Posted on 12/01/2011 4:56:29 AM PST by Cincinatus' Wife
But the proof is in The Marxist Onada’s stimulus pudding. Obviously government spending does not generate jobs when the people no longer trust the goverment. Why don’t they trust the government? Let’s count the ways: Bad economy, increasing unemployment (ahem), and a general feeling that this administation does not care one whit about the security of the US or its Constitution.
Certainly government spending can produce jobs. Mostly that happens in the Defense sector. But the Marxist clown in the WH is killing the Golden Goose as we speak. On the face of it, all that stimulus money should have helped create jobs. Problems: 1. The legitimate private sector companies who received it fear a Marxist future. They have no incentive to invest that money in growth. The have every incentive to invest that money to protect themselves. 2. Much of the stimulus money went to unsustainable “green” businesses. Those companies are going bankrupt.
Obviously tax cuts are not “free”. Ultimately the cost of government must be paid for. But that’s the rub, isn’t it? Nobody is talking about that in real terms. Admittedly that bear is hugh. But you must start somewhere.
I would start with reviewing every entitlement and “war on” program to see if it accomplished its stated objective. If not, delete. None of them ever had, so they would all be deleted.
Then we can make a fresh start toward creating safety nets for folks who run into some turbulance. These safety nets must be predicated on being very temporary and getting these people back to work. Halting illegal entry into this country and then formulating policies that will drive the illegals already here back to where they came from are essential. Any one who’se unemployed and refuses these jobs will be stricken from unemployment coverage. It really is as simple as that.
Of course, all this is predicated on a return to Constitutional America and Capitalism. In short, the Marxists must go.
Yes, it’s a strawman argument intended to give lip service to the conservative spending cut agenda. Two separate unconnected issues.
Sadly, the RINOs still out number genuine Tea Party conservatives in the House. Their agenda is the demrat Marxist agenda. The whole idea of the so-called Super Committee was to result in tax and government spending increases. The things that prevented it from happening is the RINOs who’re up for reelection this cycle and Tea Party conservatives. The RINOs are hearing the message from home loud and clear. If you want to retain your position at the tax payer trough you better not get caught raising taxes and spending.
I think some tax cuts are (maybe I should say “can be”) good for the economy, but it’s never as simple as that. GWB spent more than the govt. had. Result: Gotta borrow to keep it going, and the bill comes due sooner or later. Also part of the equation is that GWB was afraid he could not be reelected unless he spent a bundle. And now Obama points a finger at GWB’s spending to justify his much worse spending.
Can we say that big government spending is always bad? I think it can be appropriate, for example, the Manhattan Project. The money we spent on that could be paid back, and we could have kept a huge technological edge if we didn’t let the Soviets steal the secrets. Still, we gained useful knowledge and developed a higher capacity for reseach and engineering. Medicaid/Medicare is a different story. Unlike the Manhattan Project, they never stop; in fact they keep growing.
I don’t know if Obama can be included (he sounds like a fraud to me), but some of the left sincerely believes that, Solyndra and other graft notwithstanding, “green energy” is the new Manahattan Project, and it will be well worth the money. The private sector just can’t do it without government help, you see.
I don’t have anything against research to find better ways to produce electricity and heat, but obviously I don’t like the way Obama is “investing” in it.
I think if newt’s our nominee we will be in trouble. Gosh, which is least worse, newt or Romney?
What are we going to do?
I miss Cain already.
Perry is better than Romney, Newt will be SAVAGED by the MSM, the
Independents will flee he is going to be portrayed as the most extreme
right-winger on the planet!!!! Then all of the stuff with the wives and
Then to put the icing on the cake we will all be reminded how he shut
the government down. This election is not just about the informed it is also
about the many, many, stupid people that vote and are on the government
dole!!!!! WE ARE DOOMED, if Newt gets the nomination. I don’t care how
great he is at handling the press now, IT IS GOING TO BE UGLIER THAN
WE WILL BE ABLE TO IMAGINE!!!!!
Rush still uses the same lines he did 20 years ago, that ‘tax cuts’ always works creating jobs(??? US jobs??) and so they pay for themselves. But there is a huge monkey-wrench thrown into using that argument. That wrench is his man GWB eight years.
Not only did GWB leave the economy in a shambles, but he got Republicans to claim that the upside of the duel housing investment and government spending bubbles were the real economic growth created by his policies. Meanwhile jobs were fleeing the country while immigrants were flooding here. So then when it all fell apart they were left claiming that GWB saved the economy AND at the same time he had nothing to do with the economic conditions at the end of his administration.
(Many) Republicans still talk like it is 2000 pre-GWB. They need to talk post Bush. How will you keep and create jobs here, lure investment here in the US now?
WE ARE DOOMED, if Newt gets the nomination. I don’t care how
great he is at handling the press now, IT IS GOING TO BE UGLIER THAN
WE WILL BE ABLE TO IMAGINE!!!!!
I do remain seriously concerned. Clinton, known republican, is pushing him.
It sure looks like the dem party is not playing by the same rules as the Pubs are.
Sorry, I'm not following you - what rule are the Dems breaking?
It sure looks like the dem party is not playing by the same rules as the Pubs are.
Sorry, I’m not following you - what rule are the Dems breaking?
Secondly, I did not say that they are “breaking rules”. I said that they were playing by a different set of rules. Just today Romney is being villified by the media for having records sealed from when he was Governor of Massachussetts and I have yet to hear anyone from complain about all of Obamas sealed records. Doesn’t that strike you as a different set of rules? How about the way the media tried to protect Jon Edwards from “rumors” of an affair (while Rielle carried his baby around with her) and villifying Cain with no proof at all? Sound like the same rules? Didn’t think so.
It’s easier to destroy conservative candidates because conservatives hold higher standards than liberals. The liberals know this, so it makes it easier to destroy conservative candidates by going after their personals lives.
It doesn’t make sense to go after liberal politicians, because liberals don’t care.
Yep, that's the same scumbag who criticized Paul Ryan's plan earlier this year by describing it as "right wing social engineering". Newt is nearly as untrustworthy as Mittens.
It sure looks like the dem party is not playing by the same rules as the Pubs are.
Sorry, I'm not following you - what rule are the Dems breaking?
First of all, I am surprised that you refer to the Liberally bias New York Times to back up your conclusions. Please find a credible source.
You think it's possible they fabricated that quotation from thin air?
Secondly, I did not say that they are “breaking rules”. I said that they were playing by a different set of rules. Just today Romney is being villified by the media for having records sealed from when he was Governor of Massachussetts and I have yet to hear anyone from complain about all of Obamas sealed records. Doesn’t that strike you as a different set of rules? How about the way the media tried to protect Jon Edwards from “rumors” of an affair (while Rielle carried his baby around with her) and villifying Cain with no proof at all? Sound like the same rules? Didn’t think so.
So the different set of rules has nothing to do with "paying for" the payroll tax cut?
I'm with you there.
"Republicans are proposing a very different approach to paying for this extension." - http://www.mcconnell.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=68eeade1-3421-4858-9bae-a34f0474e478
(Which implies it needs to be paid for.)
Not only did GWB leave the economy in a shambles, but he got Republicans to claim that the upside of the duel housing investment and government spending bubbles were the real economic growth created by his policies. Meanwhile jobs were fleeing the country while immigrants were flooding here. So then when it all fell apart they were left claiming that GWB saved the economy AND at the same time he had nothing to do with the economic conditions at the end of his administration.
(Many) Republicans still talk like it is 2000 pre-GWB. They need to talk post Bush. How will you keep and create jobs here, lure investment here in the US now?
I agree. Not a single Republican in the race seems to have made the mental effort to apply enduring principles to changing circumstances.
The plethora of problems beset upon this nation for the past fifty or so years are not so easily fixed. The presidents and Congresses have sold out this Republic.
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.