| About Us | Contact | Donate | User Blogs | Login |
The Republican Strategy on Fiscal Stimulus
Submitted by Jon Henke on Tue, 01/06/2009 - 16:14
Yesterday, I wrote about Obama's fiscal stimulus strategy. I'm hearing that Republicans also have a strategy - or rather, a tactic - though it's not as readily apparent yet.
First, the political landscape: With a 70% approval rating, Obama is not very vulnerable. But Congress has a 20% approval rating, so Congressional Democrats are vulnerable.
Now, there are a couple different basic aspects to the stimulus bill:
- Tax breaks
- Discretionary aid/public works spending
On the tax cuts, there's some alignment between Obama and Congressional Republicans. Notice that, in recent days, Sen. McConnell and Rep. Boehner have made a concerted effort to talk about tax relief as a stimulus...associating themselves with President Obama on an area where they agree and can cooperate.
The discretionary aid/public works spending is different. That's where the corruption, waste and pork enters the picture. Obama isn't going to actively oppose Congressional Democrats on the stimulus bill, but he's also too smart to expend his own political capitol pushing waterslides and mobster museums (yes, really) as economic stimulus.
If Congressional Republicans align themselves with Obama on broad parameters like "tax relief", that leaves only Congressional Democrats making the case for the earmarks and suddenly "shove-ready" spending that will be ripe for abuse, waste and corruption. Republicans can open the 111th Congress with a popular fight against the kind of corruption that made Congress so unpopular.
The assumptions there are that (a) the Congressional Democrats will actively defend their earmarks and wasteful spending, and (b) President Obama will not defend the earmarks and wasteful spending. But if those assumptions are wrong....well, that could be a victory, too.
That's an interesting play, and perhaps it will work to some extent. However, it's also a risky play, more likely to damage Democrats than to improve policy. In the absence of a strategy to improve policy though, we have to settle for tactics.
(2 votes)
Promos
Recent blog posts
Skip MacLure
0 comments
Skip MacLure
1 comments
TaylorD
0 comments
FMeekins
0 comments
Skip MacLure
0 comments
Skip MacLure
0 comments
Skip MacLure
0 comments
cringinghere
0 comments
Skip MacLure
0 comments
Skip MacLure
0 comments
Recent comments
-
Joseph Hertzlinger
-
samuelajanaku
-
Robin1
-
OzarkGuru
-
dean2
Search
Links
The American Scene
Conservablogs
Election Projection
FiveThirtyEight.com
Jonathan Martin
Marc Ambinder
Megan McArdle
Patrick Ruffini
Pollster.com
The Foundry
Government Bytes
Race 4 2008
Real Clear Politics
RedState
Ross Douthat
Soren Dayton
Infrastructure
America's Future Foundation
Americans for Prosperity
Americans for Tax Reform
American Majority
Club for Growth
Election Journal
Heritage Foundation
ATR Blog
Leadership Institute
NewsBusters
Sam Adams Alliance
Republican National Lawyers Association
Republican Liberty Caucus
Washington Watch
National Taxpayers Union
NetRight Nation
Good Lefty Blogs
MyDD
Open Left
Swing State Project
Comments
Man I hope so
Perhaps this can work hand-in-hand with Obama's pledge secured by Cantor that the whole thing be on a transparent, searchable Internet database. Vote against the boondoggles and then make a repeated point, over and over again, that when Democrats say "stimulus spending" what they really mean is "pork-barrel spending and political paybacks". Target vulnerable D's in districts that house these boondoggles. Force these D's to state, on the record, that they would rather have government spend $$$ on mobster museums disguised as "stimulus" than to give everyone in their district meaningful tax relief.
umm... that does mean jobs.
I've been to the boondoggles in my area. they do mean jobs, and money to poor construction workers who have been out of work for over a year.
Besides, everyone knows who the corrupt politicians are. They win every year, mostly by landslides. Just talk to Jack Murtha -- though an honest man, he's extremely corrupt and everyone knows it!
Boondoggles mean really expensive jobs.
Sure boondoggles employ people. But at what cost? Could that tax money be better spent in the private sector much more efficiently creating more jobs than what the boondoggle was able to?
But the private sector won't launch new job-creating projects
The private sector won't launch new job-creating projects in this economic climate. So someone has to act.. The only one left is the government. And those roads and bridges and whatnot- they are going to be built with equipment and materials purchased from private sector companies - giving them the demand for their products and services that is so sorely lacking.
Two visions
The private sector won't launch new job-creating projects in this economic climate.
Fine. So here we have two alternative visions of what to do.
Your vision: Government should do what business will not do.
My vision: Government should change the climate so businesses will do the things they would normally do.
Your vision transfers enormous amounts of money and power to the government, threatening both liberty and the marketplace. My vision preserves liberty and the integrity of the marketplace while transferring far less power and money to the government.
How are you going to change
How are you going to change the world of globalization? How are you going to stop the plants from shutting down and going to another country? What are you going to replace the permanent loss of jobs? Cities and states are going broke.
You need something big. The government gave us the internet and created jobs and commerce around the world. You can stick to your ideology, but that ideology (which we had for 8 years) is not bringing the science and technology that we need on a big way.
So do we need energy independence and get away from OPEC?
Do we need embryonic stem cell research? In which Singapore is further ahead and the government money is supporting that science? And taking our scientists.
Do we need to make a car battery that will save our auto industry and jobs and the Midwest? A battery that will get 100+ miles to a charge.
Governments do the preliminary research, which is costly and a lot of it is not dealt with in the private sector.
Other countries fund their projects, China is teaching english to kids. I was in Hungary and you do not go to college unless you know english.
We sit in this country with ideology, deficits and debt. It is the here and now. For once, can republicans look to the future?
Look where the wealth is. China is building whole cities, have high speed rail, and the longest of bridges. We have a crumbling infrastructure. We need an electrical grid and a new air traffic control system. All these things help the private sector with more efficiency.
globalization
How are you going to change the world of globalization?
You don't. The world really is flat. Protectionism didn't work in the 1930's either. So instead of sticking our heads in the sand and pretending we can be Fortress America, let's create a place that is conducive to investment and competitive with the world.
How are you going to stop the plants from shutting down and going to another country?
By encouraging them to stay with a competitive business environment.
What are you going to replace the permanent loss of jobs?
With new jobs created as a result of pro-growth economic policies.
Okay, I will try and explain
Okay, I will try and explain again. I never talked of protectionism. That is in your mind and not mine. Although China is manipulating their currency that needs to be looked at.
To be competitive you have to put the right government policies in place. In this world tax cuts alone won't do it. You need a Manhattan project. Reread on how we get there. The government has alway provided the preliminary science for major projects. Government and business can work together. You got the internet from the government.
You are not going to encourage any plant to stay here if they do not want to stay here. Obama already said if they stay here, they get a tax cut. And that is the way it should be. Right now we are rewarding them to go overseas. Besides, we cannot compete with third world labor. Our wages are too high, third world countries have no healthcare and pensions, they don't have OSHA standards,, and do not pay social security.
You have to look at it that a certain amount of our jobs are going overseas. And you need to prepare for it.
You have had pro growth policies for the last 8 years. You have had tax cuts for 8 years. And yet globalization is taking away the manufacturing jobs. And what jobs can you create that can't be done in another country? You are going to have to have more investment in science, research and development.
McDonalds is already testing the drive thru in which you speak to someone in India.
Most jobs are vulnerable. You need to prepare for that and find out what jobs we can create that will stay here.
Again, I said what we needed to do in the previous post.
Also, there should be mandatory vocational education, since we will lose most of our manufacturing. You need an educated workforce to deal with globalization.
How is 'changing the climate'...
...not some sort of government interference? It seems the lesser of two evils.
A) The government says that they will spend money building X project.
B) The government says it will give tax breaks to group Y that builds X project.
Are you saying that B is bad, but better than A? Or am I not reading you correctly?
Has any company put a man on
Has any company put a man on the moon?
And why not?
It takes a lot of science and money to be funded by tax payers. We have been doing this for decades. When times get tough, you need the government to bail you out. You need the government fund research and we do it all the time with the NIH, FDA, CDC, and other agencies. The government can be the incubator of a lot of technology. They can also farm out money to other companies. In any case, under Bush, you had nothing.
The government can regulate the economy...
...but it can't create the economy. In fact, when government tries to create the economy it only ends up making it harder for the economy to be created.
ex animo
davidfarrar
Fine then. The government
Fine then. The government should take the internet away from everyone in the world. So there goes your commerce, your computer sales, all your online transactions around the world.
Not really
You don't need to give tax breaks to a specific company in order to generate economic activity. Why not give tax breaks to all companies? Or give tax breaks to all people, for that matter? The key idea here is to unleash the creative spirit of mankind. Taxes and government bureaucracy only restrains this creative force. Get government out of the way and you will see economic growth like you have never seen before.
The idea of tax breaks is to
The idea of tax breaks is to create jobs. Jobs in this country. It is our tax money. We are tax payers and we are not responsible to create jobs for everyone else. The present day free trade is a free for all. There should be a price to pay if you go overseas. We cannot keep this bleeding of factories closing, of losing jobs, or loss of tax revenue. People are losing jobs and you are losing the middle class.
No.
The idea of tax breaks is to give people back more of their own money so they will put it to a more productive use than the government will. I would hope that they would use it to create jobs in this country, but if that's not the most productive use, then that's their call. Tax breaks are not "our tax money". Tax breaks are "their money" that is being returned to them. If you are going to post at a conservative blog please have the dignity to understand what taxes really are instead of buying for the liberal spin on taxes every single time.
Oh and by the way. Globalization is here to stay, for better or for worse.
Well, then you are wrong. It
Well, then you are wrong. It has always been that corporate tax cuts is supposed to create jobs. We as taxpayers, pay for those tax cuts. We should not be paying the Chinese to produce their own jobs. And if the company leaves this country, they are not paying the local taxes, not employing people, not paying into social security, and not subject to OSHA standards. We don't owe them anything.
But if you believe in what you say, then you will see the cities and states are going broke and unemployment is going up. So your scenario is not working.
<<Globalization is here to stay, for better or worse>>
Then lets deal with it. But you are just like Bush, laissez-faire and don't know what is going on.
How about some management for once. CEO's manage, managers manage, coaches manage. But the president, oh no, we are not supposed to manage. It is all about ideology. What a joke. And you wonder why people for Obama. It wasn't for him. It was about all this idiocy.
http://www.thecourier.com/Iss
http://www.thecourier.com/Issues/2008/Dec/18/ar_news_121808_story3.asp?d...
Local communities are desperate. They are giving tax cuts to industry to stay and create jobs. And it is taxpayers money.
Those toyota factories, and other factories that came into the south, got tax breaks from the states (taxpayers money) to come in the southern states and create jobs.
Putting the government into our lives
Don't be fooled by the GOP's disdain for government. Why has the number of lobbyists risen so dramatically during the Bush era? Why did Cheney never release the names of those he consulted to craft the Bush energy policy? Could the Enron swindle provide an answer? Who worked day and night to emasculate government regulation of Wall Street greed? Ask Republican Phil Gramm who made this his priority.
Republicans like to pretend that government is the problem while paying lobbyists huge fees to find every legislative loophole available to advance their narrow agenda. How do earmarks get included in legislation that has nothing to do with them? Could it be because Republicans and Democrats alike know how to game the system?
The answer is not to get the government out of anything, but, rather, to make sure the government works for all Americans
your vision has already been tried, sucker
there is free money out there, and still nobody is biting. free money i say, but what i really mean is "freeer than free" money, money lent at well below the inflation rate for the past year.
enjoy your humble crow.
probably not.
see my last diary. parks are remarkable wealth generators in no small part because they are draws that create business. without draws... no business.
Transparency all around
Agreed that we should definitely point out abuse, waste and corruption by members of Congress. You seem to have a blindspot though. Congress is full of so many Big Govt Conservatives that transparency could continue to clean up the Republican Party as well. Corruption didn't leave the building with Sen. Stevens' convinction and ousting.
We should also better define "earmarks" and wasteful spending. Earmarks, though egregious, are a miniscule part of government spending totalling one half of one percent of the budget in 2008.
It's the general spending on government programs, without collecting enough taxes, that keeps sinking us deeper into deficit. Where do Republicans want to start cutting deep into the government budget?
No.
The Republican response to Obama's proposals should be along the following lines:
"We're pleased that President-elect Obama has joined Republicans, and his own economic advisor, in discovering that cutting taxes has about three times larger a stimulus effect than wasteful, unaccountable government spending. Unfortunately, the response of the President-elect and his congressional allies to that reality has been simply to propose nearly three times as much wasteful, unaccountable government spending as tax relief. When the President-elect and Democrats in Congress get serious about solving the country's economic problems, Republicans will be happy to work with them, but voters have punished Republicans for our fiscal irresponsibility and we've gotten the message. If Mr. Obama and Congressional Democrats want a stimulus boondoggle they certainly have the votes to pass it, but Republicans won't be party to it no matter how much Mr. Obama tries to sweeten the pot with overtures to cut taxes."
Amen!
n/t
Mega-Dittos!
n/t
But we forget
Obama is a political genious, he headed off all talk of "pork" by vowing not to allow any earmarks in the bill. The only way Dem's would be vulnerable is if they tried to add some. But then it helps Obama as much as Republicans. The left loves this guy and if he has to mix it up with Dems then so will even more Republicans.
What "Republican Strategy"?
Incoherent obstruction? Irrational opposition? Fingers in the Ears and Eyes Wide Shut?
Ya, that worked out REAL WELL for the 109th and 110th Congresses, didn't it?
No, Wait! Let's ask idiots like Eric Cantor what to do!
Country first
The big question this blog has asked is:
"What can Republicans do to recover the respect they once had?"
Many commenters have suggested that they can start with a war on Republican hypocrisy.
This post illustrates that through and through. You don't really express opinions about what kinds of stimulus will work, only what will fly politically. The things you're saying we are already hearing from Senate Republicans. The press and the public again are seeing them as obstructionist, party first politicians.
Here, you propose supporting tax cuts as a way to get money into the economy quickly -- this despite economists' views and recent evidence to the contrary. What Republicans actually proposed was another massive slice off the top tax bracket -- a tax cut for the rich. Those guys really are quick learners.
You oppose infrastructure projects as "pork", dispite the fact that all building is somewhat inefficient, and studies show that government building is not less efficient than building in the private sector. In other words, "Pork" is a slogan the public accepts, but it's not a real reason.
Republicans can help themselves by seeming to put "Country First" (the recent McCain slogan that went down in flames with the rest of the McCain campaign). They can seem to put country first by actually doing so. Why don't you show them how?
when even krugman will say that he likes
a limited amount of tax cuts, that represents some sort of consensus. can we work on getting the tax cuts to all hit the first year, and none the second?
Krugman and tax cuts
The only reason Krugman supports tax cuts is because he can't find enough "shovel-ready" projects to spend the money on. It's not like he's become a tax-cutting conservative or anything.
How about a payroll tax holiday?
You say
Enlighten us as to what "evidence to the contrary" suggests that tax cuts don't get money into the economy quickly. How about a payroll tax holiday? Give me that 300-400 bucks going into OASDI by way of a six months tax holiday and I will put it in the economy right after my next paycheck. Before you put down Paul Krugman, remember this guy said that the 9/11 attacks's silver lining would help with job growth. By that logic, so would a dirty bomb near a big city.
A vote for this package is a vote for higher taxes or higher inflation. The only way to pay for it is to increase taxes (dollar for dollar) or print more money. Increasing taxes will decrease consumption and investment. If you don't believe that, go take an economics class before writing that does not happen. Printing more money will devalue the dollar, resulting in a decrease in purchase power because it will cost us more dollars to pay for the same goods and services.
did you predict this neardepression?
didn't think so. and Krugman is for some tax cuts.
20% of the last tax stimulus got used in the economy. so i think tax cuts are a net loss, as opposed to what I tossed on the sidebar about parks, which will be a net gain, if possibly a long term one.
Inflation and devaluation of the dollar will allow more tourism, and a generally happier export trade. we run a trade deficit, you've noticed, haven't you?
http://www.whitehouse.gov/new
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/reports/taxplan.html
I don't know where you have been for the last 8 years. We have had tax cuts for the past 8 years. Add to that a stimulus package a year ago.
So far all we see is deficits and debt.
And what are you going to spend your money on. Chinese goods?
All the deficits Bush produced is your future taxes. The deficits is money spent and we have not paid for it. We have not paid for the war either. Of course for republicans it is all for free. Just have tax cuts.
The factories are closing up. Cities and states are going broke as they lose their tax base. Jobs going overseas, and you have the loss of jobs, lower wages, less healthcare, and loss of pensions. You have to deal with globalization. Not a word from republicans.
And on inflation. The fed has lowered interest rates to their lowest levels ever. That is printing more money. So expect inflation in 3 years.
Obama is trapped in a corner, with no way out. And all I see so far is the republicans playing games. Now fix the problem. I have been waiting for Bush to fix something, anything for years and we get nothing but his rhetoric.
Rising Tide and In Between -
Rising Tide and In Between - you both changed the issue and went on so many tangents it is too hard to address them here. All I was saying is that the Republicans should oppose the stimulus because it will have to be paid for by either raising taxes or printing money.
I opposed the stimulus checks last spring because they were not met with cuts in spending and that type of stimulus is short-lived if effective at all. I think Bush (and the Republican Congress) was terrible on not cutting spending to go along with tax cuts, from 2000-2006. There were alot of conservatives out there saying so, but the Republicans on the Hill were taking too much glee in the ability to free spend.
I agree we will be paying for Bush's spending for years to come. But what it took him 8 years to accumulate in debt (5 trillion additional dollars) Obama is proposing a rate of nearly twice that.
Let's agree that our budget process is a mess and both sides need to do some compromising.
The one tangent I cannot let go is jobs going overseas. As far as exporting jobs, alot of that is happening because of our high corporate tax rate relative to other countries-- second highest in the world. Look at Ireland by contrast whose rate is 1/3 of ours. They lowered it and their GDP is 50% higher than ours on a per capita basis. Ireland is now one of the most prosperous countries in Europe after stagnating for decades. Obama has it backward when he says that he will lower tax rates for corporations who keep their jobs here. No company is going to create jobs and then hope for a tax cut or some business incentive. You need to lower the rate before they will come back.
Finally, I see that you are setting the bar low for President Elect Obama, as he did for himself today, by saying he is trapped in a corner. Let's stop making excuses and see him take some initiative on leadership. http://blog.politicalcastaway.com/2009/01/08/how-low-can-obama-set-the-bar.aspx
nu, he is taking leadership
I am a firm Keynesian, and I defy you to find someone who predicted this near depression (conjure bag's clock is at 12:59:54 to a full on global depression), who is not.
Bernanke is in favor of the stimulus, and he's the foremost expert on the Great depression.
We will pay this back, because we must pay this back, before there are guns at our doorstep. I may not know how we will pay it back, but we will.
Obama plans to play fast, and get out of the pocket quickly.
You cannot pay down anything when everything is collapsing around you. Deflation is death to democracy. [see that coup in fdr's time]
I believe what Obama is saying is he is going to give tax cuts to any company that can show it made new jobs in America. That will be enshrined in taxcode, so that the beancounters can bet on it.
Obama has the worst fiscal crisis since the great depression, if not earlier, to deal with. So does the rest of the world. I hope and pray he can talk the Europeans out of their money haven -- as that needleslly provides a deflationhaven.
I think we are getting on
I think we are getting on some common ground here. I agree with these statements or yours:
Regarding:
How can it make new jobs (and why would it) when to do so it would have to operate under the higher tax regime? The only way that could be done is if he is willing to give some kind of tax break retroactively for the period of time when the company was creating the jobs. Otherwise, I don't see how the incentive will work.
that's exactly how it works
you say Last Year I had 10 workers, this year I have 20, and we give you 30,000 dollars of tax break.
Actually a guy named James
Actually a guy named James Grant, who wites a periodical called Grant's Interest Rate Observer, has been prediciting this for years. He was only missed on the timing.
thanks!i'll chekc him out.
nobody got the timing right. most people thoguht paulson could pull it off and leave the whole kitty on obama's lap
On your first paragraph.
On your first paragraph. Printing of money. The federal reserve decided two weeks ago to do just that-print money. And the danger of this, a few years down the road is inflation.
So that is one bad situation we are in.
If you fear the raising of taxes, then the deficits and debt are there for all to see. And that is future taxes.
<<5 trillion dollars and Obama is proposing a rate twice that>>
Not true. It will be around 800 billion I believe.
In any case, Obama will inherit a 500 billion dollar deficit, an added 4 trillion dollars of debt by Bush, the bailouts for the banks and autos, and he will add his stimulus.
I was against the stimulus last year also as it solved no problems. Tax cuts by themselves with globalization solves no problems.
I don't know about Ireland, they did go high tech. We have factories closing in the Midwest.
You talk of taxes taking our jobs. I say it is for cheap labor, no healthcare, no pensions, no social security, and no OSHA standards. The simple point is that we cannot compete with third world labor. And that is the problem with free trade. Bush talks of free trade and the factories close. So what is the answer? Have not heard an adequate answer as cities and states go broke.
I don't know what is wrong in Obama lowering taxes on corporations if they stay here. That is what the policy should be. Lowering of taxes is supposed to create jobs in this country.
<<setting the bar low>>
I have never seen such a mess in my life. Obama is trapped in a corner. He comes in with deficits and debt, with cities and states going broke, factories closing, recession, 2 wars, bailouts, and an infrastructure in neglect which will require more spending.
We have had 8 years of tax cuts and now they are ineffective and we are back into a recession. Bush relied on ideology and ignored most of the problems.
The fed has lowered interest rates to their all time lows and in effect creating inflation for later years.
China has expressed concern on the funding of deficits. And if they cut that off, then it will be doomsday for us.
There is little maneuvering, and he will try a lot of things, maybe they will all fail, I don't know. But what we have seen for the last 8 years is our jobs going overseas, our money going to Iraq, the neglect of our infrastructure, and the borrowing more money to keep our economy going.
Now somebody is nuts, and it ain't me.
I don't think you are
I don't think you are nuts. Your writing is a bit desultory, and you stretch the facts a bit, too.
I give up trying to explain the lower tax to corproations issue. Until you have a better understanding of macroeconomics, I don't think we can have a reasonable discussion.
Please explain this statement. Nothwithstanding the incorrect grammar, I do not understand what you mean.
If you fill the bucket with
If you fill the bucket with tax cuts from the top and ignore the leak at the bottom of the bucket then it is just a waste of time.
No matter what you do with tax cuts, the factories are closing. Cities and states are going broke. We cannot compete with third world countries. Pat Buchanan and others have warned about this. Bush talks of free trade and the factories close.
The problem is globalization and we are not dealing with it. One thing is that China is manipulating its currency. The other thing for the past few years, our country targeted housing for economic growth. Housing is not the problem. It is globalization. We cannot compete with third world wages.
I am speaking from the Midwest and it is mostly factories. And people fear for their jobs. As long as people fear for their jobs, they will not spend. They cannot borrow. So jobs is the issue.
If you fly a plane, you have to do 10 things at the same time. And all I am saying, the issue is not only tax cuts. There are numerous problems. And it takes management and pragmatism to deal with it. And not ideology. Bush is the most ideological president of our time. And he does not see the problems around him.
I understand your point about
I understand your point about factories but they are not the only businesses who pay the hight rate. A change in the corporate tax rate will certainly benefit small businesses who won't go abroad with a high tax rate, they'll just fold.
The issue of third world wages and thus goods being cheaper is a difficult one. On the one hand, as you correctly point out, factories are being closed all over the country, especially the Midwest while companies ship the jobs abroad or just buy from abroad. The detriment is, obviously, the US loses those jobs. The benefit is the goods we buy are cheaper. The question is whether we are willing to be more for goods that are imported that would be subject to a tariff. In the long run, no tariffs are a net gain for the country. That way the market, rather than the government picks winners (i.e. the lowest, best product). An out-of-work factory worker does not agree with that in the short-run for sure.
The small business can't make
The small business can't make a go of it if factories close in the area. It is the domino effect.
The unemployed worker is uneducated, will not buy into the economy, and may go on welfare.
As I have showed before, jobs are leaving Ireland and going to Poland. So what we have is globalization. As you say the market picks the winners. Well we already know that. We already know that the market will pick the third world country because companies can use cheap labor, the don't need to pay for healthcare, pensions, social security, and live under rules of OSHA.
So we have to believe that now and in the future that most manufacturing jobs will go overseas. And the only answer is to have infrastructural spending (limited), energy independence, mandatory vocational training, embryonic stem cell research and all the research and development possible by government. The government gave us the internet. You need a Manhattan project to solve the problem of globalization.
When you have research and development, you will create new jobs to replace the old ones.
We cannot keep going down this road of ignorance and laissez-faire. Action has to be taken. And I do believe Obama will give us some action. I hope it is the right stuff. But I have seen the last 8 years of nothing, and we have done nothing. And that means a workforce uneducated, cities and states going broke, deficits and debt, social programs skyrocketing and going broke, and a failing infrastructure.
On Ireland
http://news.cnet.com/8301-1001_3-10136439-92.html?part=rss&subj=news&tag...
On Ireland, welcome to the world of globalization. Jobs going to Poland.
Much as liberal asswipes like
Much as liberal asswipes like yourself would have it otherwise, cutting income tax rates for people who actually pay income taxes, in rough proportion to their tax burden, is not "a tax cut for the rich". It's the natural result of the progressivity of the income tax, which liberal asswipes like yourself purport to believe is a swell thing.
Much as liberal asswipes like yourself would have it otherwise, infrastructure spending is "pork" not because of the inefficiencies of building, but because government allocation of tax dollars to infrastructure projects is inevitably driven by crass, vote-buying politics rather than actual need.
Much as liberal asswipes like yourself would have it otherwise, "country first" is not synonymous with rolling over for the Obama agenda, and the national interest is not synonymous with liberal policy prescriptions.
because it is apparently not in the national interest
to do what most Americans think is the right thing to do, and what most Americans elected their representatives to do.
sorry, this doesn't fly.
Most Americans think
Most Americans think shitloads of infrastructure spending is the right thing to do? Most Americans elected their representatives to create gargantuan infrastructure spending programs?
It must be difficult to breathe, with your head stuffed so far up your ass.
Poll shows support for infrastructure
Although I hesitate to come to his defense - polling numbers show he is right on this one.
The poll offers no support
The poll offers no support for RisingTide's thesis: that most Americans see infrastructure spending as the right thing to do (i.e., an affirmative good in and of itself, rather than the most effective of several possibly/probably-shitty alternatives), and voted for their representatives to do it, specifically.
Show me the numbers
Show me, please, the poll numbers that back up your thesis.