Robert1260 wrote: Bush had the worst jobs growth in US history and right wing talkers can not change that fact. It's historically carved in stone. Obama has produced more jobs in 3 years during the worst economy since the 1930's than Bush produced in a good economy (for his first 7 years in office that is...Bush's last year was a real doozy). Obama inherited a loss of 9 million jobs, loss of 37 Trillion in American wealth and 9 Trillion in debt practically overnight. Inherited from a so called conservative president. More facts carved in stone that Republicans can't simply brush aside by right wing liars like Ransom.- in response to New BS BLS Report Shows Obama Costs US $20 Trillion
Dear Comrade 1260,
Actually, Obama’s record is worse, net-on-net.
And here’s the thing: Obama has quite a large available workforce, plus he had stimulus dollars, plus the so-called Bush tax cuts, which even Obama approved. In addition Obama had the federal government absorb liabilities in the real estate market which also freed up a lot of capital- kind of a backdoor stimulus. It should be relatively easy to have rapid job growth under these conditions.
Only a rare kind of ideologue. like you and Obama, could have screwed up employment as bad as has been done since January 2009. But that's what happens when you bet everything on shoving socialized medcine down our throat and ignore the economy.
Bush, under his presidency, was at full employment for much of his term. It’s kind of hard to create jobs in globs when unemployment is already at 4.5 percent.
I think a better way to judge would be look at how Bush responded to the economic crisis brought on by the dotcom bubble bursting and 9/11.
While I don’t agree with everything that was done under Bush, if you are going to judge the two presidents on Keynesian plan 1- Bush’s; or Keynesian Plan 2- Obama’s, Bush does much better overall.
Kathy wrote: I just love the fact that since Congress has been to a standstill things are actually getting better. Not by much, I am still without a job, but I think the candidates should be blaring that from the rooftops. Things get better when the comrade in chief gets stymied. The American economy will eventually right itself as soon as the communist gets out of the way. - in response to New BS BLS Report Shows Obama Costs US $20 Trillion
One of our Cato scholars Dan Mitchell wrote a very nice article about that yesterday:
But I’m not here to spin a happy story for either Obama or House Republicans. The real story is that gridlock works, just as our Founding Fathers envisioned.
Once Republicans took control of the House, it meant that there was almost no chance that Obama would be able to impose more of his agenda.
This means no possibility of cap-and-trade industrial policy. It means no big new spending initiatives. It means no threat of a value-added tax.
And this means that the private sector finally has some degree of comfort that things won’t get worse in the future. This is not a trivial matter. Indeed, the Great Depression lasted so long and was so deep in part because Hoover and Roosevelt kept expanding the burden of taxes, spending, regulation, and intervention. The productive sector of the economy kept getting knocked to the canvas, so there was never an opportunity to adjust to the new burdens.
Illinois Roy wrote: That's why I recommend young folks learn how to drive a forklift. Once you learn how it's like riding a bike. A lot of companies are looking for forklift drivers although nobody wants to pay you a decent wage for it anymore. But at least you'd have something to fall back on in a pinch. - in response to New BS BLS Report Shows Obama Costs US $20 Trillion
Congratulations. You’ve figured out what Democrat politicians won’t admit. That people are the ones that make decisions that make their life better, not the government. If you were truly a progressive, you‘d be demanding that everyone take a mandatory forklift operators’ class, subsidized by government financing; financing which, of course, can never be repaid.
CalRepublican wrote: "Like" me on Facebook and you'll get sneak peaks of columns and, as an added bonus, I will never raise your taxes. Send me email and I just might mention you on Sunday. BUT ARE THERE FEES? Well all know you sneaky types just add fees and then tell us I didn't raise your taxes. - in response to New BS BLS Report Shows Obama Costs US $20 Trillion
Constitutionally there is no difference between a government fee and tax. I recognize no difference.
So “no” to fees as well.
Canetoad wrote: What about the rights of women who work at these institutions who need and use contraceptives. There are many, many women who work at religiously affiliated institutions who are not religious. Most of these institutions enjoy tax exempt status, which means the rest of society subsidizes their existence, therefore they have to play by the rules. - in response to Obama: The One, True Faith
Dear Comrade Cane,
This comment represents much that is wrong with liberal ideology.
Women don’t have to work at religiously affiliated organizations with which they disagree. Many denominations- including Catholics- only hire people to work for them who agree with their statement of faith, which for Catholics would include a prohibition on birth control. But even that isn’t prohibited by the Church for their employees. All they are asking is that they don’t have to pay for those practices that are prohibited by their faith.
As we pointed out in the article, the US Supreme Court has recognized this as a legitimate measure to protect freedom of religion.
Tax-exempt status for non-profits is not a favor that government bestows on non-profits. You, comrade, start from the assumption that every bit of income generated by the private sector somehow belongs to the government and they get to decide what the rest of us keep. You have it backwards.
Every bit of income first belongs to the private sector. Collectively, society then subsidizes government at a rate our representatives advocate and society ratifies their decision through elections.
Individuals, on the other hand, generally are responsible for subsidizing non-profits.
You may not understand this, but the Christian church somehow survived for almost 1800 years without the federal government “subsidizing” them. You may want to respect an organization that has that kind of staying power as a little more important than a flash-in-the pan like Obama.
If Obama is still your Messiah in 2,000 years, I will of course apologize to you.
Jimiey wrote: Sorry John, but GOD Almighty isn't a catholic, with a small "C.". Since when do you think that 4,500 homo priests [now or at one time] of the 9,000 priest in the USA make a church, that is half, that can't hear from God Almighty, and can't enter the Kingdom of God, God doesn't hear sinners, & if they removed the gay dominated Catholic bishop structure then the entire catholic church would collapse world wide. - in response to Obama: The One, True Faith
Dear Brother Jimiey,
Both a bigot and illiterate? Wow, you must be in high demand in most social circles. Bet you do great with the ladies.
Catholic with a small “c” is defined as “universal”.
So, yeah: God is universal, he hears even sinners like you.
LeishaC wrote: It's not just Catholics who are being assaulted. There are a lot of other faith-based hospitals, schools and organizations who will be forced into this as well. - in response to Obama: The One, True Faith
That’s right. Obama and progressives are fundamentally hostile to religion because religious institutions compete with big government in distributing alms to the poor. Didn’t you know that Obama can be the only alms-giver?
Lady Luck wrote: What I hear from Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum but their records show they a liberal, and they both turned to lobbying. It is one thing for them to have voted liberal, but to say they are the conservatives, while accusing somebody else as not being conservative, is bearing false witness on their neighbor.- in response to Mitt Presumes to Tell Big Government to Make Wages Fairer
I’m not sure exactly what you are saying here, but you seem to be saying that both Santorum and Gingrich are liberal just like Romney. Fair enough. But if liberalism is measured in scale with Obama at the far left and Reagan at the far right, Romney is still standing next to Obama on that scale, not Reagan.
There are two people in our country who as chief executives, passed and signed socialized medicine schemes.
One is Barack Obama.
The other is Mitt Romney.
Harrison Bergeron wrote: Dumbocrat liberal vs. Republitard liberal. Obozo vs. Robozo. - in response to Mitt Presumes to Tell Big Government to Make Wages Fairer
That reminds me of the Steve Martin joke from his autobiography Born Standing Up: “Nixon's best friend is BeBe Rebozo, whose last name means 'to have bozoed a second time'..."
David Wrote: At least Mitt Romney has no skeletons for Obama to use in the election. There is such a thing as being too far right. This country was build on differences and challenges of opinion. A more moderate Republican will do more for the country in a positive way than a fanatical right winger. Those Taliban fanatics are extreme right wing. We have learned that most fundamentalist are nuts. Newt is a politician to the core. He will do what's best for Newt. Romney has a history of doing what is best for others, like it or not. - in response to No Room for Allen West- or You- in Romney’s GOP
I wish Romney would go out and say what the rest of the Romney folks are thinking. Maybe you can start writing speeches for him.
“You're absolutely right when you say that there's no room for Allen West in Romney's GOP,” wrote another Romney fan. “Uncompromising ‘idealists’ like Allen West who oppose moderate (bipartisan) ideas out of sheer spite have no business in the GOP. It's the only reason why beating Obama in the fall isn't going to be a slam-dunk.”
Gary wrote: You sound as if you are totally unhinged. Romney will be our best president since Reagan. - in response to No Room for Allen West- or You- in Romney’s GOP
Perhaps you should allow Mitt to win the nomination before you start comparing him to Reagan. Then after that, maybe you should allow him to win the general. Then after that maybe you can allow him to be president for at least one (1) day before you induct him into the Hall of Fame with Obama.
Remember, we heard the same things about how great Obama was going to be before he ever took office. He even got a Nobel Prize before he ever did anything in office.
But, let me say this: If the committee ever asks for my recommendation between Mitt and Obama on the Nobel Prize thing, I would gladly recommend Romney.
He did save the Olympics after all.
Dane wrote: I must have missed something in today's column: what office in the Florida legislature does Mitt Romney hold? You know, because it was MITT who is supposedly trying to force out Allen West. You're asking your readers to infer that because Weatherford endorses Romney, Romney must already be controlling Weatherford's decisions. - in response to No Room for Allen West- or You- in Romney’s GOP
I never asked readers to make that inference.
Here’s what I wrote:
Representative Will Weatherford, a Romney proxy, helped redistrict Tea Party favorite Congressman and retired Col. Allen West into a much more liberal district than he previously represented.
What part of that says the Mitt served in the Florida legislature? Or that Mitt controlled what Weatherford did? What part of that isn’t a factual statement?
Here’s what I wrote in the follow-up piece:
And no one is saying that Mitt Romney, much less his campaign, set out specifically to hurt Colonel West.
What we are saying, and what has been acknowledged to have some level of veracity, is that people in the Florida GOP who represent Mitt set out to hurt West during the redistricting process. They did it because they are essentially hostile to the Tea Party element. So get used to it because these are the people who Mitt picked to surround himself with.
For more clarification please see the emails I quoted above from your compatriots on the contempt in which they hold the rest of us uncompromising idealists, fanatical right wingers and Taliban.
That’s it for this week,
"Like" me on Facebook and you'll get sneak peaks of columns and, as an added bonus, I will never raise your taxes. Send me email and I just might mention you on Sunday.