JOBS

Richard Eskow discusses the JOBS act that passed through the House this month with what he describes as an ‘overwhelming majority’. I was drawn to this editorial, because of his hilarious recreation of the acronym for JOBS- which is said to stand for "Jump Starting Business Startups” but suggests that it could really mean “Jivers' Opportunity to Bilk Suckers.” 

In his commentary he very openly criticizes the motives of this bill and suggests that, essentially, it is a mock up to once again trick the American people into supporting such a bill, but also at the same time hiding some key features that once again helps the ‘big men.’ From what I have read, he clearly is incredibly left-wing (so is the website)…so going into the article I know that he has written it for an audience with the intention to make this bill and it’s supporters the ‘bad guys’ if you will. However, I was surprised as I continued to read, that he never really bashes Republicans out right, and even suggests that this bill was simply pushed by money to whoever would back the legislation…even including Democrats. 

I found his explanation all very interesting, as he explains the key functions of the bill. “Crowdfunding” is the idea behind private-citizen investors to put money into ‘start-up’ companies, in hopes to generate small business growth and development. However, Richard here makes a valid point that this type of investment is very easy to corrupt and could be seen as a ploy to ‘sucker’ people out of their hard earned money. Under this new bill banks and bank holding companies could play in the investment market again. It would also give millions in tax breaks to the ‘small businesses.’ However, by definition of ‘small businesses’ it actually leaves big buck companies in that loop ( also including plastic surgeons, attorneys, and financial advisors…which I agree when Eskow says that these would not create new jobs). In addition these ‘emerging growth companies’ would have less strict regulations and would have an income limit per year of 1 billion dollars, but as the author once again points out ….companies can split in two to avoid reaching that limit in order to continue to take advantage of this suggested JOBS system. 

Richard Eskow writes for multiple blogs and is an active member in the Campaign for America’s Future. I think is rather credible and offers some good key points to the table when observing the political activities. I agree with him that this bill is just another smoke screen with hidden agendas to help the big companies out, all while trying to trick us into thinking differently. 

Super Tuesday

                It seems that Super Tuesday has left a strange feeling in the stomachs of many. As the author of this editorial so blatantly suggests, they are not happy with “relentlessly nasty, divisive, and vapid extreme right-wing” the recent Republican campaigns have become. While equally discussing Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum, the author is not at all afraid to show his distaste for many of the recent comments made. I find myself agreeing with his statements that while this country is going through serious economic crisis and security risks; the Republican candidates seem to be stuck on cultural and religious topics, instead of the real issues at hand. It is obvious that the other is very biased towards the candidates as he sums up Mitt Romney as a man “who stands for nothing except country-club capitalism” and Rick Santorum “so blinkered by his ideology that it’s hard to imagine him considering any alternative ideas or listening to any dissenting voice.” Which I do find quite funny and a fair assessment of the two candidates, however I realize that may not be very objective of me. Going on to discuss the topics that are important to the candidates, it sounds quite like the same old spiel we’ve heard before. Santorum is very much against the gay and lesbian communities, and also believes he should be able to run the country and openly let his religion influence his decisions. Romney follows close with attacks on abortion and oral contraceptives. Both, according to the author, have offered little in terms of financial plans. The author then discusses the candidates, in his opinion, blatant attacks on President Obama for problems that he feels are out of the hands and much bigger than just a president. Here the author is biased, because I believe he does appear to support Obama, or at least tolerate him more in a likeable manner, than the Republicans. He discusses the successful order to raid and kill of Osama Bin Laden and ‘pummeled’ Taliban and Al Qaeda leaders. The author then makes one of the most blatant bias comments, that Obama accomplished all of those things “without the Republicans’ noxious dead-or-alive swagger.” He does however end the editorial with the notion that while Obama has gained popularity again in the past few months, and discusses the popularity of these candidates, he does suggest that if our current President is working on some changes, he still has a long way to go.

                All in all, I completely agreed with this editorial. While it was biased, I feel the author was passionately against these candidates for the same reasons I am. (Seriously Santorum, aspirin?) I don’t understand how the American people can honestly consider some of these guys worthy for the presidency. That said, I am not necessarily a fan of Obama’s, however I was sincerely hoping for a candidate in the Republican seat that at least brought something new to the table, or would be interesting to stir in debates. I don’t want to hear about presidents making promises to pass social bills that will never make it through Congress, I want real plans and truths.