's idiotic obamacare paid a heavy price. you need to get over your fetish for obama. your messiah has turned out to be nothing but a slug.

November 4, 2010 at 4:43 p.m.
CP7768 said...

Francis, It is obvious that you bring quite the air of civility to the conversation. I applaud you for avoiding the reference to Christie O'Donnell. I think I smell red herring in the room . . .

November 4, 2010 at 5:09 p.m.
Clara said...

Thank you, Music!

November 4, 2010 at 5:50 p.m.
woody said...

CP7768..it appears as though you will be a joy to have around. You seem to have a great sense of humor. I mean anyone who would put Francis and the word 'civility' in the same sentence has to have their tongue planted firmly in their cheek.

And if you are smelling anything, I don't believe it's "red herring." After what Francis said about "adult diapers", it would appear as though he may be 'up close and personal with them'.

Francis..Francis..Francis, Woody

November 4, 2010 at 6:02 p.m.
carlB said...

carlB, if you really think the national debt was 12T when Obama took office, you need to study the history books a little more... Username: Musicman375 | On: November 4, 2010 at 2:26 p.m.


Reply to Musicman375: Bush's fiscal year budget did not end until the last of September 2009 and then he was over budget over a trillion dollars from the unfunded policies. You have called my hand on this before and there are several different ways this has been answered but I like the Total National Debt of #12.0 trillion dollars as to what Bush's fiscal year budget was for the year 2009, plus the added non-funded cost. As in the #700 billion dollar TARP, two wars, the Bush tax cuts, and the prescription drug plan and others. We can play on words all you want,

November 4, 2010 at 6:23 p.m.
carlB said...

For the three years prior to the ascension of President Obama, there was a Republican President, a Democratic-controlled Senate, and a Democratic-controlled House. You assign these horrible times to the President. Did I get that right? Username: mmlj | On: November 4, 2010 at 2:06 p.m.


Reply to mmlj: Wrong! I prefer to learn and stick to the best facts possible and do what is necessary to correct the crisis conditions of the country, but from the way the Republicans are doing, they apparently want this Republic to be destroyed just as they did not act to keep our manufacturing base to be destroyed instead of encouraging people to continue buying imported goods.

November 4, 2010 at 7:03 p.m.
Oz said...

carlB... Bill Clinton was the president signing off on NAFTA. Both parties are guilty of selling out our manufacturing base.

November 4, 2010 at 7:59 p.m.
Reardon said...

Green,

If progressives and their ilk really cared for the little guy, they'd be blatantly against the Federal Reserve and immediately call for its full disembodiment.

No one gets hurt more than the poor and middle class when the Federal Reserve creates paper money out of thin air to buy government debt; which effectively devalues every other paper dollar in circulation, inflates the cost of real goods (like food, gasoline, etc.), and enriches the well-healed and well-connected at the expense of the poor.

I dare any supposed progressive or stalwart for the "common man" or "little guy" to stand up and tell me why the Federal Reserve shouldn't be totally shut down, or at least fully audited.

November 4, 2010 at 8:19 p.m.
i4bear said...

Sing Johnny one note- do you ever change the tune? It's strange that the people who think for themselves are in lock step with anyone- is there no critical thinking or intellectual honesty left in the world? Makes me miss Pat Moynihan.

November 4, 2010 at 9:48 p.m.
sd said...

I think I may have to take a little break from political news and opinion, at least until everyone can get all the obligatory post-election gloating/whining out of their systems. In these two days I've read and heard about all I can handle.

I do hope, however, that these fresh hires (and re-hires) can be bothered to do some work. The sound bytes haven't been particularly heartening, but who knows. Maybe they'll get it together for once.

November 4, 2010 at 10:27 p.m.
SavartiTN said...

Bill Clinton did sign the NAFTA...after the Senate passed it 60-38 (majority of votes were Republican)...in 1993. But, George H.W. Bush was the president who was pushing NAFTA and ceremoniously signed the bill in 1992 with the President of Mexico and Prime Minister of Canada. Bush wanted to pass the bill before he left office but ran out of time. NAFTA was Bush's baby.

Clinton knew that the bill would pass without him at some point and introduced amendments to protect the American worker that weren't in the first bill. Interestingly enough, there has been NO proof that NAFTA has been responsible for US job losses.

November 4, 2010 at 10:43 p.m.
carlB said...

carlB... Bill Clinton was the president signing off on NAFTA. Both parties are guilty of selling out our manufacturing base. Username: Oz | On: November 4, 2010 at 7:59 p.m


Reply to Oz: You are correct, I am aware of this. Thanks. If you remember,there were a lot of controversial information from some of the economist against these trade agreements but we know what the US Chamber of Commerce has done over the years to influence our law makers to agree to pasing these trade agreements with the lower monetary value countries. There was nearly a double increase in our trade deficit with the global corporate monopolies unti the 2007 recession occurred. During the eight years of the Bush administration we were continuing to lose our manufacturing jobs. President Obama is now trying to reverse this loss of jobs by spending money to get manufacturing companies to locate in the USA, but there has been opposition again from the US Chamber of Commerce. It is important to get the private manufacturing companies back to create jobs and to get our GDP up. If we don't then where are the needed jobs coming from. If the FED's cause the value of our dollar to be lowered, it might help the farmers ro export more farm products, but with the global corporations having their goods manufactured in the lower labor cost countries and sell their goods within these countries, what do we make here in the USA to sell to the people in those countries?

Bush encouraged people to continue buying imported goods.>>>

November 4, 2010 at 11:39 p.m.
carlB said...

Clinton knew that the bill would pass without him at some point and introduced amendments to protect the American worker that weren't in the first bill. Interestingly enough, there has been NO proof that NAFTA has been responsible for US job losses.

Username: SavartiTN | On: November 4, 2010 at 10:43 p.m.

REply to SavartiTN: Thank you for posting the information.

Any time goods are manufactured in another country and imported into the USA, even if there is not any information about the jobs' lost we can assume there has been some worker losing his job.

November 4, 2010 at 11:58 p.m.
alprova said...

Oz wrote: "Bill Clinton was the president signing off on NAFTA. Both parties are guilty of selling out our manufacturing base."


That's not quite all there was to it. NAFTA, as it became known, began taking shape in 1986.

On December 17, 1992, a month before Bill Clinton stepped into the Oval Office, President George H. W. Bush, Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney, and Mexican President Carlos Salinas, ceremoniously signed the NAFTA agreement in San Antonio, Texas.

Bush worked relentlessly to "fast track" the signing prior to the end of his term, but he ran out of time. Hence, the ceremonial signing just before he left office.

He had no choice but to pass the ratification and signing NAFTA into law onto Bill Clinton. Prior to sending it to the United States Senate, Clinton introduced clauses to protect American workers at the request of many House members.

With a great deal of emotional discussion, the House of Representatives approved NAFTA on November 17, 1993, by a vote of 234 to 200. The agreement's supporters included 132 Republicans and 102 Democrats.

NAFTA passed the Senate 61-38. Senate supporters were 34 Republicans and 27 Democrats. Clinton signed it into law on December 8, 1993. It went into effect on January 1, 1994.

Legislatively, it was indeed took a bi-partisan effort to pass it. Bill Clinton however, had very little at all to do with anything but the very final negotiations preceding his signature that ratified it.

Reagan and George H.W. Bush were the two Presidents involved in negotiating most of the provisions contained in NAFTA.

November 5, 2010 at 2:55 a.m.
alprova said...

Ugh...

I apologize to all the others who weighed in on NAFTA. I see they did their part to set the record straight on the issue.

I read those AFTER I crafted my post.

November 5, 2010 at 2:58 a.m.
anniebelle said...

I have just one question, if Bush's tax cuts were supposed to create jobs for this country (which these lemmings are still chanting), how long do we have to wait? Another 10 years, 50, 100? Come on all you repuke geniuses, tell us when we can expect this miracle to occur. And why haven't the repukes solved all our problems by now, good lord, they've been in office now for 3 days -- what a failure they are. And to support the tax cut for the top 1% of this country, will cost us $5.048 trillion so they can buy another yacht, another big shiny car, another island, transport their money to their off-shore accounts and this will help create jobs? What kind of fantasy world do you guys live in anyway. Here's how the vote came down Tuesday -

Voters who said their income is…

• Less than 30K per year voted 58% for Dems, 40% for Repubs • 30K - 49,999K: 52% for Dems, 45% for Repubs • 50K-74,999K: 46% for Dems, 52% for Repubs • 75K - 99,999K: 43% for Dems, 56% for Repubs • 100K-1,999,999K: 43% for Dems, 56 for Repubs • Over $200,000K: 36% for Dems, 62% for Repubs Notice that as soon as you pass the average income level in the United States, which is currently around 40K per year, you see voters trending Republican. Speaks volumes.

November 5, 2010 at 6:35 a.m.
ITguy said...

Nurse,

I have been unable to find a credible source for the spending ratios that I cited above. What I heard was apparently out of context and specific to one region or race. I will be more careful in the future.

November 5, 2010 at 7:55 a.m.
alprova said...

SavartiTN wrote: "Interestingly enough, there has been NO proof that NAFTA has been responsible for US job losses."


There have indeed been job losses that have been documented, but they were not massive.

Since 1994, 500,000 manufacturing jobs losses have been documented. Most of those losses were in border states, where manufacturing plants near the southern border were moved south of the border to take advantage of the much cheaper labor down there.

Other lost jobs involved warehousing, where goods were dropped at the border by Mexican trucks to be transferred onto American trucks for distribution into the states.

100 Mexican trucking companies were allowed, for two and a half years, to cross the border and to deliver directly to points in the United States.

It might be of interest to some, to note that President Obama signed signed into law the Omnibus Appropriations Act of 2009, which cut funding for that project, effectively suspending Mexican based carriers from operating outside the 25 mile range inside the United States.

Mexico, and some American manufacturers who relocated in Mexico were the big beneficiaries of NAFTA, no question. The purpose and intent of the agreement was totally created as an attempt to raise the bar for those who live in Mexico, hoping to reduce illegal immigration. It raised the bar for some down there, but it has not provided enough jobs to those who need them, and illegal immigration is worse than ever.

The agreement has been largely a complete failure for Americans and Canadians.

November 5, 2010 at 8:15 a.m.
carlB said...

Ugh... I apologize to all the others who weighed in on NAFTA. I see they did their part to set the record straight on the issue. I read those AFTER I crafted my post. Username: alprova | On: November 5, 2010 at 2:58 a.m.


Reply to alprova: Let the information flow! I have found out that if you show the people information which consist of more than a sentence, they are not interested in reading it.
Too many of the people appear to make their minds up on "slogans" and on the personal attacks against our elected leaders and their parties, not what they are doing which is good or bad for this Republic. All of us know by now that there are differences in the thinking about how to address the critical issues that we are confronted with. Yet there are questions about whither some of the people really want these issues "solved"?

November 5, 2010 at 10:20 a.m.
nurseforjustice said...

Hate to burst everyones bubble about jobs lost to Mexico but this has been happening for many years prior to 1993. Just to name a couple, Oster and Sunbeam have been in Mexico for at least 3-4 decades that I know of personally. They were just across the border where I lived in Texas.

November 5, 2010 at 10:55 a.m.
Oz said...

Regarding NAFTA...I never said Clinton did it alone. I said he signed the bill.

Alprova...according to your source almost as many Democrats in the Congress and Senate supported the bill as Republicans.

Your source said, "With a great deal of emotional discussion, the House of Representatives approved NAFTA on November 17, 1993, by a vote of 234 to 200. The agreement's supporters included 132 Republicans and 102 Democrats".....NAFTA would have easily been defeated in the house without those 102 Democrats.

NAFTA passed the Senate 61-38. Senate supporters were 34 Republicans and 27 Democrats. Clinton signed it into law on December 8, 1993. It went into effect on January 1, 1994. The Senate bill would have failed without the 27 Democrats supporting it.

Both parties put it to us.

Campaign Obama talked about tax breaks for companies keeping jobs in the U.S. Has anyone heard anything about those tax breaks since the election?

annibellle...Yachts and Shiny New Cars create jobs. Someone has to produce and sell them.

Bloomberg reports (10/27/10) on the tax increase for the middle class if the Bush Tax cuts expire.

June 2001 Rates

If Congress fails to act, income tax rates will revert to higher levels dating from June 2001.

For a married couple with an income of $80,000, that would drain an extra $221.48 in withholding from a semi-monthly paycheck, according to calculations by the Tax Institute at H&R Block. Married individuals earning $240,000 a year would lose an additional $557.78 to withholding in a single semi-monthly paycheck. The Tax Institute at H&R Block calculated federal tax rates for single-income earners and married taxpayers without children.

For a married couple making $80,000 per year. The tax increase amounts to $5,748.48 per year or $479.04 per month. $479.04 per month can go a long way toward a mortgage, college degree, goods and services, or a shiny new car. Most of these things create jobs.

For a couple making $240,000 per year. The tax increase amounts to $14,502.28 per year or $1,208.52 per month. An extra $1,208.52 per month might help to purchase a second home, remodel an existing home, increase charitable giving, purchase a shiny new car, build a swimming pool, take a trip, fund an IRA, save to create a new business sooner than later, etc. All of those things help produce jobs.

I bought a new American made SUV a few years ago because of the tax breaks. I have a plumber friend that purchased a new American made work truck every year for the last 3 years because of the tax breaks. Instead of driving his trucks 200,000 miles. He replaced them at 100,000 miles. Another friend purchased a new backhoe. Those tax breaks made it worth while and produced jobs for the middle class.

November 5, 2010 at 11:21 a.m.
carlB said...

I have just one question, if Bush's tax cuts were supposed to create jobs for this country (which these lemmings are still chanting), how long do we have to wait? Another 10 years, 50, 100? Come on all you repuke geniuses Username: anniebelle | On: November 5, 2010 at 6:35 a.m


Reply to anniebelle: A good post anniebelle.

You might agree with this scenario or not but while we were losing our manufacturing base and turning this Republic into a "service based, debt based economy" with the global corporate monopolies determining where most of our imported goods are manufactured, leaving just enough manufacturing here in the USA to prevent the bottom from falling out from under our economy. If you can see what the difference would be if all our manufacturing were still here in the USA, also with the US exporting manufactured goods, with the US consumers spending their money for goods "Made in the USA." As it is now the imported goods we buy are manufactured for the global corporate monopolies in the low monetary value countries. The question should be; Where does the "net" money go? If you have and answer to this then, who is our "trade deficit really with?

So, under which of these conditions will a tax cut more likely to create jobs here in the USA?

November 5, 2010 at 11:24 a.m.
Leaf said...

It's funny that the people who yell about government meddling in the free market are the same ones who whine about the government not creating jobs or sending jobs overseas.

Manufacturing is going overseas because it's cheaper there and corporations like to make money. Duh.

November 5, 2010 at 11:26 a.m.
Clara said...

In my district, the winner was formost, taller, better looking, and more energetic, with more money to spend. I witnessed, first hand, the practically swooning female population eager to touch his hand in welcome.

I have NO idea what he really is and what he stands for as most of the advertising was a warning against Dems and Obama.

Now, as an "iI" I would certainly like to meet him in person, but I doubt he'd condescend or devote time to such an interview with someone with no connections, money, or politics.

I have a relative who knows personally, and works for a former CEO of a well-known oil company. The relative works in a menial position on ONE of his plantations, taking care of the horses, mules, and other livestock he grows for hunting parties. The relative also clears the paths of brush, and does other caretaker work, and accompanies the guests on a shoot. The relative has told me that as kind and likeable as he is, he has NO idea whatever of what the struggle is for people at the relative's position undergo to survive. The relative loves the work but...

November 5, 2010 at 11:51 a.m.
Oz said...

carlB said...President Obama is now trying to reverse this loss of jobs by spending money to get manufacturing companies to locate in the USA, but there has been opposition again from the US Chamber of Commerce.

I must have missed this. Do you have legislation info?

November 5, 2010 at 12:08 p.m.
woody said...

It would appear that the most recent 'talk' concerns itself with subjects a bit askew from the 'toon' which began it all. I'm not sure what NAFTA has to do with our current "Ship of State", other than still being a 'hot political topic', but the dialogue has been interesting, for the most part.

I really enjoyed Anniebelle's "dollar/political equations." As the late John Denver might have said, "Far Out!"

I'd take my hat to you all, but I haven't yet put it on today. So, please accept, instead, my sincere congratulations for 'keeping it clean'.

I believe I'll 'knock wood' after having said that. I don't wish to jinx anyone...

Stay positive, Woody

November 5, 2010 at 12:26 p.m.
alprova said...

Oz wrote: "Regarding NAFTA...I never said Clinton did it alone. I said he signed the bill."


Clinton had practically nothing at all to do with NAFTA. To present it the way you did, you practically dumped in his lap. The agreement was made by H.W. Bush. Clinton was obligated to follow through with the agreement.

And I absolutely included the vote count and used the word that both parties "legislatively" ratified the agreement.


"Alprova...according to your source almost as many Democrats in the Congress and Senate supported the bill as Republicans."


Correct, hence my confusion as to why you think I was inferring otherwise.


"Both parties put it to us."


But...not Bill Clinton.


"Campaign Obama talked about tax breaks for companies keeping jobs in the U.S. Has anyone heard anything about those tax breaks since the election?"


I am aware of at least one company that most certainly DID indeed take advantage of those tax breaks; Chicken of the Sea. They closed up their operations in American Samoa and relocated to Lyons, Georgia.


"If Congress fails to act, income tax rates will revert to higher levels dating from June 2001."


And everyone knows that the Democrats will act to assure that at least no one who makes less than $250,000 will be paying more income taxes than they currently do.

In my opinion, delaying the vote on the Bush tax cuts largely contributed to the Democrats loss of seats. It was a tactical blunder. They'll take care of it as soon as they get back to Washington, but had they done it back in September, I doubt the losses would have been nearly as bad.


I bought a new American made SUV a few years ago because of the tax breaks. I have a plumber friend that purchased a new American made work truck every year for the last 3 years because of the tax breaks. Instead of driving his trucks 200,000 miles. He replaced them at 100,000 miles. Another friend purchased a new backhoe. Those tax breaks made it worth while and produced jobs for the middle class.


Where's the news in all of this? Anytime you purchase equipment for a business, you get tax breaks.

The tax breaks for Americans in general, purchasing large SUV's, expired several years ago.

November 5, 2010 at 2:35 p.m.
anniebelle said...

Just facts, woody, that's all we need in this country to produce intelligent voters. As the Bob Dylan song goes "money doesn't talk, it screams obscenities." We now have the most corrupt government money can buy - thanks to these corporate shills called the Supremes granting personhood to these massive conglomerates who probably have more money (sarcasm) than the average American going to cast their vote. I see it didn't help in a state that has a higher I.Q. than most -- California -- Meg Whitman spent $140 MILLION of her own money and what did it buy her - zilch. But in our uninformed states, which unfortunately, is the majority, their little scheme seemed to have worked with the dullards in this country.

November 5, 2010 at 4:15 p.m.
Oz said...

alprova said...Legislatively, it was indeed took a bi-partisan effort to pass it. Bill Clinton however, had very little at all to do with anything but the very final negotiations preceding his signature that ratified it.

I either scanned this comment quickly or missed it all together. My mistake.

The SUV tax break did expire. I believe the work truck tax break just expired last year. Anyway, you probably know for sure. I believe that is your line of work.

The news was those tax breaks did create jobs. I only purchased a new SUV because of the tax break. I prefer low mileage one or two year old vehicles. Some of those purchases would have been made anyway but the tax benefits probably accelerated the time frame for most business owners. I'm sure you will be in complete disagreement.

Sorry Woody. I'll try to do better in the future. One response lead to another and the next thing you know.

November 5, 2010 at 4:18 p.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

anniebelle,

Your post pretty much sums up the problem. You say voters need to be working with facts but then you demonstrate that you have no interest in facts.

" As the Bob Dylan song goes "money doesn't talk, it screams obscenities."

No facts there, just liberal symbolism.

" We now have the most corrupt government money can buy - thanks to these corporate shills called the Supremes granting personhood to these massive conglomerates who probably have more money (sarcasm) than the average American going to cast their vote."

You chose to focus on the corporate side and say that the corporate shills created the corrupt government. You apparently cannot comprehend that it is big government that is capable of granting the favors at the expense of the tax payers and that if government power was kept in check they would not have the will or the ability to destroy the capitalist system. So again, no facts, just an intellectually corrupt socialist viewpoint.

"I see it didn't help in a state that has a higher I.Q. than most -- California -- "

What on earth is that supposed to mean? It must take a pretty high IQ to run a state government completely out of control. Are you suggesting that California has the answers and we should all be following them? Sure you are. Obama is!

" Meg Whitman spent $140 MILLION of her own money and what did it buy her - zilch."

You may have come close to stating some kind of fact here but all you really do is prove that money is not everything and undermine your original "point".

"But in our uninformed states, which unfortunately, is the majority, their little scheme seemed to have worked with the dullards in this country."

This is your pompous opinion, not a fact. Typical liberal arrogance, your dogma is correct and conservatives are all stupid dolts.

Too bad you do not have enough humility to examine your stupid assumptions and see your liberal view of the world is built on a swamp of half truths and lies.

November 5, 2010 at 5:07 p.m.
anniebelle said...

brp, you are hilarious denying facts as usual.

November 5, 2010 at 5:32 p.m.
wallyworld said...

I'll have to say BigRidge, you are proof of the brainwashing going on in this country. You just deny facts and sport your ignorance on a daily basis on this board.

November 5, 2010 at 5:36 p.m.
anniebelle said...

It's sad that people like brp cannot dispute any of the facts I posted just their childish rhetoric and complete denial of what's happening in this republic. And I'll tell you what, brp, I'd much rather be pompous (or so you call me - once again you're looking in the mirror and pointing the other way) than ignorant like you. You need to see where the states stand intellectually, and then make your stupid comments.

November 5, 2010 at 5:57 p.m.
mmlj said...

Facts?

November 5, 2010 at 7:07 p.m.
Oz said...

mtngirl thanks for the link and carlB. That one makes no sense on the surface. I will have to research it. I did see where Max Baccus, Ben Nelson, and couple of other Dems were against the bill too.

Thanks

November 5, 2010 at 8:02 p.m.
ITguy said...

I would love to hear from some of the Republicans on this board why the bill referenced by mtngrl should not be passed. I read the link and I think it is a pretty good idea. Please explain why McConnell objected.

November 5, 2010 at 8:25 p.m.
carlB said...

mtngirl thanks for the link and carlB. That one makes no sense on the surface. I will have to research it. I did see where Max Baccus, Ben Nelson, and couple of other Dems were against the bill too. Thanks Username: Oz | On: November 5, 2010 at 8:02 p.m.


Reply to Oz:

Yes, there are several actions of the Senators which don't make any sense. The Senators on both sides appear to not get what is going on with our economy, the loss of jobs and don't seem to have any interest in gettingour manufacturing base back.

November 5, 2010 at 8:44 p.m.
carlB said...

I would love to hear from some of the Republicans on this board why the bill referenced by mtngrl should not be passed. I read the link and I think it is a pretty good idea. Please explain why McConnell objected. Username: ITguy | On: November 5, 2010 at 8:25 p.m.


Reply to ITguy: It is about the same "mind set" of the voters here in this area that did not vote for the good of this state and this country.
Who would have ever thought that the people who have benefitted from the policies of FDR, both private companies and the individuals, in a balance of job creations, would have ever voted for a person who said he wanted to do away with what he called "big government which is out of control on their spending."

November 5, 2010 at 10:47 p.m.
Francis said...

you libs don't get it....you can insist all you want, as obama has, that we, "the great unwashed middle"....have been bamboozled by fox news and that the reason you libs got your asses handed to you was because of poor commun- ication rather than your policies....but, the fact is....we don't like your vision of america. you got your ass kicked not just at the u.s. governement level, but in governorships, state legislatures and local governments. YOU...BLEW...IT.

your over the top attacks on tea party people, chambers of commerce..business, employers.."the rich"...backfired........

it was a study in delusion to watch obama's post election address on wednesday. as will be the case in the 60 minutes interview. nobody wants what you libs are selling. the only reason you g ot full control t o begin with was because you lied about what you are......

as it turns out....most of amercica viewed pelosi as the witch..not o'donnell..

o'donnell didn't have a snowballs chance in hell of winning in delaware...it's a lib state...coons would have beaten any republican..even castle...

it's obama, reid, pelosi, frank, biden....and the rest that are viewed as the freak show by most of america..not the tea party people....tuesday's vote confirms it.

November 5, 2010 at 11:39 p.m.
ITguy said...

Mtngrl's link was removed, but it referenced Senate bill S3816. It would have provided incentives to bring jobs back from offshore. Both TN senators voted against it. Why?

November 5, 2010 at 11:56 p.m.
rolando said...

She must have cited some other news service...that alone will get your posts yanked.

Did you read the fine print in the bill, itguy? Try extrapolating where it will take us? How many new gov't jobs it will create at the cost of civilians?

At least our two Senators follow the mandate of the voters, not the Politburo.

November 6, 2010 at 7:09 a.m.
ITguy said...

Rolando,

The link was to the Library of Congress. I am not a conspiracy theorist, so I suspect the they have a program that removes all links to other sites. This is to prevent people from posting advertisements for products.

Yes I read the bill. It amends the IRS code, and would not create any new government jobs. It would disallow the deduction of expenses related to relocation of factory equipment to other countries. It would also allow a company to not pay social security taxes for two years on any employee who was hired to to do work that was previously done overseas.

November 6, 2010 at 8:40 a.m.
rolando said...

There's one stopper right there, itguy -- the taxpayers [me and thee] pay the company's SS tax on returning jobs. Why? As an incentive, why not let the company deduct all expenses involved in the transfer; new equipment bought, etc. The gov't is getting a new source of taxes [the employee], after all. [No doubt it will raise the new employee's SS withholding to boot.]

The companies will simply sell their factory, lock stock and barrel, to a disguised overseas subsidiary [well concealed on paper, of course], taking a loss on the sale here and deducting that. These people have tax attorneys out the kazoo who know how to do that, all legal.

You really think that bill would work? Who in the gov't will keep track of the details?

All in all, it sounds like Corker/Alexander did the job we elected them to do..

November 6, 2010 at 8:43 p.m.
please login to post a comment

videos »         

photos »         

e-edition »

advertisement
advertisement

Find a Business

400 East 11th St., Chattanooga, TN 37403
General Information (423) 756-6900
Copyright, Permissions, Terms & Conditions, Privacy Policy, Ethics policy - Copyright ©2014, Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc. All rights reserved.
This document may not be reprinted without the express written permission of Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc.