Posted on 08/16/2011 6:17:58 AM PDT by sickoflibs
REP. JERROLD NADLER (D), NEW YORK: First of all, you have to fight them, second of all, you have to educate the American people. And you have to define that there are two separate problems we are dealing with. And we`re putting the less immediate problems front and center with not dealing with the real immediate problem.
SHARPTON: What is the less immediate problem?
NADLER: The less immediate problem is the deficit. We can deal with that a couple years from now. Right now, we must do exactly what Secretary Reich are saying, we`ve got to deal with the jobs problem. If we can get the unemployment rate down to five percent which it where it was a few years ago, that would take care of a third to half of the deficit by itself. And the only way to do that is to put more money in circulation. For the federal government, frankly spend more money. Run temporarily a larger deficit in order to put people to work, put them to work building roads, hospitals, bridges, fiber optic.
SHARPTON: Well, how do we do that if you.
NADLER: But not only that, but not only that, also giving money to the states and saying, don`t lay-off people. Do not contract with the private guy to fix the potholes et cetera. Because the states have to balance their budget. The federal governments doesn`t have to balance the budget every year. How do you do that? We need presidential leadership. The president has been defining the wrong problem. He is been going along saying that the major problem is the deficit. Now he is trying to talk about jobs. But the jobs take precedence over the deficit. And what we.
SHARPTON: The president is talking jobs, he`s going on a job bus tour start Monday. That`s going to change the votes in Congress?
NADLER: It might if he makes the demands big enough. If he puts out and says, let`s do $500 billion infrastructure bill over the next six years and let`s pass it now. If he went into people`s districts and said, there`s that crumbling road, we got to fix it. There`s that crumbling school, we need to fix it and put people to work in your district, Congressman, doing that. Instead of talking, if the deficit were the biggest problem, we`ve got to deal with the deficit but first you have to deal with the jobs, and you can`t deal with the deficits.
(Clip )
SHARPTON: Now, where is the democratic caucus playing on — the plan that Secretary Reich wants the president to do is democratic caucus.
NADLER: Democratic caucus is a whole that`s come up with a number of plans.
SHARPTON: Well, give me the plan.
NADLER: Well, the democratic progressive caucus came up with a plan for, which would balance the budget faster than any other plan. But we have major infrastructure bills, aid the states, we`ll have revenues by raising tax rates and millionaires and billionaires.
SHARPTON: But isn`t that grand bargain plan, isn`t that the plan that president laid out and said that Boehner walked out on?
NADLER: No. Because we wouldn`t cut entitlements. We`re not going to say to some senior citizen living on $14,000 in Social Security, we will going to cut your benefits, we`re going to cut the rate of increase.
SHARPTON: Nancy Pelosi wasn`t in those meetings when all of this was on will table?
NADLER: I don`t know that Nancy ever agreed to that. I don`t think she was. She was called in later because initially they were ignoring her.
SHARPTON: Well, no but when Boehner walked out of the meeting Nancy Pelosi was never at the table. What I`m saying is, the plan that I`m hearing you say, was that being touted by Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid?
NADLER: I don`t know. I can`t answer that question
Entire transcript at: MSNBC LIVE for August 12, 2011 (LexisNexis Transcript)
If Obama really agreed to cut entitlements he'd get a primary challenge. But just yesterday on his bus tour he repeated this lie and Republicans once again let him get away with it.
You have to go into deeper debt to get out of debt?
Jabba is absolutely insane.
I saw this gem on TV last week and luckily a transcript was posted.
fixing a screwl means paying the unions more.
Yep, Obama has a real problem. Unlike Clinton, he doesn’t have a Republican controlled House and Senate to allow him to move to the center.
Stealing from one to give to another is TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION!!! It is not Constitutional!
This talking point needs to be taken away, Bambi is already using it on his Magical Misery Tour.
As someone posted at the Wall Street Journal, why doesn’t the government just give everyone a job at a salary of $1 million a year? Problem solved.
Clearly Nadler hasn’t cut his appetite for, um, spending...
Nadler: poster boy for the terminal mental disease that is liberalism.
Hey Jerry: we tried your idea in 2008-09. Didn’t work. What’s different this time?
In keeping with their socialist beliefs and adherence to Keynesian economics, leading Democrats including the President have decided to focus not on debt, but on jobs. Their basic principle is that the government, not the private sector, must create employment opportunities (and training for those jobs) through more spending (universally referred to, of course, as "investment").
In turn, those working at these new (preferably "green") jobs will generate additional revenue through their tax payments and stimulate their local economies through spending and investment. In order to accomplish such growth, the central planners in Washington will need to raise taxes on "the wealthy", who will of course hand over the additional money without altering their behavior in the slightest, while Washington also foments additional monetary stimulus, primarily by a renewed program of debt monetization (i.e. - QE2.1, or QE3).
By focusing on job creation rather than debt, Democrats hope to gain a political advantage over Republicans, whom they will portray (as ever) as greedy protectors of Plutocratic wealth. And the debt itself will naturally vanish as millions of Americans are put back to work by the government, building roads and bridges and producing windmills and hybrid car batteries, all of course at unionized jobs at good wages.
Now, if you object that all of the foregoing is an impossible fantasy because central planning does not and cannot work, as it can never allocate capital as efficiently as markets and in fact relies on the destruction of private wealth through excessive taxation and regulation, and that every past attempt to control an economy in such manner results in poverty, scarcity of goods, and tyrannical social controls, they'll probably just call you a "racist Tea Partier" and obviously too stupid to appreciate the depth of their brilliance and the purity of their intentions.
And you will also know how this story ends.
What do you expect. It’s a socialist and a communist, conversing.
Wilkomen in Weimar America!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.