Republican nominations - Page 74

On September 09 2011 08:23 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Obama is on fire with this speech IMO. It will be interesting to see the nominees responses.

On September 10 2011 01:35 xDaunt wrote:


They'll probably say something like this:

1) We can't afford the spending;

On September 10 2011 01:35 xDaunt wrote:
3) Obama's proposal ignores the real government-induced impediments to job growth right now, which are regulatory burdens and uncertainty.

....

On the website, and an accompanying video, Romney charges that during Obama’s three years in office, he has failed to turn around an ailing economy.

“Mr. President, you are 960 days too late,” the video says.

Former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum echoed Romney’s charge that Obama’s speech, which called on Congress to end the “political circus,” was just more of the same empty rhetoric.

“Sadly, the president seems to have forgotten his own charge that our country should come before party or his own even reelection,” Santorum said. ” Instead, President Obama kicked off his campaign for reelection in the most disingenuous way possible - by using the Congress as a his political toy.”

Texas Gov. Rick Perry was out with his own response, lambasting Obama for “his mistaken belief that we can spend our way to prosperity.”

“Like the president’s earlier $800 billion stimulus program, this proposal offers little hope for millions of Americans who have lost jobs on his watch, and taxpayers who are rightly concerned that their children will inherit a mountain of debt,” Perry said in a statement.

On Twitter, Jon Huntsman used Obama’s speech to plug his own recently released jobs plan.

“Barack Obama’s tired rhetoric & failed policies haven’t worked. My plan will actually create jobs. Join us,” he tweeted, linking to his proposal.

Newt Gingrich had more of a procedural issue with Obama’s speech, in which the president repeatedly called on Congress to approve his American Jobs Act.

“I checked with Speaker Boehner’s office. There is no bill,” Gingrich said on a conference call with supporters on Thursday evening.

Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann slammed Obama for delivering “another political speech.”

“Every time the president speaks, his policies have cost the American people jobs and future prosperity,” she said.

And former Godfather’s Pizza CEO Herman Cain issued a six-word response to Obama’s speech: “We waited 30 months for this?”

On September 10 2011 03:03 xDaunt wrote:
I just took a quick glance at Romney's jobs plan. It's huge, and I haven't had a chance to digest it yet. However, its scope is very impressive and it makes Obama's job plan seem very pedestrian by comparison.

Here it is for anyone who is interested:

http://mittromney.com/blogs/mitts-view/2011/09/believe-america-mitt-romneys-plan-jobs-and-economic-growth

As far as I know, no other candidate has offered a plan with similar detail and/or scope.

On September 10 2011 03:03 xDaunt wrote:
I just took a quick glance at Romney's jobs plan. It's huge, and I haven't had a chance to digest it yet. However, its scope is very impressive and it makes Obama's job plan seem very pedestrian by comparison.

On September 10 2011 03:03 xDaunt wrote:
I just took a quick glance at Romney's jobs plan. It's huge, and I haven't had a chance to digest it yet. However, its scope is very impressive and it makes Obama's job plan seem very pedestrian by comparison.

Here it is for anyone who is interested:

http://mittromney.com/blogs/mitts-view/2011/09/believe-america-mitt-romneys-plan-jobs-and-economic-growth

As far as I know, no other candidate has offered a plan with similar detail and/or scope.

On September 08 2011 15:05 Letho wrote:


I see this all the time; you are attempting to argue that welfare is godlike. The simple answer is that no, it's not, at least not in its current form. You have 1% of the population paying 40% of the taxes, which enables 50% of the population to pay no tax / receive welfare from the government. Of course, even this 40% is not enough, so the entire country is going broke. I cannot recall anything in Christianity that calls on people to go into personal debt to others in the interest of providing welfare. Not to mention the fact that the actual recipients of welfare are by-and-large leading middle-class lives with the proceeds (albeit the lack of the whole 9-5 thing).

There is a very sound reason for the separation of church and state in a republic. The church has always overseen welfare through voluntary efforts of its congregation; having a government step in and take over this process is both unprecedented and undesirable (as we have seen in recent years).



Well, I'm gobsmacked...

On September 11 2011 01:37 DetriusXii wrote:


@Letho: You are wrong. You shouldn't try to even suggest that the churches are responsible for welfare, because they can never keep up. They don't have the coffers to pay for health care. They don't have the coffers to even run soup kitchens all that well in recessionary times. Church welfare isn't anticyclical to the economy and church coffers deplete with the economy. Churches couldn't keep up during the Great Depression and the only actor that could was the state. http://www.amazon.com/Great-Depression-1929-1939-Pierre-Berton/dp/0385658435/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1315672484&sr=8-1 is a link to one of several books documenting the Great Depression.

WASHINGTON -- In Texas, firefighters aren't just battling the wild fires raging around Austin and Houston. The state's first responders have also had to deal with budget cuts affecting everything from fuel purchases to hoses and air tanks.

In some cases, fire officials say, firefighters have had to pay out of pocket for basic necessities like proper protective gear and fuel to get them to the scene. One fire department that battled the blazes in Bastrop County had to pay for a hose, recalled Bastrop City Fire Chief Henry Perry, speaking to The Huffington Post during a break from working the wild fires.

"That fire department has been on this fire every day," he said. "Before this fire, they were having to buy stuff out of their own pocket." Perry said he knows of at least one other department whose firemen had to pay for equipment maintenance and engine fuel.

Earlier this week, HuffPost reported that Gov. Rick Perry, the GOP front-runner for president, had signed off on millions in firefighting cuts as part of the state's most recent budget legislation. The Texas Forest Service's funding has gone from $117.7 million in the 2010-2011 budget years to $83 million in the 2012-2013 budget years.

Severe cuts have also hit assistance grants to volunteer fire departments throughout Texas. The grants decreased from $30 million per year in 2010 and 2011 to $13.5 million per year in 2012 and 2013. These are cuts that firemen are now dealing with.

"I don't agree with it. I understand what Governor Perry did," said Henry Perry (no relation). "Do I like it? No. I don't like it at all."

On September 12 2011 09:10 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
I expect the nominees maybe even the media to start picking this story up:



Source

On September 11 2011 06:52 aksfjh wrote:


That's probably because tithe (which is traditionally 10%) isn't enough when you bundle it with furthering the gospel. I love how people point to churches as a source of charity when everything they do is done with a catch. A church soup kitchen could probably feed 50% more people if they didn't give away free bibles.

On September 12 2011 09:10 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
I expect the nominees maybe even the media to start picking this story up:



Source

On September 12 2011 14:53 jdseemoreglass wrote:
First rule of economics: There is no such thing as a free lunch. That means you can't create something out of thin air, like "jobs."

The government doesn't create jobs, it merely shuffles them around. It can take money (jobs) from the private sector, and spend the money to create jobs somewhere else. It can take money (jobs) from the future to create jobs in the present, in the form of debt.

This is where the keynesian voodoo kicks in, and people start claiming that these jobs that were simply transferred from one place to another are going to lead to more jobs that weren't transferred from somewhere else. By money being circulated they think that more money is somehow created out of thin air. No, what happens is people simply become comfortable enough to start taking on more debt, paving the way for the next bubble. We worship the bubble, we consider it the standard.

What they don't realize is that in the process of government transferring money and jobs around, there are countless inefficiencies that are created, such as employing people whose sole purpose is to shuffle things around, and people who are employed to do paperwork. In other words, the process of transferring jobs itself costs jobs that would have produced actual goods that would have raised the standard of living. Let's not forget that the jobs the government actually creates through it's transfers are severely less efficient than those in the private sector. From no bid contracts, to waste, to corruption, to exorbitant public employee pay and benefits and pensions. I've seen it all first hand, because I've worked in the public sector. The jobs that are created produce significantly less than the jobs that could have remained in the private sector.

And let's not forget at the end of all of this, that it is undeniably immoral to take money and jobs from generations that have no say in the matter. It's nothing more than stealing from our children. We justify it by saying "we can afford it." We should be saying, "they can afford it." And yet, we can't even afford it now.

Please don't lecture me on the keynesian voodoo, I've heard it all before. The only way TRUE growth can occur, meaning not artificial growth that will be erased in the next recession (market correction), is to all allow the correction to complete without adding additional government inefficiency which merely serves to placate the masses who are ignorant of economics that the government is "doing something to create jobs."

On September 12 2011 15:01 KwarK wrote:

In line with your request that I avoid a counterargument I will simply state that I disagree. However it may be more conducive to debate if you don't follow your string of poorly articulated, barely relevant and entirely unsubstantiated claims with a plea not to have someone explain the opposing arguments. TRUE (capitals so you know it's actually true).