Burgold Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 Been wondering this for some time, but isn't the right supposed to be all about the free market and free enterprise... why is it that every time I turn around all I hear is that Obama isn't doing enough to create jobs? Isn't that what businesses are supposed to do? Since when did the Right take such a socialistic bent that they expect all the new jobs in this country to have a government sourcing? Is it just cause the government is the easiest scapegoat? I mean, we've been told that keeping the "Bush" tax cuts and loopholes would stimulate the economy and get employers hiring. Well, where is our utopia? It's been a decade of low taxes! Mind you, while the jobs are missing businesses are booming. Record profits are not at all rare for many industries in this poor economy. So why doesn't anything trickle down. My guess is that it's the government's fault because... well, I guess we need more regulation or less regulation or less taxes... clearly, record profits should be correlated with a stagnant economy, low employment, and reduced opportunity. It's Obama's fault that corporations aren't hiring because... well, if more people were hired then more people would be taxed, that would mean higher revenues for the government and that would be like a tax hike! Hiring people equals raising our taxes people! ... but seriously, well... not too seriously... since when is the government the right's answer to all our job creation concerns? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 You already know the answer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 Get govt out of the way of job creation compliance and regulatory costs have continued to spike http://biggovernment.com/wcrews/2011/05/04/runaway-spending-and-deficits-plus-runaway-regulation/ • The Federal Register stands at an all-time record-high 81,405 pages. • In 2010, federal agencies issued 3,573 final rules. • While agencies issued 3,573 final rules, Congress passed and the president signed into law a comparatively “few” 217 bills. Sweeping delegation of lawmaking power is addressed in proposals such as the REINS Act. • Proposed rules in the Federal Register have surged 19 percent, from 2,044 in 2009 to 2,439 in 2010. • Of the 4,225 rules now in the regulatory pipeline, 224 are “economically significant” meaning they wield at least $100 million in economic impact—a 22 percent increase over 2009’s 184 rules. • Given 2010’s government spending (outlays) of $3.456 trillion, the regulatory “hidden tax” stands at approximately half the level of federal spending itself. It’s greater than all government spending was in the 90’s, highlighting the urgency of hearings such as today’s. • Regulatory costs exceed 2008 corporate pretax profits of $1.463 trillion. • Regulatory costs dwarf corporate income taxes of $157 billion. • Regulatory costs tower over the estimated 2010 individual income taxes of $936 billion by 87 percent. Whatever this hearing’s conclusion, regulations need more official scrutiny, transparency and accountability from Congress, including votes on economically significant rules before they become binding as the REINS Act would require. Congress should also implement a Regulatory Reduction Commission and explore regulatory cost “budgeting.” add even your beloved green jobs are suffering from this and it is being cited as a reason for failure Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 Gov't is the enemy! Gov't is to blame!!! Why hasn't the gov't created jobs!!!!! And get your dirty gov't hands off my social security and Medicare!!!!!! Why is it whenever I hear the Right talking about reducing regulation I get visions of Fall 2008 and the Keating 5 flashing through my mind? Not to mention the tops of mountains being blown off...oh that's still legal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted September 1, 2011 Author Share Posted September 1, 2011 See, if the government ceded all its power to the states then the government would be able to start creating jobs. What we need is a powerless, ineffectual government so it can start taking care of all of us. Viva the Nanny State of the Right. Edit: And twa why are you so against Child Labor laws? Too much government reg is stifling... too little leads to everything from financial disasters to lives lost to neighborhoods becoming toxic dumping grounds. Balance is key... and it's tough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kosher Ham Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 If the Government had protected jobs we wouldn't be in the situation we are now as a country. ---------- Post added September-1st-2011 at 08:25 AM ---------- And the goverment creates tons of jobs. A know plenty of people with government jobs...that don't really work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted September 1, 2011 Author Share Posted September 1, 2011 If the Government had protected jobs we wouldn't be in the situation we are now as a country.---------- Post added September-1st-2011 at 08:25 AM ---------- And the goverment creates tons of jobs. A know plenty of people with government jobs...that don't really work. I think a problem is that often... the government over the last twenty years kept giving the corporations exactly what they wanted. In many respects, I believe that's why this country has such a bad tummy ache. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 If the Government had protected jobs we wouldn't be in the situation we are now as a country. Without a doubt!! We're now paying for 30 years of mismanagement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 Balance is one way to put it Bur, effective regulation and competence is another we have none of the above. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeeb Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 Let's totally ignore that the U.S. economy was at it's most powerful when taxes were at their highest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 Let's totally ignore that the U.S. economy was at it's most powerful when taxes were at their highest. When was that in your estimation? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted September 1, 2011 Author Share Posted September 1, 2011 Balance is one way to put it Bur, effective regulation and competence is anotherwe have none of the above. Oh come on, even John Adams moaned about the incompetence of the American government. You see we Piddle twiddle and resolve. Not one damn thing do we solve If we have to wait for government competence we'll never stop waiting. America became the most powerful nation in the world WITH an ever incompetent government! Something else is at play here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 The something else is the expansion of govt.....we succeeded despite their incompetence because it had less impact.....by design of the Founders I might add Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted September 1, 2011 Author Share Posted September 1, 2011 The something else is the expansion of govt.....we succeeded despite their incompetence because it had less impact.....by design of the Founders I might add Stop blaming Bush. (I know. I'm a stinker, but that was too easy) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 Depends which "right" you are speaking of. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pointyfootball Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 Let's totally ignore that the U.S. economy was at it's most powerful when taxes were at their highest. What years are you talking about? And can one economical variable, short of global war, really affect the economy that much? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted September 1, 2011 Author Share Posted September 1, 2011 Depends which "right" you are speaking of. The "wrong" one of course Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbear Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 Anyone look at Amazon reaction to sales tax on internet purchases in California? To paraphrase, "Darn, now we won't be able to spend millions on a new building and hire thousand or workers in CA." Where was the proposed plan when CA looked at long term defecits needing more revenue? What took so freaking long to start hiring? The only answer I come up with is there was never a plan till the effort to bribe the state not to tax. So lets say CA relented and did not institute the sales tax and Amazon did build and hire. If this came to pass, did the government create jobs? There was no plan announced till the sales tax. This seems odd to me because this is the opposite of the normal story where states have to bribe companies to build or stay in their state by giving them preferential tax breaks (thinking of NJ luring companies out of NY or any number of companies given preferential treatment on U.S. teritories) http://www.sacbee.com/2011/09/01/3876555/amazon-offers-jobs-to-avert-ballot.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 Stop blaming Bush.(I know. I'm a stinker, but that was too easy) He is certainly due part of the blame....as Reagan said government is the problem,not the solution and then proved it by expanding it.:beatdeadhorse: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tulane Skins Fan Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 twa, is it really your position that any expansion of government is a bad idea. Anything at all? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 twa, is it really your position that any expansion of government is a bad idea. Anything at all? No, there are beneficial aspects and as a authoritarian I clearly believe in govt there are also harmful ones,in my opinion we are well past the beneficial level Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tulane Skins Fan Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 No, there are beneficial aspects and as a authoritarian I clearly believe in govtthere are also harmful ones,in my opinion we are well past the beneficial level We are past the beneficial with some of the things the government does, but we are way short of that with others. It seems like even though you say that the government can do some beneficial things, you have lumped everything into one "government ball" and therefore any expansion now is bad. But a better analysis would be a case-by-case analysis, even under your own statement above. No? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 Sure.....start on a case by case eliminating the bad,THEN add more good Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GhostofSparta Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 Been wondering this for some time, but isn't the right supposed to be all about the free market and free enterprise... why is it that every time I turn around all I hear is that Obama isn't doing enough to create jobs? Isn't that what businesses are supposed to do? Since when did the Right take such a socialistic bent that they expect all the new jobs in this country to have a government sourcing?Is it just cause the government is the easiest scapegoat? I like your rant Bur, and the logic does seem good. But I feel like maybe an analogy will help explain how some (not all) of us on the "right" can think like this. This analogy will piss a lot of people off, but here it goes: Obama is Jerry Jones and the right are Redskins fans. Ok, everybody all pissed off and ready to fight? Good. So here's how this works: Jerry Jones tell the world that Tony Romo sits to pee is a franchise QB, and that he will lead the Cowboys back to the promised land and win them a Super Bowl. Redskins fans laugh and say that will never happen, because Romo sits to pee is not a QB who is capable of such things. Sometimes you have really over the top posters like tr1 (who we'll compare to Michelle Bachmann because why not?) who will say everything the Cowboys do is stupid and will fail. But even when the Cowboys go 13-3 and clinch a 1st round bye, tr1 doesn't back down. In fact he comes on stronger. When the Cowboys get bounced in their 1st playoff game, he's won the argument. Even if everything he said is stupid and wrong, he ultimately was correct in the big picture (at least for this year). The Cowboys didn't win the SB with Romo sits to pee. Fast forward a few years and imagine the Cowboys never win a SB with Romo sits to pee at the helm. Hard to imagine, I know, but just roll with it. tr1 has been mocking Cowboys fans for years with predictions that Romo sits to pee will never win the SB, and each year they tell him he's wrong. Romo sits to pee retires without a ring. tr1 points out "See, the Cowboys never won without Romo sits to pee at QB, I win!" and Cowboys fans say "Yeah well congrats, you never thought he would win anyway so big deal. Blaming Romo sits to pee for never winning a Super Bowl is hypocritical, even if he said he would, Jones said he would, and you never said he would!" It's the same in politics. Obama and the Democrats promised jobs. Do you remember the unemployment graph? (If not I can find it) Where Obama basically said "pass stimulus and unemployment will not go above 8%" and later said "Ok, we messed up, but since we passed it we promise it won't stay above 9% for too much longer." But he was wrong on both accounts. And there are 10 million reasons and argument on why things happened or didn't happen the way they did, but the fact remains that thus far Obama and the Democrats made a promise/prediction/whatever about jobs and they were wrong. I understand where you're coming from. The right doesn't think the government can create jobs (it's not that simple, but I'll let you keep your argument parameters), and to blame the government for not creating jobs seems hypocritical. I get that, I do. But at the same time, you're basically telling the right "So far, you're correct, but shut up because you thought this all along. It doesn't matter that we were wrong, if you point out that we lost the argument you're a hypocrite." And I'm sure you'll come back with some complex analogy that I can't find a hole in, or bring in some stats that prove me wrong. That's fine, I accept it. But your analogy has a glaring flaw that I think you might have been blind to. Being correct, even temporarily, is not hypocritical. Holding somebody to a promise they made, or showing why their beliefs were flawed, is not being a hypocrite. Saying "Obama spending money can't create jobs because the government can't do that, but Parry can because shut up that's why" is hypocritical. And that deserves mocking. But saying "Romo sits to pee can't win a SB" and then Romo sits to pee not winning a Super Bowl makes you correct, not hypocritical when you point out the fact that your assumption was correct. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
illone Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 It's just ignorance, and again voting against your own self interest. Most people I speak to on the right want their cake and eat it too. They want the government to take care of them when they turn 65, but don't want socialism:ols: They want low taxes and perfect roads. Tax the rich, but don't tax me when I get an inheritence. Keep your government hands off my medicare! The right think it's the Govt's job to create jobs because of mishandled expectations. They go to church, or work, and talk to other ignoramous folks who think their well being and security is someone elses responsibility, and thus the great lie is perpetuated. Nobody wants to hear that it's their own responsiblity to learn how to work and earn in this country. The gov't has enough to take care of me! Hey the banks do what they want, why not me? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.