Herman Cain: Liberals Want to Destroy America

[Shermana]

Potholes not repair themselves

I thought potholes and road repairs are paid for by local governments.

It is also to help local governments hire and keep more police, firemen, and teachers.

I thought Local governments keep and hire more police, firemen, and teachers. Why should the Federal government be in the business of hiring teachers? There's a reason private schools are so expensive, the government hogs 80% of the market without any ability to challenge the DOE.

 

[Copernicus]

I thought potholes and road repairs are paid for by local governments.

Originally, the stimulus funds were supposed to be given to states for "shovel-ready" projects. A lot of Republican elected officials who stridently opposed the stimulus ended up taking it for local projects and hypocritically bragging about the people they had put to work. Michelle Bachmann did that, for example.

I thought Local governments keep and hire more police, firemen, and teachers. Why should the Federal government be in the business of hiring teachers? There's a reason private schools are so expensive, the government hogs 80% of the market without any ability to challenge the DOE.

You seem to think that the federal government itself is coming up with the ideas on how to spend the funds. That isn't how it works. Local governments propose projects and request funds. The feds evaluate the proposals and decide whether or not to allocate the funds. The local governments hire contractors who hire employees to do the work. This is not socialism. Many Republicans have made fortunes on government contracts. A good case in point is Dick Cheney, who became rich by chasing after federal dollars. "Job creators" don't just create jobs out of thin air. They have to get the revenue to pay employees from somewhere, and a large part of the economy depends on government spending.

 

[Revoltingest]

They have to get the revenue to pay employees from somewhere, and a large part of the economy depends on government spending.

This gives me an idea! If they took less in taxes, it could stay in the economy all along.
We'd be less dependent on government then.
Alas, that would cut their power...& what politician wants that?

 

[Shermana]

How many jobs were actually created or saved by the Stimulus, especially from the Republicans who took the Stimulus money? What good did it actually do?

If a significant amount of the economy comes from Government spending, how much MORE money would there be if the government didn't launder it first and give back the crumbs?

 

[Revoltingest]

If a significant amount of the economy comes from Government spending, how much MORE money would there be if the government didn't launder it first and give back the crumbs?

That's the question which I never see properly addressed.
It seems to be a mere article of faith that our money must be taken & then handed back to the few government-anointed companies who will work miracles.

Examples:
Solyndra, Fisker (see like below)
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/car-company-us-loan-builds-cars-finland/story?id=14770875

 

[Riverwolf]

It's all about definitions. The reason Republicans use that argument more than Liberals is because Republicans favor the constitution and tradition generally speaking; while Liberals prefer, what they like to call, progress.

Seems more like they both favor the constitution, but have different interpretations of it.

What I want to know is why they can't simply take the best of both ideologies and combine them.

 

[Copernicus]

Seems more like they both favor the constitution, but have different interpretations of it.

Exactly. It's a bit like saying that fundamentalists favor the Bible, but other Christians do not. In reality, different political factions in the US favor different interpretations of the Constitution, just as different religious groups have different interpretations of biblical scripture.

What I want to know is why they can't simply take the best of both ideologies and combine them.

Because there is disagreement about what counts as "best".

 

[Revoltingest]

Seems more like they both favor the constitution, but have different interpretations of it.
What I want to know is why they can't simply take the best of both ideologies and combine them.

They disagree about the "best" part.

 

[Falvlun]

I'm not and never have defended Bush's economic tactics. But that was then, this is now.

Okay. My point regarding the tax cuts was that you cannot present that second graph of government revenue going down to support your contention that the current administration is either criminally irresponsible, insane, or intentionally trying to tank the economy since it started well before this administration and can be linked to the policies of Obama's predecesor--- policies which Obama and liberals oppose, but are still supported by Republicans.

You also sidestepped my main point: Your 3 possibilities-- insanity, irresponsibility, and willful sabotage, are not the only ones to explain your graphs.

The acceleration rate of this economic meltdown is actually pretty astounding. Obama's policies are simply NOT WORKING. Damn! Check the agendas, Washington, and get REAL.

The acceleration rate? It doesn't seem to be going down increasingly faster. In fact, it seems to be pretty stable right now. Obviously, the point we are at isn't where we want to stay, but I'm not seeing this "acceleration" you speak of. How do you know that things wouldn't be worse if Obama hadn't implemented the policies he was able to get passed? Also note that Obama really hasn't been able to implement "his" policies. At best, he's been able to squeeze thru some chewed up and spit out versions of what he wanted, which due to their chopped up nature, might not be as effective as they could have been if implemented in whole.

 

[Riverwolf]

They disagree about the "best" part.

Well, maybe a third, non-affiliated party should come up and look at a concise written statement of both ideologies (which would completely lack ANY reference to the other side) and weigh them both against various situations and decide that way.

 

[Copernicus]

We are in very serious trouble right now, but not because of Obama's policies. Those actually slowed the economic slide that started under the Bush administration, but the stimulus was far weaker than recommended by economists. The trouble that we face now comes from Europe and has nothing to do with the current administration. The European economies were also destabilized by the subprime mortgage meltdown, and that brought out the weaknesses of the Euro. If Europe's economy collapses, then that will destabilize economies around the world.

 

[Riverwolf]

We are in very serious trouble right now, but not because of Obama's policies. Those actually slowed the economic slide that started under the Bush administration, but the stimulus was far weaker than recommended by economists. The trouble that we face now comes from Europe and has nothing to do with the current administration. The European economies were also destabilized by the subprime mortgage meltdown, and that brought out the weaknesses of the Euro. If Europe's economy collapses, then that will destabilize economies around the world.

As if they weren't destabilized enough...

 

[Kathryn]

The acceleration rate? It doesn't seem to be going down increasingly faster. In fact, it seems to be pretty stable right now.

You must mean today, or this week. Are you seriously saying that you don't think our economy has gotten markedly worse in the past two years?

How do you know that things wouldn't be worse if Obama hadn't implemented the policies he was able to get passed?

There is no "what might have been." There is only "what is." "What is" is a pretty terrible mess, and Obama and Bush and BOTH MAINSTREAM POLITICAL PARTIES have wrecked the economy of this fine country by practicing and supporting very poor economic policy. Obama has presided over the fastest acceleration of debt in our country's history, as well as a precipitous and devastating drop in our GDP.

Also note that Obama really hasn't been able to implement "his" policies.

Every cloud has a silver lining I guess. But the first 18 months of his administration, he and his partners in insanity pushed through some absolutely ruinous legislation - much of which we haven't yet felt the full ramifications of, since they are timed to roll out over the next 10 years. TEN YEARS. Hell, we'll be mired in this stuff long after he's retired and writing books.

 

[Shermana]

We are in very serious trouble right now, but not because of Obama's policies. Those actually slowed the economic slide that started under the Bush administration, but the stimulus was far weaker than recommended by economists. The trouble that we face now comes from Europe and has nothing to do with the current administration. The European economies were also destabilized by the subprime mortgage meltdown, and that brought out the weaknesses of the Euro. If Europe's economy collapses, then that will destabilize economies around the world.

Care to get into detail how Obama's policies and the Stimulus slowed the slide? Care to get into which years the Bush era slide started in? (Hint: 2006-2008 during the Democrat house takeover..........) I asked for specific examples of how the Stimulus went into effect, especially among the Republicans who hypocritcally collected on it.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Unfortunately it's campaign time, and accusations of Nazi-ism, anti-American, anti-family, fascism, and other remarks that are deliberately said to damage character will probably be on the rise over the next year and how many ever weeks. But Cain is also vocal he hates Muslims, so what can you expect?

Originally Posted by Kathryn
Like the loveable Joe Biden, I guess.

I thought it was cool when he served hot dogs to the troops on the Colbert Report, but other than that I wish he would just quit talking.

 

[dust1n]

As well, there are in fact some "Liberals" who want to weaken America's strength and economic health (and "economically ruin" can be interpreted so many ways ) so as to make it more ripe for radical change.

..Who?

OWS ring any bells?

No. Where did anyone in OWS stated their intentions were to 'weakin America's strength and economic health'?

You know, I'm gonna have to try this whole.. presupposition/making-stuff-up thing.. next time I get into an argument.

 

[dust1n]

So yeah, it's really great how they totally omitted the word "Economically".

I like how you make the same jump in Cain's speech regarding what liberals 'want to' do to America, but then make a huge deal out of the semantics of a news story. They omitted the word economically?!?! OMG, those propogandists *******. But Cain wasn't saying liberals want to (and not by mismanaging) economically destorying America. He was saying that the unintended consequences of the liberal desire is economically destroying the country.

 

[dust1n]

Like the loveable Joe Biden, I guess.

I don't remember Biden's genius plan to limit the bills in Congress to three pages so one could read it at the dinner table...

 

[Shermana]

I like how you make the same jump in Cain's speech regarding what liberals 'want to' do to America, but then make a huge deal out of the semantics of a news story. They omitted the word economically?!?! OMG, those propogandists *******. But Cain wasn't saying liberals want to (and not by mismanaging) economically destorying America. He was saying that the unintended consequences of the liberal desire is economically destroying the country.

Ummm, so why did they omit the word "Economically"? Isn't the whole "unintended consequence" what I said with the dog ******* on the Persian rug?

 

[dust1n]

I'm no great fan of liberals, but I can never understand why conservatives are so quick to blame them instead of looking at their own policies and the consequences of implementing them.

Holy ****. A reasonable person in the RF religious boards?

Also, I think it's a mistake to blame any current or recent Administration for the state of the economy. You can't blame Obama, Bush Jr., the Tea Party, or the Wall Street Protesters for anything going on today. You have to go back 20-30 years and look who was in power back then, since it's those policies which have had the greatest effect on America's economic well-being.

Well 20-30 years might be a bit much, I mean, I'm just concerned that you don't give some of the blame to current politicans. Of course the effects or decisions last 20-30 years, but they certainly have effects within months if not immediately because speculation and interest rates are affected in near real time (just one example). Really though, you gotta examine a lot of things to get the full picture. It's very likely that no one human will ever understand the true tendencies of any economy. Economics, if I remember correctly, is the study of human methodology to handling scarcity amongst a population. Well... you are going to have to look at a ton of stuff to a picture.

The conservative obsession over privatization, deregulation, and globalization has allowed the inmates to take over the asylum, which is the main reason why we're in such sorry economic shape nowadays. The liberals haven't been much better, as they've been nothing but followers of conservative economists ever since Clinton was elected in 1992. Clinton and Bush were identical twins when it came to issues like NAFTA, GATT, and continued MFN status for China.

This is so great^^^. Don't any of these people know that the Treasury Department and Alan Greenspan have controlled Clinton, Bush, & Obama's major economic and foreign policies? There are some good liberals. But jeez, honestly, everything is so 'right' that common sense in considered 'liberal'. You support Social Security of Medicaid? Liberal. How about Welfare? Liberal. Unions? Liberal. Gay Marriage? Liberal.

Every issue has been split, into the imagination of the population, into fictitious labels that people use to dissipate the feeling of responsibility to keep up with anything, or know anything about politics, or care or know anything about anything, or being altruistic. Republican or Democrat. Who cares?! If you're a ***, you're an ***. If not, if not. But, sloth is just the era, I suppose...

Ross Perot was right. He warned of impending disaster, yet the main-streamers ridiculed him and made jokes. Now, we're in the economic pickle that he warned about, and everyone is acting like they don't know what went wrong.

True, but then again, Perot is the ****.

EDIT: BTW, if you didn't vote Perot (people older than me who didn't), thanks for destroying my generation's potential, hopes and dreams. This is probably why us young people hate you so ******* much.