This is great to see.
The hard core liberal failure of this country might bring about actual change, reform, and responsibility.
What will happen is this will not go anywhere, but if the GOP keeps offering up things like this they will destroy dems in 2012 and Obama will be gone.
With the confidence true conservatives have will allow them to ignore the stupid comments of the media telling them they must be moderate.
I hope there is a poll taken about this legislation.
It will be supported my a great number of Americans.
Keep an eye on Paul Ryan...he easily could be our next President if he wanted to run..
Tuesday, November 16, 2010
GOP congressmen: Bill would use high-speed rail funds for deficit reduction
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
17 comments:
The people care about jobs, jobs, jobs. According to Gallup "58% of Americans say the most important problem facing the country is either the economy or unemployment. 7% say the federal deficit."
So when people see their railroad building jobs fly away and their rail car factories fly away, I'm not so sure the Dems are going to be the ones who are destroyed to 2012.
you have been completely wrong so far, so it makes sense you continue now.
People are tired of spending..and your infected liberal mind can not understand that the govt spending all this money and taxing the crap out of us costs way more jobs in the private sector than it creates..
Yes, if only the government would stop spending money, then companies would start hiring again.
I'd say you were as dumb as a rock, but I hear that some varieties of granite have an intellect that would put yours to shame.
so don't debate, just make personal attacks..shows how you have nothing to say..
What is happening all over the world shows how right I am...
And yes, when the govt is unpredictable, when companies are worried about the next tax, the next regulation..then yes, they will not hire anyone.
Realism & Jim –
You’ve really no clue do you? You actually believe a bloated bureaucratic government can spend money more efficiently than the private sector. REALISM do you know how many agencies one dollar of tax money has to go through before it reaches JIM’s railroad jobs? The level of your self-delusion is truly phenomenal!
Again, just because you’re not paying attention; the private sector is not spending money for two main reasons. They’re trying to pay down debt, because they realize it’s the smart thing to do, and because of the uncertainty of future federal regulation and taxation.
Ya see. Oh shallow one, congress saw fit to skip town before resolving future tax questions. In an uncertain economy it would be purely ludicrous to spend money willy-nilly without being able to accurately forecast the economic consequences of your actions. In this vain, the private sector is trying to be more responsible than the federal government ever dreamed of being.
And because you support the inadequate, no let me rephrase, the ludicrous assumption of inefficient bureaucracy being a better steward of available invest-able dollars over private concerns who actually own those dollars – that makes YOU deficient in comparison with any mineral.
Thank God, the American people rallied on Nov. 2, and totally and utterly, invalidated those with your point of view.
We’re not done – wait until 2012! Obama and his lackey’s are going down!
Sorry, Game - I don't mean to run off all your lefty friends. They just tend to be totally silent when confronted with certain truth's they can't refute.
I love how you throw the occasional "bone" - it gives them something to gnaw on. The bottom line is that their philosophy is inferior, but their ego won't allow them to admit it. Which makes for GOOD TIMES!
"the private sector is not spending money for two main reasons. They’re trying to pay down debt, because they realize it’s the smart thing to do, and because of the uncertainty of future federal regulation and taxation."
Bullsh*t. Companies are HOLDING trillions of dollars. That means they are HOLDING it, not paying down debt.
And the "uncertainty" BS? It's BS. There is always uncertainty in the economy. What are oil prices going to be next year? How much will that effect bottom lines? A hell of a lot more than 4.6% higher income tax on the margin.
It's a phony argument.
If businesses had customers who could afford to purchase their goods and services, they'd be hiring and investing that money in an instant. Unfortunately, many of those customers are unemployed. Imagine if they had a job laying tracks or building rail cars. Then they could pay taxes and buy stuff.
If only.
Jim,
You have no proof that what we are saying is "bs"..we have the proof it isn't with the economy doing nothing and almost 10 percent of people who want a job and trying still not able to have one...
You can take the "big bad evil coorperation" line, but in the end it makes no sense...
And then you have the arguement that the govt should take from those who work, give most of it to the govt, but then spit a little bit of it back out as a job..and you even say that person will be paying taxes like that takes care of the debt or something..
If the person paid back about 140 percent on what they make it might be a wash..but that govt worker adds to the debt..
Its fine to have a small percentage of workers govt workers, but not 25 or 30 or whatever it is now..
Just like a healthy economy can support a small amount of liberalism...but your way of thinking and way to solve societies problems has choaked and destroyed this economy and maybe country...socialism can not and does not work..I prove it to you everyday and you do nothing but personal attacks and saying bullshit
You morons.
The reason that corporations aren't creating jobs has nothing to "evil gubmint" spending all your hard-earned money.
They are not creating jobs because there's no demand for their goods and services.
Government spending can help take the place of some of the private sector spending that is not happening, to prime the pump.
It's basic economics, not that I'd expect a couple of uneducated, brainwashed rubes like you to know it.
And it's really rich to hear Game whining about personal attacks. You do know that YOUR ENTIRE BLOG is nothing but a personal attack against liberals, right? Or are you too self-deluded and lacking in basic self-awareness to recognize that basic fact?
JIM, of course there’s always uncertainty, and I didn’t realize I’d have to explain such a simple concept, but it’s the extent of the uncertainty that impacts how business spends money.
Businesses realize they must reinvest in plant, equipment, research, etc., in order to grow. If there’s “extreme” uncertainty in the general economy, business is more hesitant to reinvest large amounts of money – because the prudent thing to do is pay down debt, or “save for a rainy day”. Business cannot always immediately write off current outlays of cash, they must estimate all future expenses, and taxes are a part of that estimate. You obviously have no concept or experience in what it takes to be a successful business, and therefore are able to make simplistic assumptions; successful businesses don’t have that luxury.
REALISM, pay attention here, the government is broke, it’s all about fiscal responsibility. If you believe taking money from John Doe businessman in Topeka Kansas, and sending it to Cheddar, Wisconsin to build something that is questionably needed, after filtering that money through the various agencies who all get their cut; if you think this is wise fiscal policy, then you’re truly delusional. You’d have to have no concept of the stifling effect of bureaucracy.
Government has become an insatiable beast, whose main concern is with getting larger and more powerful. The sane among us realize the beast needs a sustained, and severe diet.
Again, pay attention here, because it’s extremely important. It’s the “inherent nature of things” – As centralized government grows more powerful, individuals lose more rights. In this country, those rights are considered inherent and endowed by our creator. You have a few choices, you can support the beast, you can try to tame the beast, or you can support individual rights and freedoms.
Why don’t you adopt a wild grizzly bear, try to tame it, and get back to me.
Ya know - it's simply amazing. Just saw a special on Confucious. The ancient Chinese realized the danger of an overpowerful government; eventually they were unable to stop it.
Are we destined to the same fate because of simpletons such as JIM AND REALISM?
You cheered on the government as it tortured, imprisoned indefinitely without charges, wiretapped, and waged wars of aggression.
But you think INFRASTRUCTURE SPENDING AND HEALTHCARE are the REAL threats to liberty.
You people are a font of unfathomable stupidity.
If it makes you feel better to delude yourself into believing we “cheered” torture, then have at it.
I love it when you comment on these blogs. I get to point-you-out as an example of non-critical thinking, extreme emotionalism, red herring, bomb throwing, looney-tooney moonbatty tard. It’s great fun! Do you post to any other blogs? I’d love the chance to read and respond – if you can handle it.
I have absolutely no problem with infrastructure spending, if it’s “truly needed”. Likewise with healthcare reform, if it’s intelligently done, which no one who’s actually read the abomination that was passed into law can claim.
But isn’t that just so like your kind? If we disagree, that must mean we conservatives want crumbling bridges and emergency rooms denying access to dying kids because they don’t have enough money.
IS THAT THE BEST YOU CAN DO? What a poor, pitiful excuse for reasoning and intellect! It’s no wonder why the more people learn of liberals; the less they associate themselves with such.
"JIM, of course there’s always uncertainty, and I didn’t realize I’d have to explain such a simple concept, but it’s the extent of the uncertainty that impacts how business spends money."
So you are saying that the possibility that tax rates at the margin may increase by 4.6 percentage points is a greater uncertainty and would have a worse impact on businesses than the possibility of oil going from $70 a barrel to $140 a barrel.
Again, I call the "uncertainty" meme bulls**t. It's a fallacy. Business are NOT worried about 4.5 percentage points. They're worried about demand.
They are not creating jobs because there's no demand for their goods and services.
Failed welfare states around the world prove the idiocy of this way of thinking.
Supply and demand are two sides of the same coin; there are no buyers without sellers. A farmer's supply of corn is someone's else's demand for food. What you morons miss is that goods have to be produced BEFORE they are consumed. The idea that we can "create demand" by destroying things -- tearing up roads and paving them over again, destroying used cars, hiring more paper pushers in a government bureaucracy -- is a fallacy, the broken windows fallacy to be specific. Supply creates its own demand; we don't create wealth by beating up on those who produce it. We do it by placing a sign over the country that says OPEN FOR BUSINESS.
In short, socialism is NOT the change you've been hoping for. You guys are masochistic, self-destructive fools, like suicide bombers eager to immolate yourselves for some undefined "common good." I can't wait until Obama and his deluded, zombie followers are far away from the reins of power.
o you are saying that the possibility that tax rates at the margin may increase by 4.6 percentage points is a greater uncertainty and would have a worse impact on businesses than the possibility of oil going from $70 a barrel to $140 a barrel.
Five percent can mean the difference between making a capital investment versus investing in unproductive municipal bonds. And yes, you guys are creating lots of uncertainty with your socialist, anti-business, class warfare rhetoric. You guys think your agenda and words can change the behavior of blood thirty terrorists, but that your agenda and words have no impact on businessmen making careful plans for the future. Do you see the logical disconnect? Just what planet do you live on?
"Supply and demand are two sides of the same coin; there are no buyers without sellers."
This is a bad analogy. Supply and demand are more like opposite ends of the same see-saw. And you can have as much supply as you can create, but if there is no demand on the other end, supply's ass is stuck on the ground.
It's silly to suggest that supply creates demand. Ask Sony about betamax tapes and players. Ask why manufacturers adjust production and fill up or empty warehouses of goods. If supply were the defining component, then production would always be 100% and warehouses would be cycling goods in and out based on how fast manufacturers can produce, not on how much people want or can afford.
You can make all the Edsels you want. That supply does not create demand. Before 2009, was GM selling fewer cars because they decided not to make them?
Opposite sides of the same coin? I don't think so, Tim.
Post a Comment