Poll Results: Reduce Uncertainty for Business to Lower Unemployment
Readers find most agreement on issues where Dold and Schneider concur with each other. New poll asks readers if the economy or health care is the most important issue.
Photos
A large number of readers responding to the latest Patch poll measuring which steps people favor to reduce unemployment in America agree with two issues where Rep. Robert Dold (R-Kenilworth) and his Democratic opponent, Brad Schneider of Deerfield, agree.
Schneider and Dold both think unemployment will decrease and more jobs will be created if the government takes steps to ease access to capital for companies and lessen the burden of regulation on small business.
Earlier: Schneider, Dold See Small Business Reducing Unemployment
Of the 57 people who responded to the unscientific survey, 19 favor easing regulatory burden on small business and another 14 think government should make it easy for companies to borrow money.
The most readers, 21, believe less financial uncertainty would be the best thing to spur job creation while three think easing barriers on American exports will help most. These are both issues Dold champions in his Main Street Jobs Agenda.
While Schneider and Dold were offering similar ideas to help the economy, their campaigns were busy branding the opposition as something more extreme than their words. Some patch readers, like Moraine Township Republican Chairman Lou Atsaves, were quick to defend their candidate.
“The Schneider attempts to portray Dold as a Tea Party adherent are deliberate falsehoods,” Atsaves writes. “If Dold ‘voted the party line 82 percent’ of the time, and yet (state Rep.) Karen May (D-Highland Park) (87 percent) and (state Sen.) Susan Garrett (D-Lake Forest) (85 percent) voted the ‘party line’ more often, why then do Democrats insist that May and Garrett are ‘independent’ and Dold is not.”
Others, like Stuart Tindall, disagree with Dold and Schneider that small business is the strongest job creation force in the country. He thinks big business is the answer. “What we need is better methods of small business turning into large business,” he writes.
Take the Latest Patch Poll
In contrast to the poll about unemployment, when Patch asked readers whether they wanted to give President Obama’s Affordable Care Act a chance to work or if they wanted the law repealed by Congress, 637 people voted their opinion and 212 left comments.
With such a difference in the number of readers responding, Patch has prepared a new unscientific poll asking whether they think the economy or health care is the most important issue in the Nov. 6 general election.
The new poll remains open through midnight Saturday. Patch will publish the results Monday.
McCloud
5:43 am on Thursday, July 12, 2012
After efforts by the current administration to stimulate the economy we are now once again aware that the government cannot create jobs. Furthermore, imposing a healthcare law with many unknown taxes, implementing a class war against the top teir, the result is uncertain futures with little incentive to take risks. The goal should be to undo everything the current administration has implemented by voting out those who supported them.
RB
7:57 am on Thursday, July 12, 2012
Tell that to the auto industry. Tell that to Mr, Dold who was against the stimulus but sure showed up to unveil the stimulus created work in Glencoe. Bunch of hypocrisy.
dmz
7:37 pm on Monday, July 23, 2012
Really? Pres. Obama's administration has created more jobs in 3 1/2 years than George W. created in 8.....facts don't lie.
Stuart Tindall
6:10 am on Thursday, July 12, 2012
Lies.
RB
8:01 am on Thursday, July 12, 2012
Stupid poll. Only two choices, not necessarily mutually exclusive. What about adding some answers. C) pass the jobs act proposed by the President d) lower taxes on 98% of wage earners while raising taxes on high income earners) e) begin repair of our nations infrastructure thus creating jobs for thousands f) Elect Willard Romney based upon his record as Governor of Mass. (47th in job creation, Romneycare) and his record as outsourcer and chief at Bain.
A. M. Kelly
9:42 am on Thursday, July 12, 2012
The "uncertainty" meme is just another lame excuse to give another tax cut to richest Americans, one they clearly don't need, and one that the rest of us can't afford!. When will people realize that "job creators" don't hire on the basis of tax cuts, they hire on the basis of demand for for their goods and services, and that demand cannot be met until the REST of us have the income (Read: JOBS) to buy them.
It's really hard to believe that people fall for this bs year after year, decade after decade. Please consider: We've have tried it their way: We've given tax cuts to the rich for twelve years now -- Where are the jobs?..If this theory worked, we'd be rolling in jobs by now!
The Q
9:47 am on Thursday, July 12, 2012
AM Kelly, do you run a business? Do you hire people? Spend money on capital goods, make long term capital investments?
The states with the highest taxes, have the biggest fiscal problems and highest unemployment. And that's the facts jack! IL is right at the bottom of the list........with Florida and Texas, with no state income tax, at the top.
A. M. Kelly
8:40 am on Thursday, July 12, 2012
This IS a dumb poll...You give only two choices that are not mutually exclusive
Terry Bangs
8:51 am on Thursday, July 12, 2012
The "uncertainty" restraining job growth is primarily a product of two factors: the economic chaos in Europe, which can't decide if they should take the austerity track or the growth track; and the political chaos in our Congress, where Republicans have, from day one of the Obama administration, been hell bent on ensuring that Obama is a one-term president. If in doubt, replay Mitch McConnell's comment of spring '09. Weak-willed Democrats have certainly contributed by not forcefully applauding and defending their own accomplishments. And the President has contributed by not using the bully pulpit more effectively and explaining how, for example, the Affordable Care Act is not a "government takeover," does not mandate "death panels," will not "pillage Medicare," and will help ensure health care doesn't bankrupt the country by requiring those who use health care (everyone!) to pay for healthcare. Dems need backbone; Republicans need to rediscover Teddy Roosevelt, Dwight Eisenhower, Ev Dirksen, George H. W. Bush, and even Ronald Reagan, whose ability to work for the good of the country would get him booed out of Tea Party rallies today.
A. M. Kelly
9:12 am on Thursday, July 12, 2012
Terry Bangs: Although I would agree with a couple of your statements regarding both parties, I maintain my position that "uncertainty" --There is no "certainty" for anyone -- is primarily a Right Wing Talking Point to get more tax cuts for the wealthy.
Louis G. Atsaves
11:05 am on Thursday, July 12, 2012
No federal budget since Obama took office. Record spending with little to show for it. He "saved" GM by letting them go through bankruptcy and reducing pensions and medical benefits, and canceling contracts with hundreds of car dealerships, putting thousands out of work and out of business. We drive by empty and closed dealerships every day. Playing games with "the Bush tax cuts" by now wanting to extend some of them for only one year. Attacking investment income as being evil. Refusing to prosecute the Wall Street mob who screwed up our banking system, coincidentally after they donated far more to Obama than McCain (by a 3-1 margin). Does that sound like any long term planning that will inspire confidence and investment in our economy leading to more jobs?
The Q
9:37 am on Thursday, July 12, 2012
uncertainty is the biggest problem today.
This government has not produced a budget in 3 years.
We have tax cuts expiring Jan 1
we have huge spending cuts set to take effect Jan 1.
Healthcare uncertainty
yet none of this you even hear about, the President never says a word. Some leader.....
on Jan 1, Capital gains alone (earners over 250k) is set to go from 15% to 43.8%. I am sure that is not going to have any effect on the stock market....lol
Its obvious Obama does not understand business and planning, if companies are going to hire or make large capital investments they want to know what the tax rates and costs are going to be in the next fives years, not well maybe this and maybe that.
RB
9:54 am on Thursday, July 12, 2012
Yes, I would answer both if those are our only two choices. This poll is beyond non-scientific, it would not make it past a 3rd grade textbook editor. Patch: your answers assume apple and oranges as different answers.... They are not. It's like asking which is better for the drought, rain or showers?
McCloud
10:00 am on Thursday, July 12, 2012
Both choices have already been done. The results are clear, record high unemployment, record debt, credit downgrade, record foreclosures. Questions anyone?
The Q
10:03 am on Thursday, July 12, 2012
but but.......higher taxes means the government can spend more money, and that will stimulate the economy right?
Who cares if they waste it.
A. M. Kelly
12:11 pm on Thursday, July 12, 2012
The Q...
But but...You're wrong!
Although it's true that the only reason Obama's stimulus did not work as WELL as it might have because he took conservative "advice" and didn't make it large enough, the fact is no one is interested in the government "spending more money". They're interested in not CUTTING any MORE so we might continue having a DECENT society that keeps it's promises to vulnerable seniors, does NOT allow the families of the unemployed to lose their homes and have to BEG in the streets. We'd also prefer, in the spirit of a First, rather than a Third World country , to keep our SCHOOLS open, as well as our Fire and Police departments -- In other words, the tax giveaways for the rich need to expire and we need to go back to the Clinton era, a time when our society was working so well that we had a SURPLUS, which, of course, went down the hole under Dubya...Talk about "waste"!. In other words, forget trying to "balance the budget" on the backs of the poor and the middle class -- Tell the Rich their twelve year Party is over, and It's time they started paying their FAIR SHARE to their country again.
P.S. My spouse and I don't NEED "government money"..Our household income is well into six figures and NO, We don't mind paying a little more in taxes,(though we do already pay almost 3 times the rate of people like Mitt Romney ) so we can bring this country BACK to the decent one we grew up in, and not the greedy, mean-spirited, oligarchy it's fast becoming.
The Q
12:27 pm on Thursday, July 12, 2012
so let me get this straight it did not work because we did not make it large enough? whats the difference between that and SPENDING. I know its not a Tax its a penalty,.....LOL.
49% of Americans pay no fed income tax. So what you want is Socialism, cant afford my house govt pays, cant afford my bills govt pays, cant afford health care govt pays. Well sorry, that is not realistic or an attainable goal. Maybe the real difference here is that I live in the real world not fantasy land.
Its Obama that's dividing us, its Obama and the Democrats policies and budget you live with today....point the finger at them not MItt, he has never worked a day in the federal government.
What incentive is there to work and pay taxes?
McCloud
1:32 pm on Thursday, July 12, 2012
Stimulus not large enough? I guess we should have laundered more money into green companies who have all gone bankrupt. That way, we could have kept their doors open for maybe another 6 months, we could have wasted even more billions. What is a tax giveaway? Is that when 70% of all revenues are provided by the top tiers they throw the money off a building? Schools and fire departments, yeah they need more of the taxpayer money, since they did such a responsible thing by spending states like Illinois into bankrupcy. Sheez, some people really need a clue.
A. M. Kelly
3:01 pm on Thursday, July 12, 2012
The Q. No, but my spouse does, and guess what?..We're glad to FINALLY be able to compete with OTHER small businesses by being to offer our employees health insurance benefits!...If you're currently "buying"the bit about ObamaCare taxing small businesses and making it MORE instead of less difficult for them to run, I've got a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you...The President's health plan will ONLY tax 3 percent -- You got it -- THREE PERCENT of small businesses....You people REALLY need another news source besides Fox!
Gary
3:39 pm on Thursday, July 12, 2012
Another source other than Fox? Sure. How about President Obama himself?
http://www.economy.com/mark-zandi/documents/The_Job_Impact_of_the_American_Recovery_and_Reinvestment_Plan.pdf
"Nevertheless, this report suggests a methodology for ensuring that
the package contains enough stimulus that we can have confidence that it will create sufficient jobs to meet the President-Elect’s goals."
In that report they stated that if they got $750 billion in stimulus, that's 3/4ths of a trillion dollars, that unemployment would not go over 8%.
They got what they asked for, the Republicans couldn't stop any of it, and unemployment went over 10% and remains over 8%. All the other predictions like expansion in the construction sector were way off. The Obama administration got it all wrong and can not be trusted with our money.
Do you have better sources?
A. M. Kelly
4:08 pm on Thursday, July 12, 2012
McCloud: No, and that's not MY opinion, it's the opinion of several economists, some of them Pulitzer Prize winning, so I don't imagine you'll want to take them on.
Beyond that, well, of course!..We don't need no stinkin' schools, fire departments or police departments!....Are you SERIOUS?....And if they're not "taxpayer paid", who do you think will pay for them?..You want a military?.. How do we pay for that?...By the way, who do you think fights our wars?...The Rich?..Beyond McCain, who wasn't rich before he left the service, I honestly can't think of one, not in the last fifty years..GW used his connections to get out of 'Nam, and neither Mitt Romney or even ONE of his five sons even got near the military......Do you seriously think we can sustain anything like a safe, livable society WITHOUT schools, fire, police departments, roads, a military, or our court system?...Do you REALLY want to deprive wounded veterans of health care?...Seventy percent?....Um, yeah, well they MAKE about six hundred times MORE than the average person (yes, the income gap has widened deeply, and we now have the smallest middle class in the western world)...I might also note that the tax rate on corporations and the Rich is at it's LOWEST rate in 50 years, although you'd never guess it by their constant bitching)
Asking to live for "free" or "near free" in a country that has benefited you more than almost anyone, is like asking to live in a palace for a dime....Seriously -- It's ridiculous.
The Q
5:12 pm on Thursday, July 12, 2012
You realize Schools, Fire and police funding......come from your real estate taxes. Not from ST or Federal income tax. Go get your real estate tax bill, if you own a house and report back.
I know details, details....
The Q
5:35 pm on Friday, July 13, 2012
“Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery”. Winston Churchill.
Kathy Oetker
3:56 pm on Thursday, July 12, 2012
If I am correct, there are 3 branches of government. In fact, the legislative branch is responsible to pass a budget. That is primarily one of their jobs. So, let us not constantly blame the President. It makes for good rhetoric, but doesn't add very much to the discussion.
I get very tired of people critizing without listing other plans, Rhetoric! Rhetoric! Rhetoric.
Gary
4:59 pm on Thursday, July 12, 2012
OK. Let's return to a Constitutionally limited federal government. Let's obey the law.
That's my plan. What's yours?
McCloud
4:22 pm on Thursday, July 12, 2012
I could not make it through your rant. Sounds like you lost another argument, it must be difficult to be a liberal. Pulitzer prize economists, wow, they must be good. The first thing I learned as an Econ major, 10 different economists in a room, 10 different opinions. Really, maybe it would be better to take a break from the patch.
McCloudsStepBrother
5:23 pm on Thursday, July 12, 2012
Kathy, the President submits his budget and the current one has done so numerous times. Each one has been bloated with huge spending, that even his own party voted was against, the vote was 97-0.
A. M. Kelly
10:01 pm on Thursday, July 12, 2012
Federal government spending has not increased significantly under the current administration. The upward trend under the Bushies has leveled out under Obama. This nonsense about bloated budgets has to be put to rest.
Kathy Oetker
10:14 pm on Thursday, July 12, 2012
I realize that. However, I will state AGAIN! The Congress passes budgets and are the ones primarily responsible. I don't need a civic lesson. Not everything in the US is the President fault.
Gary
9:45 am on Friday, July 13, 2012
The largest deficit under Bush II was:
2004 $483 billion.
The deficits under Obama have been:
2009 $1460 billion
2010 $1310 billion
2011 $1300 billion
President Obama and the Democrats are the biggest spenders in history.
RB
6:15 pm on Friday, July 13, 2012
Your facts are wrong. Fiscal year 07/08 debt was of 1 trillion that was the highest for Bush. The Government runs on fiscal year so when ou state 2004 as a year of debt that's the first sign of untruthyness. You may be interested in some facts. The recession (Bush) and his tax cuts and medicare drug plan are major drivers for where we stand today. Your brought it up, Bush is a major cause of the problems President Obama and the Senate are working to fix. The house.....they are do nothing's but show vote.
The Pew Center reported in April 2011 the cause of a $12.7 trillion shift in the debt situation, from a 2001 CBO forecast of a cumulative $2.3 trillion surplus by 2011 versus the estimated $10.4 trillion public debt we actually face in 2011. The major drivers were:
Revenue declines due to the recession, separate from the Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003: 28%
Defense spending increases: 15%
Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003: 13%
Increases in net interest: 11%
Other non-defense spending: 10%
Other tax cuts: 8%
Obama Stimulus: 6%
Medicare Part D: 2%
Other reasons: 7%[38]
A. M. Kelly
10:07 pm on Thursday, July 12, 2012
Gary: There IS no "constitutional limited mandated government". The founding fathers designed a government with specific autorities but set NO limit on its size. If you think otherwise, provide a citation from the Constitution. It's broken down into numbered sections, sub-sections and paragrapshs, so it's quite easy reference.
Kathy Oetker
10:17 pm on Thursday, July 12, 2012
Gary: I too would like to know exactly where "Constitutionally limited federal government" can be found.
Gary
9:22 am on Friday, July 13, 2012
Article 1, Section 8 describes all the duties assigned to the Federal Government.
The Tenth Amendment explicitly states that anything NOT assigned to the Federal Government falls to the States or to the people. The Constitution is a document that describes the limits on Federal power. That's one of it's primary roles.
Health care is not mentioned in Article 1, Section 8, therefore it falls through the Tenth Amendment to the States or to the people. That's why RomneyCare in Mass is legal, but ObamaCare is not.
Me
7:30 am on Friday, July 13, 2012
This whole uncertainty thing is a decoy. Uncertainty is just a code word for "why should I do something now, I will just wait and see of the Government gives me a gift". It is the same ploy that car manufacturers tried (and failed) with by using rebates. Now, the car buying public doesn't buy without a rebate. We are doing the same thing with taxes. Our government needs to just say, here are the rules, live with them.
Gary
9:35 am on Friday, July 13, 2012
Businesses need a stable environment to make long term plans.
Social stability
Monetary stability
Legal stability
That used to be the strength of the US. We had rules, the Constitution, which protected individuals and businesses from arbitrary decrees from government that might destroy 10 years of work with the stroke of a pen.
We no longer have any legal stability. The Constitution offers no protection from government abuse. The Kelo case means no one is protected from government theft. The Bush/Obama bail outs mean there are no consequences for bad decisions... as long as you are too big too fail. Obama stealing ownership from bond holders and giving it to the unions in the auto bail outs further undermined the rule of law. Of course Obama has also made it clear he sees corporate America as an enemy, even while he plays venture capitalist with our children's money.
We have no legal stability anymore. We have no monetary stability with government spending nearly twice as much as they take in. Social stability is being undermined by race warfare, and class warfare. Congress, the President, and the Supreme Court do not follow any rules other than their own desires. To live with arbitrary interpretation of the law is to live in fear.
And fear will keep the risk takers on the sidelines.
A. M. Kelly
3:45 pm on Friday, July 13, 2012
Sorry, Gary..If it looks like Obama spent more than Bush, it's only because Dubya never put the costs for two wars on "on the books", so to speak. In addition to that sleight of hand, of course, he actually borrowed money from China to give his One Percent buddies a tax cut.
Dubya, whom historians now rate as the WORST president in America's history, spent trillions, to the benefit of virtually NO one, then essentially crashed the economy...Great going, there guys!
Winnetka
4:14 pm on Friday, July 13, 2012
Ok...President G W Bush has been out of office nearly 4 years. At what point are you going to accept that President Obama is our president and ultimately responsible for the state of our union? It's gone from laughable to embarrassing how many people are still blaming the former administration.
Gary
4:50 pm on Friday, July 13, 2012
It took Reagan only 18 months to turn the economy around after Carter.
We are now 42 months into Obama's Presidency and things are bad, and people are scared of a double dip recession.
What did Reagan do right, and what is Obama doing wrong?
Sandra Sims
5:05 pm on Friday, July 13, 2012
Reagan didn't have to deal with a collapsed housing market and frozen credit. He also didn't have to deal with an economic collapse in Europe. Any other stupid questions?
A. M. Kelly
5:10 pm on Friday, July 13, 2012
"Ok...President G W Bush has been out of office nearly 4 years. It's gone from laughable to embarrassing how many people are still blaming the former administration"
Really?....Funny, we thought the same thing when your side kept blaming Bill Clinton for every idiotic thing Dubya did in his first term in office..
McCloud
8:23 pm on Friday, July 13, 2012
Reagan had 26% interest rates for homes, 15% unemployment, the Soviet Union, and high inflation. The history books show the largest economic gain in history, GDP, lower inflation, and full employment at 5%. Plus he took down the iron curtain. I lived through it, I know.
Sandra Sims
8:58 pm on Friday, July 13, 2012
Reagan raised taxes 11 times. And he happened to be president when Gorbachev started the process of glasnost. Reagan did nothing to "take down the iron curtain". He was already dozing off and doddering when that occured.
dold's supporter
12:23 pm on Friday, July 27, 2012
And Congressman Dold was working alongside Republicans since that time as well. We could not thank Mr. Reagan but we can, and should, thank Congressman Robert J. Dold with all our hearts. Stupid voters don't know anything.
McCloud
8:25 pm on Friday, July 13, 2012
Questions anyone?
Abigail
9:37 pm on Friday, July 13, 2012
Sandra, we all know by now you feel the only accomplishments that matter have been made by Democrats and you feel Reagan did nothing. You're a Democrat--we get it. You can't see beyond the end of your own nose and call everyone who doesn't agree with you a racist.
You will say anything you can to diminish Reagan's numerous accomplishments, but that doesn't eliminate the fact that Obami has been the worst president in the last 50 years. Jimmy Carter used to hold that title, but now it's Obama.
Welcome to reality, sister.
Sandra Sims
6:24 am on Saturday, July 14, 2012
First of all, I am definitely not your sister. Secondly, when Republicans start living in reality, things might actually start to change for the better in this country. And I don't call anyone who disagrees with me racist, I call racists racist. You are the queen of labelling and generalities. And yes, I think Reagan was a truly horrible President, and not just because he was in the throes of Alzheimers for his second term. The income inequality and outsourcing, the rise of the corporations and the loss of power of the workers can all be directly traced to him. He was an admitted practitioner of the Southern Strategy. Go look that up, as I know you have no clue what it is. You are welcome to your opinion of Obama. I just consider the source. You have yet to post anything remotely insightful, or anything backed up by facts. You know what they say about opinions. Well, you probably don't know. Look that up too.
Abigail
8:55 am on Saturday, July 14, 2012
Obviously I disagree with you about President Reagan and Obama. Obama will prove to be one of the worst--if not the worst president in our lifetime.
Your statement about 'income inequality' amuses me. Do you really think someone who barely has a high school education should be given enough money so they can financially equal someone who has a bachelors' or masters degree? I think not. The lazy of this country should not be supported by our government--they need to work for everything just like the rest of us. Those people on welfare should have to work for the money they receive--it should not be a free ride because they feel they are owed something. Obama's attitude is that we should provide for all the deadbeats. Not gonna happen. Vote Romney and put an end to this nonsense.
Sandra Sims
9:20 am on Saturday, July 14, 2012
Oh, for god's sake. This is my last response to you. I can't waste my life trying to educate someone who is uneducable. Income inequality is NOT about someone with no education being "given" money to be equal to someone who has a degree. It's not about welfare deadbeats either. It's about the change over the last 40 years of CEO to avg worker pay. CEO pay has risen 127 times the average workers pay over the last 30 years. That includes educated workers, not just people who gut chickens for Tyson. The ratio of CEO to worker pay in the US is 475:1. In Canada, for comparison, it's 20:1. In Mexico, hardly a bastion of equality, it;s 47:1. We are completely out of skew with the entire rest of the world. Turn off Fox Spews and read a book once in a while. I'm done. I'm sure you won't understand anything I just explained, but I figure I tried.
Abigail
10:09 am on Saturday, July 14, 2012
Sandra, why is it wrong for a CEO to be paid a high salary? Answer: It isn't wrong. They are in charge of a major corporation trying to keep it profitable and keep their employees employed. They are successful. They deserve high pay for what they do.
I don't care what people make in Canada or Mexico. Canada and Mexico are not the U.S. Our government cannot and should not be in the business of telling ANY corporation what they can and cannot pay their CEOs. Geez, that smacks a bit of socialism to do so, don't you think? Oh, wait, you don't think.
I not only watch Fox, but I watch CNN, MSNBC, CNBC, and network news, etc. Maybe you need to get off your liberal high-horse and face reality.
By the way, where did you get your ratio figures? Don't spout figures unless you are able to name your source. And don't tell me to google it--you're the one making the statement--show PROOF!
RB
10:29 am on Saturday, July 14, 2012
Why won't Willard release his Tax returns for years prior to 2010? It is an accepted/expected practice to do so. I'm betting he did not pay much if anythng in taxes as he parked his investments in Switzerland, Bermuda, Cayman Islands....That will really bother most people. Maybe not many Republicans, they love paying no taxes, while working stiffs pay the taxes but, As one key strategist says...."There is no whining in politics," chided John Weaver, a veteran Republican strategist. "Stop demanding an apology, release your tax returns."
Abigail
11:36 am on Saturday, July 14, 2012
Why won't Obama release his school transcripts? Why won't Debbie Wasserman Schultz release HER tax returns--since she's the one demanding Romney release his?
McCloud
10:38 am on Saturday, July 14, 2012
Hey, here's a concept, if it's your money you should be able to spend or invest in anywhere you wish. Your concept is if it's not your money, spend it as irresponible as you wish, start with 25 green companies who all have filed for bankrupcy. That way you can get campaign funding on the back end.
McCloud
10:42 am on Saturday, July 14, 2012
The funny thing is that Sandra thinks of herself as "educated". She has a degree that proves it.
Abigail
11:34 am on Saturday, July 14, 2012
McCloud, as you and I well know--just because someone has a degree, it doesn't necessarily mean they have any common sense.
dold's supporter
12:20 pm on Friday, July 27, 2012
You are so right, degrees are fake. Congressman Dold should close down the Education Dept. because people need to work hard for local, small-businesses not to waste time in schools.
Me
3:32 pm on Saturday, July 14, 2012
I am pleased to see that the extreme left and the extreme right are occupying their time bickering and then agreeing with one another. Now if you would kindly step aside and continue this exercise elsewhere it will allow the vast majority in the middle who partially agree with both sides but entirely agree with neither side to get on with the business of fixing the problems that both political parties have created.
dold's supporter
12:29 pm on Friday, July 27, 2012
To some of you who think Dold should pay his employees at Rose Pest Solution any overtime: Congressman Robert Dold does not steal any money from his employees. Those money belong to the Company and thus, to the owner. Besides, the overtime laws favor the lazy employees and I hope Congressman Dold will change them because paying an employee overtime might hurt the business up to the point of closing down. The country was built working more than 40 hours per week with no overtime so why today's lazy bumbs want it? It's amazing how evil Democrats are and how hard are trying to bankrupt small businesses who provide a job to people who don't deserve jobs anyway because many time, they steal from their employers.
A. M. Kelly
1:12 pm on Friday, July 27, 2012
Dear "dold's supporter". I find it funny that you think that "degrees are fake" and that we should forget going to college so that we would only be "educated" only to the point where we could work in a small local business. What makes your remarks particularly funny is your OBVIOUS need for education in the English Language!.
For one thing, it's not "those money" belong to the company"-- It's "that" money belongs to the company". For another, I have to cite your rather hillarious misspelling of "bums" as in "today's lazy bums", because what you wrote is "lazy bombs"...Now, I've heard of "smart bombs" and even "dirty bombs", but I must say, I've never heard of "lazy bombs"!.
Beyond your remedial English needs, I'd suggest you also take a class in American History. No, Mr. Supporter, this country was NOT "built by people working more than forty hours a week with no overtime", It was, most of the 20th Century built by working CITIZENS, not serfs, and they were paid fairly and with overtime when working past forty hours. If you want to give up all the hard won rights won by workers in the earlier part of the last century, I'd consider emmigrating to another country, as it sounds like you'd be happier being a peasant in the Third World, rather than a citizen in the First.