Say Anything Blog

I saw this, and I saw construction jobs.  He wants to create construction jobs?  What rock has Obama been living under? 

Does he not know that there is a shortage of people and too many unfilled jobs in this area?  And in fact, if he would send a few illegal immigrants home there would be even more jobs available, without him spending a dime and only enforcing a few laws.

Perhaps that’s it, he wants to create more jobs for illegal immigrants that he can give them drivers licenses and grant amnesty to so they can vote.

Obviously the illegal issue would solve any so called unemployment problem.  The only unemployment problem is that too many people think they’re worth more than the employers do. 

They just can’t produce $5 of work an hour and make $20?  Wait a minute, Obama’s onto something.

The Debate is over!  Global Whining has been confirmed.

Patriot,

Construction jobs?  You mean like fat, long-term union contract jobs?  The kind that liberals like to use to repay union thugs for their election day support?

The kind where if there’s a shortage of workers, well, we couldn’t possible think about sending any illegal aliens back where they came from.

Those kind of construction jobs?

“Poverty of goods is easily cured; poverty of the mind is irreparable.”

I thought construction jobs were the ones Americans wouldn’t do.  You know, the ones we needed illegal immigrants for.

The war against illegal plunder has been fought since the beginning of the world. But how is… legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply. See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime. Then abolish this law without delay … If such a law is not abolished immediately it will spread, multiply and develop into a system.

Frédéric Bastiat, The Law

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

Right and Obama’s going to put the illegal aliens to work doing stuff that doesn’t need to be done.

That way there will be room for their cousins to come here as well.

The Debate is over!  Global Whining has been confirmed.

Right and Obama’s going to put the illegal aliens to work doing stuff that doesn’t need to be done.

That’s what Democrats, and unions, do, isn’t it?

“Poverty of goods is easily cured; poverty of the mind is irreparable.”

Why repair and construct infrastructure , let’s just send everyone a check.

Govt spending is not, and never will be, investment.

"If the good men are silent only the wicked are heard.” - Edmund Burke

There’s actually plenty of money in the federal budget for a rebate and increased care for infrastructure (not that I’m terribly enamored with the rebate-as-economic-stimulus).  We just need to cut back on some of the totally unnecessary things our government funds.

Earmarks, for one.  Our massive entitlement spending, for another.

The rebates aren’t the problem, Poodle.  Liberal-spending politicians are.

The war against illegal plunder has been fought since the beginning of the world. But how is… legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply. See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime. Then abolish this law without delay … If such a law is not abolished immediately it will spread, multiply and develop into a system.

Frédéric Bastiat, The Law

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

There is not plenty of money in the budget there is growing deficit.
It’s an election year and the stimulus and lowering of interest rates are designed to throw money into the economy.

If prices went up, people demanded not a stable purchasing power for the marks they had, but more marks to buy what they needed. More marks were printed, and more, and more.

-Adam Fergusson, When Money Dies

Don;t blame spending on liberals
you guys have been in charge for 7 years.

I said “liberal spending,” poodle.  Liberal has more than one meaning.

Learn to read.

I’m not defending Republicans here, but let me point out that you’re not exactly one to lecture me about government overspending.

The war against illegal plunder has been fought since the beginning of the world. But how is… legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply. See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime. Then abolish this law without delay … If such a law is not abolished immediately it will spread, multiply and develop into a system.

Frédéric Bastiat, The Law

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

Don;t blame spending on liberals
you guys have been in charge for 7 years.

Not true; one of the largest and most wasteful and useless “programs”, the so-called “War on Poverty”, started in 1964.  It’s still going, still wasting our money, and still not doing anything at all about poverty; trillions spent for nothing.
You lefties are the spending champs.

"If the good men are silent only the wicked are heard.” - Edmund Burke

The Earned Income Tax Credit

Ronald Reagan heralded it as “the best anti-poverty, the best pro-family, the best job creation measure to come out of Congress.”

Obama’s reaching out to those who are skilled at shoving a lit sparkler up their anus while singing ‘screw the McChimphaliburtonoilneoconnazi’ song; spending $100,000 for a degree in Head-up-Your-Rectum has to be worth something, no?

Now with Apellate Court approval in Texas.

reaching out to those who are skilled at shoving a lit sparkler up their anus

WOOF said, Don;t blame spending on liberals
you guys have been in charge for 7 years.

There wasn’t a debt before? 70+ percent of government spending isn’t liberal entitlement programs?

Tell us another story dude.

There was a surplus.
Repubs controlled all branches of gov’t and did not end entitlements.

There was a surplus.

Thank the Republican Congress.

The Democratic party that spent trillions giving us, not eliminating, poverty has no business giving anybody economic criticism.

Repubs controlled all branches of gov’t and did not end entitlements.

How would they do that?

They can’t. You guys have engineered the game to prevent freedom from these Ponzi schemes, and now you have the audacity to bitch about it. There’s a word that describes what you’re doing: stupidity.

Woof is right that republicans didn’t do anything much less enough to cut entitlements, but clearly he is just being cynical since he opposes cuts to any liberal programs.

...but clearly he is just being cynical since he opposes cuts to any liberal programs.

That, and he believes that the entire debt was cooked up in the last seven years. If you bring up the fact that most of the debt is due to his beloved programs, he changes the subject.

We ought to give Clinton some credit for the surplus given his 13.1% cuts in defense spending in the 90’s.  If we do the math by liberal standards, then factoring in inflation and the proposed increases thats like a 60% “cut” or something.

SS runs a surplus which goes into the general fund.
$175 Billion? last year.

Over Cheney’s four years as secretary of defense, encompassing budgets for fiscal years 1990-93, DoD’s total obligational authority in current dollars declined from $291.3 billion to $269.9 billion. Except for FY 1991, when the TOA budget increased by 1.7 percent, the Cheney budgets showed negative real growth: -2.9 percent in 1990, -9.8 percent in 1992, and -8.1 percent in 1993. During this same period total military personnel declined by 19.4 percent, from 2.202 million in FY 1989 to 1.776 million in FY 1993. The Army took the largest cut, from 770,000 to 572,000-25.8 percent of its strength

No, No, No, It Just can’t Be

Woof, many republicans would privatize SS, not cut it.  It is viewed as a retirement plan more than an entitlement.  Social programs that redistribute earnings to non-earners are the real losers, except for securing a democrat voting block.  I guess that makes democrats the real beneficiaries of such spending. 

As for Cheney’s defense budgets, I trust the guy on military issues and spending.  Liberal disdain for the military is what troubles us conservatives about a liberal commander-in-chief and defense budgets.  Post cold-war defense spending was reduced and we’re fine with that.

SS runs a surplus which goes into the general fund. $175 Billion? last year.

Nice disinformation, leftie.  When the SS “bite” was increased in the late sixties(by Johnson), it was in anticipation of the coming demographic crisis, due to arrive in 2014, I believe.  This “surplus”, instead of being invested, was frittered away by the political class, mostly Dems.

"If the good men are silent only the wicked are heard.” - Edmund Burke

Robert, there was also a large SS tax bump in the Reagan years to shore up Social Security.

That surplus is going to evaporate in the next few years.  The general fund has no way of paying off the “debt” that it “owes” to Social Security.

If the Democrats would work with the Republicans we could fix this.  But everytime a Republican proposes fixing the problem the Democrats demagogue the issue, scare the old people and block any reform.

The Debate is over!  Global Whining has been confirmed.

But everytime a Republican proposes fixing the problem the Democrats demagogue the issue, scare the old people and block any reform.

Yep.  The Dems would rather raise taxes to “save” a failed program.  In fact, if a program needs ever increasing taxation to make it “work”, that’s the sign that the program is a mistake.  A program that actually “pays for itself"(like the Dems always ask of tax rate cuts) would require lower taxes, not higher ones.  If social spending worked, it would be paying for itself by now.  Social spending has had 76 years to “work”, and we should know by now that it doesn’t.  It’s just an ever-deepening hole into which our money disappears.

"If the good men are silent only the wicked are heard.” - Edmund Burke

If a Democrat president, Lyndon Johnson, and a Democrat congress had not instituted the theft of Social Security and other trust fund surpluses with the disingenuous gimmick known as “unified budgeting” to help hide the true cost of the Democrats’ “War on Poverty” (I believe the popular expression was “guns and butter"), there would have been no need to raise Social Security taxes during the 1980’s, no need to talk euphemistically about “lockboxes” during the 1990s, and no reason to concern ourselves with the coming Social Security bankruptcy now.

And now the appallingly ignorant Democrats want to raise taxes, choking off the very economic growth we will need to simply sustain or current level of affluence and our ability to deal with the economic problems we’ve created.

“Poverty of goods is easily cured; poverty of the mind is irreparable.”

Somehow we turned into a super power. Maybe it worked.

Social spending has had 76 years to “work”, and we should know by now that it doesn’t.

Somehow we turned into a super power. Maybe it worked.

So, according to you, social spending made us into a superpower?  That’s ridiculous on its face, but you miss the real point: If social spending worked to improve social conditions, less of it would be necessary as time goes on.  The reality is that it’s growing like a cancer on our economy.  We are a superpower in spite of our wasteful social spending.

"If the good men are silent only the wicked are heard.” - Edmund Burke

Somehow we turned into a super power. Maybe it worked.

Woof,

I’ll be very generous and give you a small credit for using the term “maybe”. 

Who do you think you’re kiddin’?

We put money into the
GI bill, education, (thank sputnik),
we supported orphans and widows, people out of work, allowed old people to live independent lives,
cured the sick , rehabilitated the broken, fed children and adults.

That’s how we progressed.

That’s how we progressed.

You only list the 25% of social spending that actually does something; what about the other 75% that is wasted?  War on Poverty(no reduction in poverty).
Our Space Program wasn’t “social spending”, btw.
Even so, none of that spending produced progress toward our being a superpower.  It isn’t the “poor and downtrodden” who make us a superpower; it’s the achievers, and they don’t get the benefit of any social spending; they pay for it, and succeed despite the drain on their resources.

"If the good men are silent only the wicked are heard.” - Edmund Burke

That’s how we progressed.

A little conflation going on there Woof.

Socialized medicine or programs didn’t cure anyone. A free market and free people gave us the best health care on the planet.  Charity has done far more for people than any social program the creates a dependent class wholly servile to democrats.

R108, is right.  America’s success is based on achievement not the common good.

Woof: Furthermore, all of our social progress isn’t due to social spending; a great deal of it is due to the upward mobility of the free enterprise system, and the general overall increase in prosperity we generate, which benefits all, even the invaders.
You have twice failed to address the fact that govt social spending continues to increase faster than population growth, which is proof that it doesn’t work to cure any of the social problems that it claims to address.  Even if it just kept pace with population growth, that would be evidence of failure.  The only metric of success of social spending is that it shrinks over time, as it becomes less necessary.
That’s not happening.

"If the good men are silent only the wicked are heard.” - Edmund Burke

It isn’t the “poor and downtrodden” who make us a superpower; it’s the achievers, and they don’t get the benefit of any social spending;

You sure they are two seperate groups?

Think medicine amazing?
Feds pump money into med schools, research, etc,

How bout that internet?

It isn’t the “poor and downtrodden” who make us a superpower; it’s the achievers,

And proud we are of all of them.

You sure they are two seperate groups?

Yes; the achievers pay for the social spending; the “poor and downtrodden” collect it.  Big difference.

It’s “separate”, btw.

"If the good men are silent only the wicked are heard.” - Edmund Burke