You cannot serve anyone's good by sacrificing productive capacity. Which is what "Obamanomics" does. And when you violate the rights of one, you violate the rights of all.
More to the point: how has four years of Obamanomics worked out for you? Eh? The obvious answer: not well.
Kerry Ladka's Dilemma
Temlakos~POTL~PWCM~JLA~☆
2012/10/19 00:21:31
|
|
|||||
|
50 votes
|
|
68% | ||
|
16 votes
|
|
22% | ||
|
8 votes
|
|
11% | ||
Who is Kerry Ladka? He's the voter who asked the question about the Benghazi Attack, the one that led Candy Crowley to reveal her bias and her collusion with the man now holding office as President, Barack H. Obama.
When he appeared on Greta Van Susteren's show last night, he said why he was "undecided": he wants Obama-style social programs, but worries that Obama is not a good-enough executive to make them possible, much less sustainable. Or to keep the country safe in the meantime.
The author of the linked article has a solution. If the economy tanks, the social programs tank with it. Margaret Thatcher (pictured) said it best: under socialism, you run out of other people's money.
So: if you want so much to take care of the poor, make sure they have a comfortable-enough economy to live in. To do that, we must fire Barack Obama.
When he appeared on Greta Van Susteren's show last night, he said why he was "undecided": he wants Obama-style social programs, but worries that Obama is not a good-enough executive to make them possible, much less sustainable. Or to keep the country safe in the meantime.
The author of the linked article has a solution. If the economy tanks, the social programs tank with it. Margaret Thatcher (pictured) said it best: under socialism, you run out of other people's money.
So: if you want so much to take care of the poor, make sure they have a comfortable-enough economy to live in. To do that, we must fire Barack Obama.
Read More: http://www.conservativenewsandviews.com/2012/10/18...
There are plenty of Republicans in Nassau County.
Americans do not want vast social welfare programs, we want personal responsibility which means we need good jobs and a smaller tax burden.
Without spending even $1 more, the current debt is a huge problem. There is simply not enough money to be raised by taxes (of ANY kind, paid by ANY group) to put a dent in the problem.
Growing the economy can make the debt a smaller percentage of GDP, and therefore tolerable as long as we slow down the rate of spending increases. Of course, a growing economy puts less of a strain on programs like food stamps, so there is a secondary bonus effect for economic growth. Or in Obama's case, a secondary penalty effect for a stagnant economy.
Unfortunately, Obama is so fixated on taxing the rich, he has no concept of how to change government policy to promote economic growth. For example: Driving up the cost of traditional energy to promote green energy is a popular concept with Obama's base. But it's lousy for an economy that suffers from high energy prices. He can't create enough green jobs to offset the loss of other jobs.
There will always be people who can't provide for themselves, so there will always be social programs to address those needs. Although social programs will never be abolished, we have some control over is the supply and demand for those services.
If we can make the economy grow, there will be fewer people depending on government services, and more taxpayers to dilute the cost. But if Obama wins a second term, we get the opposite: a stagnant economy with accelerating poverty; runaway costs to be covered by a diminishing pool of taxpayers.
i agree, we need a better economy, but instead of more IRS agents we really need some waste, fraud and abuse investigators out cutting the deadwood and bale bodied off the programs.
Once the employment situation improves, it's time to make bipartisan deals with Congress in such a way that maintaining social programs requires the sacrifice of pork barrel projects and wasteful spending.
Reducing pork is never popular in Congress because this is how they get campaign contributions. To replace the loss of lobbyist money, I would offer deficit reduction bonuses to each member of Congress -- if they achieve a series of budget milestones. If we don't shut down the corrupt Washington money machine, the problem can never b solved.
Calls to congressmen regarding NAFTA, TARP, and the bailouts came in at over 100-1 against passage but they were all voted in. Other than being the recipient of a massive bribe, I can think of no reason why.
Romney already has his secret foreign bank accounts. Do you honestly think that he is going to change the status quo ?
Federal, state, county, and city governments, due to lack of funds are going to be forced to privatize many of their properties and services, meaning that prices will go up for the middle class and salaries will go down. This will further destroy their income tax bases. The federal government will continue to bully the U.S. Post Office into bankruptcy and eventual privatization, meaning services and salaries will go down there also.
The treasonous theft and malfeasance will go on and the debt will continue to climb.
What make you think that the government is going to magically quit spending ? Republicans and Democrats have been in a headlong race to see who could ship the most money overseas. Every level of government has been ignoring infrastructure for decades. There are hundreds of dams and bridges in this country that are in danger of catastrophic failure while we have been spending $2 billion per day upon the capricious wars that Romney wants to continue.
http://staugustine.com/storie...
We will never have a solution until we have a viable third party candidate with some support in congress. Even the TEA party espouses more cuts to social programs and more corporate deregulation.