Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 39

Thread: SF Chronicle: Obama Thinks He's the Fairness Czar

  1. #1

    SF Chronicle: Obama Thinks He's the Fairness Czar

    [B]Obama Thinks He's the Fairness Czar[/B]

    [B]By[/B] [URL="http://www.realclearpolitics.com/authors/?author=Debra+Saunders&id=14952"][B]Debra Saunders[/B][/URL]
    Cory Booker, mayor of Newark, N.J., came across as a moderate, sensible Democrat when he said on "Meet the Press" Sunday that negative political ads are "nauseating to the American public. Enough is enough. Stop attacking private equity. Stop attacking Jeremiah Wright."
    Booker, a Barack Obama surrogate, later tried to walk back his comments. He posted a video in which he explained that he was expressing his frustration with negative campaigning when he spoke out, effectively undermining the president's re-election narrative. (Booker also referred to the biggest non-story in politics last week, about a political consultant who recommended that a super PAC use Wright in an anti-Obama ad. That ad didn't get made.)





    [IMG]http://ib.mookie1.com/pibiview.js?go=2269&pid=32&xid=5691478926359069174[/IMG]



    But there is no walking back from Booker's disapproval of the Obama campaign's attacks on Bain Capital, the private equity firm that Mitt Romney founded. Last week, Team Obama released an ad that told the story of a Kansas steel mill that Bain bought in 1993 and that went bankrupt in 2001. In the ad, laid-off steelworkers had some choice words for Romney. Like "vampire" and "job destroyer."


    The problem with such ads, Booker said Sunday, is that "we're getting to a ridiculous point in America." Pension funds, unions and others invest in companies like Bain Capital. Bain's record has been to grow businesses. To Booker, Bain Capital has been good for America. To Obamaland, Bain Capital has been bad for America.


    As a mayor, Booker said, he, too, has had to lay off workers "because it's the only way" his "government would survive." He added, "Call me a job cutter if you want."


    I should note that PolitiFact rated as "mostly true" this statement from the Obama campaign: "After purchasing the company, Mitt Romney and his partners loaded it with debt, closed the Kansas City plant and walked away with a healthy profit, leaving hundreds of employees out of work with their pensions in jeopardy." Missing from the story: the fact that Romney wasn't in charge anymore and that in 2001, the steel industry was in a world of hurt -- with low steel prices and high production costs -- which drove a lot of mills out of business.


    I would add that the steelworkers in the political ad were talking about the heyday of the steel industry, which occurred long before Bain stepped in to rescue an ailing mill.

    [B]Monday, a reporter asked Obama about Booker's remarks and the role of private equity. The president explained that the goal of private investment is to "maximize profits," whereas a president's job is to make sure that everyone has "a fair shot" and that everyone pays his or her "fair share" of taxes.[/B]

    [B]That's the problem with Obama; he thinks he's the fairness czar. He didn't say that a president is supposed to create an environment that nurtures business success. He said a president is supposed to make sure that nobody walks away with too much.[/B]


    [B]When you're president, Obama said, "your job is to think about those workers who get laid off and how are we paying for their retraining." Obama's war is a war on private money. He thinks his job is to create job training programs, not create an environment that creates real jobs.
    [/B]


    [url]http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2012/05/22/democrats_war_on_money_114233.html[/url]

  2. #2
    [QUOTE=doggin94it;4474523]I should note that PolitiFact rated as "mostly true" this statement from the Obama campaign: "After purchasing the company, Mitt Romney and his partners loaded it with debt, closed the Kansas City plant and walked away with a healthy profit, leaving hundreds of employees out of work with their pensions in jeopardy."

    [B][COLOR="Red"]Missing from the story: the fact that Romney wasn't in charge anymore and that in 2001, the steel industry was in a world of hurt -- with low steel prices and high production costs -- which drove a lot of mills out of business.

    I would add that the steelworkers in the political ad were talking about the heyday of the steel industry, which occurred long before Bain stepped in to rescue an ailing mill.[/COLOR][/B][/quote]

    Leaving Obama's (obvious IMO) Euro-Style Social Welfare/Socialism/Progressivism/Colelctivism for a moment, it's the portion bolded-red above that I would focus on.

    The reality of a group like Bain is that they can only sweep in any buy for a pittance if the company in question is already ripe for it. Either flush with cash and opportunity (in which case Bain buys and profits from their ongoing operations whilst building them further) or ALREADY failing, in which case a Bain will either save them (as Bain saved a number of companies we've all heard of, liek Sports Authority and Dominoes Pizza) or they liquidate.

    It's that liquidation people get all riled up abaout. What they fail to see is that a company that is liquidated has already failed, and fails again to meet the criteria of being worth further investment. In such a case, those jobs are already going to be lost, Bain or not. Bain didn't put them in that spot, the market and it's previous owners did.

    Another word for "loaded it with debt" is "tried to keep things running via liabillities, to see if it would turn around and recover or not". Like ANY and EVERY business owner, when the time to call it quits came, when it was clear this was a loser venture, they tried to recoup their money. The workers would be screwed/unemployed in that scenario every time, no matter who owned it. Name me a private business owner who keeps losing money on his business as a charity.....

    And don't forget....Obam himself is backed by no shortage of Venture Capitalists himself, right up to and including a certain Mr. "My Tax is Less Than My Secretary", whose invested, profited, and fired/closed no shortage of things himself over the years.

    What this comes down to, IMO, is what the article focuses on. Modern Liebralism as personified by the Pres. is about collectivism and what he calls "fairness" and I'd call Euro-Style Social Welfare Socialism. Govt. in control of capital and investment and deciding who gets how much and how much each "deserves" in their view of a "fair" system.

    The idea that a Bain is whats wrong with America today.....I'm amazed, frankly. it shows the level of economic ignorance that Bain is teh bad guy, whilst trillions in Govt. overspending, waste, fraud and failed programs and investment is the good guy, all in the name of Euro-Style "fairness". The argument against a Bain is an argument against freedom in the business marketplace and against Capitalism itself.
    Last edited by Warfish; 05-22-2012 at 11:42 AM.

  3. #3
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    6,297
    [QUOTE=Warfish;4474531]Leaving Obama's (obvious IMO) Euro-Style Social Welfare/Socialism/Progressivism/Colelctivism for a moment, it's the portion bolded-red above that I would focus on.

    The reality of a group like Bain is that they can only sweep in any buy for a pittance if the company in question is already ripe for it. Either flush with cash and opportunity (in which case Bain buys and profits from their ongoing operations whilst building them further) or ALREADY failing, in which case a Bain will either save them (as Bain saved a number of companies we've all heard of, liek Sports Authority and Dominoes Pizza) or they liquidate.

    It's that liquidation people get all riled up abaout. What they fail to see is that a company that is liquidated has already failed, and fails again to meet the criteria of being worth further investment. In such a case, those jobs are already going to be lost, Bain or not. Bain didn't put them in that spot, the market and it's previous owners did.

    Another word for "loaded it with debt" is "tried to keep things running via liabillities, to see if it would turn around and recover or not". Like ANY and EVERY business owner, when the time to call it quits came, when it was clear this was a loser venture, they tried to recoup their money. The workers would be screwed/unemployed in that scenario every time, no matter who owned it. Name me a private business owner who keeps losing money on his business as a charity.....

    And don't forget....Obam himself is backed by no shortage of Venture Capitalists himself, right up to and including a certain Mr. "My Tax is Less Than My Secretary", whose invested, profited, and fired/closed no shortage of things himself over the years.

    What this comes down to, IMO, is what the article focuses on. Modern Liebralism as personified by the Pres. is about collectivism and what he calls "fairness" and I'd call Euro-Style Social Welfare Socialism. Govt. in control of capital and investment and deciding who gets how much and how much each "deserves" in their view of a "fair" system.

    The idea that a Bain is whats wrong with America today.....I'm amazed, frankly. it shows the level of economic ignorance that Bain is teh bad guy, whilst trillions in Govt. overspending, waste, fraud and failed programs and investment is the good guy, all in the name of Euro-Style "fairness". The argument against a Bain is an argument against freedom in the business marketplace and against Capitalism itself.[/QUOTE]

    Excellent post!

  4. #4
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    13,565
    [QUOTE=Warfish;4474531]Leaving Obama's (obvious IMO) Euro-Style Social Welfare/Socialism/Progressivism/Colelctivism for a moment, it's the portion bolded-red above that I would focus on.

    The reality of a group like Bain is that they can only sweep in any buy for a pittance if the company in question is already ripe for it. Either flush with cash and opportunity (in which case Bain buys and profits from their ongoing operations whilst building them further) or ALREADY failing, in which case a Bain will either save them (as Bain saved a number of companies we've all heard of, liek Sports Authority and Dominoes Pizza) or they liquidate.

    It's that liquidation people get all riled up abaout. What they fail to see is that a company that is liquidated has already failed, and fails again to meet the criteria of being worth further investment. In such a case, those jobs are already going to be lost, Bain or not. Bain didn't put them in that spot, the market and it's previous owners did.

    Another word for "loaded it with debt" is "tried to keep things running via liabillities, to see if it would turn around and recover or not". Like ANY and EVERY business owner, when the time to call it quits came, when it was clear this was a loser venture, they tried to recoup their money. The workers would be screwed/unemployed in that scenario every time, no matter who owned it. Name me a private business owner who keeps losing money on his business as a charity.....

    And don't forget....Obam himself is backed by no shortage of Venture Capitalists himself, right up to and including a certain Mr. "My Tax is Less Than My Secretary", whose invested, profited, and fired/closed no shortage of things himself over the years.

    What this comes down to, IMO, is what the article focuses on. Modern Liebralism as personified by the Pres. is about collectivism and what he calls "fairness" and I'd call Euro-Style Social Welfare Socialism. Govt. in control of capital and investment and deciding who gets how much and how much each "deserves" in their view of a "fair" system.

    The idea that a Bain is whats wrong with America today.....I'm amazed, frankly. it shows the level of economic ignorance that Bain is teh bad guy, whilst trillions in Govt. overspending, waste, fraud and failed programs and investment is the good guy, all in the name of Euro-Style "fairness". The argument against a Bain is an argument against freedom in the business marketplace and against Capitalism itself.[/QUOTE]

    Excellent post.

  5. #5
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Van down by the river
    Posts
    22,995
    [QUOTE=Warfish;4474531]Leaving Obama's (obvious IMO) Euro-Style Social Welfare/Socialism/Progressivism/Colelctivism for a moment, it's the portion bolded-red above that I would focus on.

    The reality of a group like Bain is that they can only sweep in any buy for a pittance if the company in question is already ripe for it. Either flush with cash and opportunity (in which case Bain buys and profits from their ongoing operations whilst building them further) or ALREADY failing, in which case a Bain will either save them (as Bain saved a number of companies we've all heard of, liek Sports Authority and Dominoes Pizza) or they liquidate.

    It's that liquidation people get all riled up abaout. What they fail to see is that a company that is liquidated has already failed, and fails again to meet the criteria of being worth further investment. In such a case, those jobs are already going to be lost, Bain or not. Bain didn't put them in that spot, the market and it's previous owners did.

    Another word for "loaded it with debt" is "tried to keep things running via liabillities, to see if it would turn around and recover or not". Like ANY and EVERY business owner, when the time to call it quits came, when it was clear this was a loser venture, they tried to recoup their money. The workers would be screwed/unemployed in that scenario every time, no matter who owned it. Name me a private business owner who keeps losing money on his business as a charity.....

    And don't forget....Obam himself is backed by no shortage of Venture Capitalists himself, right up to and including a certain Mr. "My Tax is Less Than My Secretary", whose invested, profited, and fired/closed no shortage of things himself over the years.

    What this comes down to, IMO, is what the article focuses on. Modern Liebralism as personified by the Pres. is about collectivism and what he calls "fairness" and I'd call Euro-Style Social Welfare Socialism. Govt. in control of capital and investment and deciding who gets how much and how much each "deserves" in their view of a "fair" system.

    The idea that a Bain is whats wrong with America today.....I'm amazed, frankly. it shows the level of economic ignorance that Bain is teh bad guy, whilst trillions in Govt. overspending, waste, fraud and failed programs and investment is the good guy, all in the name of Euro-Style "fairness". The argument against a Bain is an argument against freedom in the business marketplace and against Capitalism itself.[/QUOTE]

    Excellent post!

  6. #6
    [QUOTE=Warfish;4474531]Leaving Obama's (obvious IMO) Euro-Style Social Welfare/Socialism/Progressivism/Colelctivism for a moment, it's the portion bolded-red above that I would focus on.

    The reality of a group like Bain is that they can only sweep in any buy for a pittance if the company in question is already ripe for it. Either flush with cash and opportunity (in which case Bain buys and profits from their ongoing operations whilst building them further) or ALREADY failing, in which case a Bain will either save them (as Bain saved a number of companies we've all heard of, liek Sports Authority and Dominoes Pizza) or they liquidate.

    It's that liquidation people get all riled up abaout. What they fail to see is that a company that is liquidated has already failed, and fails again to meet the criteria of being worth further investment. In such a case, those jobs are already going to be lost, Bain or not. Bain didn't put them in that spot, the market and it's previous owners did.

    Another word for "loaded it with debt" is "tried to keep things running via liabillities, to see if it would turn around and recover or not". Like ANY and EVERY business owner, when the time to call it quits came, when it was clear this was a loser venture, they tried to recoup their money. The workers would be screwed/unemployed in that scenario every time, no matter who owned it. Name me a private business owner who keeps losing money on his business as a charity.....

    And don't forget....Obam himself is backed by no shortage of Venture Capitalists himself, right up to and including a certain Mr. "My Tax is Less Than My Secretary", whose invested, profited, and fired/closed no shortage of things himself over the years.

    What this comes down to, IMO, is what the article focuses on. Modern Liebralism as personified by the Pres. is about collectivism and what he calls "fairness" and I'd call Euro-Style Social Welfare Socialism. Govt. in control of capital and investment and deciding who gets how much and how much each "deserves" in their view of a "fair" system.

    The idea that a Bain is whats wrong with America today.....I'm amazed, frankly. it shows the level of economic ignorance that Bain is teh bad guy, whilst trillions in Govt. overspending, waste, fraud and failed programs and investment is the good guy, all in the name of Euro-Style "fairness". The argument against a Bain is an argument against freedom in the business marketplace and against Capitalism itself.[/QUOTE]

    No matter how many times you keep repeating it, Obama is NOT a "Euro Style Socialist" .

    Look at his policies,(ObamaCare, bailout of banks and Wall Street, Continuation of Bush'sTax Cuts, Continuation of Patriot Act, War in Afghanistan, keeping Gitmo open, continuing with the indefinite detention of terror suspects)- none of these are consistent with liberalism let alone soialism.

    Its insulting to guys who truly are "Euro Styled Socialists" to hear this absurdity. Im not even sure if i would consider him a traditional liberal.

  7. #7
    Bewildered Beast
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    SF via Strong Island
    Posts
    30,843
    Dramatizing the "effects" of various causes made by political opponents is how the game is played, right? What a bunch of nothing.

  8. #8
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    50,259
    [QUOTE=Warfish;4474531]Leaving Obama's (obvious IMO) Euro-Style Social Welfare/Socialism/Progressivism/Colelctivism for a moment, it's the portion bolded-red above that I would focus on.

    The reality of a group like Bain is that they can only sweep in any buy for a pittance if the company in question is already ripe for it. Either flush with cash and opportunity (in which case Bain buys and profits from their ongoing operations whilst building them further) or ALREADY failing, in which case a Bain will either save them (as Bain saved a number of companies we've all heard of, liek Sports Authority and Dominoes Pizza) or they liquidate.

    It's that liquidation people get all riled up abaout. What they fail to see is that a company that is liquidated has already failed, and fails again to meet the criteria of being worth further investment. In such a case, those jobs are already going to be lost, Bain or not. Bain didn't put them in that spot, the market and it's previous owners did.

    Another word for "loaded it with debt" is "tried to keep things running via liabillities, to see if it would turn around and recover or not". Like ANY and EVERY business owner, when the time to call it quits came, when it was clear this was a loser venture, they tried to recoup their money. The workers would be screwed/unemployed in that scenario every time, no matter who owned it. Name me a private business owner who keeps losing money on his business as a charity.....

    And don't forget....Obam himself is backed by no shortage of Venture Capitalists himself, right up to and including a certain Mr. "My Tax is Less Than My Secretary", whose invested, profited, and fired/closed no shortage of things himself over the years.

    What this comes down to, IMO, is what the article focuses on. Modern Liebralism as personified by the Pres. is about collectivism and what he calls "fairness" and I'd call Euro-Style Social Welfare Socialism. Govt. in control of capital and investment and deciding who gets how much and how much each "deserves" in their view of a "fair" system.

    The idea that a Bain is whats wrong with America today.....I'm amazed, frankly. it shows the level of economic ignorance that Bain is teh bad guy, whilst trillions in Govt. overspending, waste, fraud and failed programs and investment is the good guy, all in the name of Euro-Style "fairness". The argument against a Bain is an argument against freedom in the business marketplace and against Capitalism itself.[/QUOTE]

    I have no problem with Bain, they are good at what they do.

    What I do have a problem with is thinking Romney's experience at Bain would somehow translate to being an effective president. The skills needed at Bain are quite different that the skills needed to be POTUS.

  9. #9
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    13,565
    [QUOTE=FF2;4474690]I have no problem with Bain, they are good at what they do.

    What I do have a problem with is thinking Romney's experience at Bain would somehow translate to being an effective president. The skills needed at Bain are quite different that the skills needed to be POTUS.[/QUOTE]

    Actually the opposite is true.

    What our federal government sorely needs is someone who can implement efficient structure whereever possible. Would love to see a real business leader implement Lean Six Sigma and performance review strategies throughout this mess of an organization like he did with Bain. You'd hopefully see a pretty dramatic culture shift in what is now an awful situation.

    Did you mean as opposed to Obama's rich real-life experiences that so prepared him to be POTUS?:rolleyes:

  10. #10
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    6,297
    [QUOTE=FF2;4474690]I have no problem with Bain, they are good at what they do.

    What I do have a problem with is thinking Romney's experience at Bain would somehow translate to being an effective president. The skills needed at Bain are quite different that the skills needed to be POTUS.[/QUOTE]

    Leading a big company that runs big budgets and hold the decisions of how to make a company run better or knowing when to cut bait is very good experience in leadership, organization and economic arenas (to name a few). These skills are necessary for the POTUS. Add to that his experience in governing as Governor of Mass and he has a solid resume.

    It sure isn't as valuable as organizing a community but ...

  11. #11
    [QUOTE=Trades;4474713]Leading a big company that runs big budgets and hold the decisions of how to make a company run better or knowing when to cut bait is very good experience in leadership, organization and economic arenas (to name a few). These skills are necessary for the POTUS. Add to that his experience in governing as Governor of Mass and he has a solid resume.

    It sure isn't as valuable as organizing a community but ...[/QUOTE]

    Why aren't we looking at what he did while he was the Governor of Massachusetts?

  12. #12
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    6,959
    [QUOTE=JetPotato;4474710]Actually the opposite is true.

    What our federal government sorely needs is someone who can implement efficient structure whereever possible. Would love to see a real business leader implement Lean Six Sigma and performance review strategies throughout this mess of an organization like he did with Bain. You'd hopefully see a pretty dramatic culture shift in what is now an awful situation.[/QUOTE]

    Agreed. Romney's experience as an executive in the private sector and as Governor is certainly a big plus for him.

    Last summer, I posted an article here which suggested that the government should implement debt reducing strategies similar to those of successful big businesses in the past. It didn't go over too well with some of the conservatives here.

    [URL="www.jetsinsider.com/forums/showthread.php?t=231921"]www.jetsinsider.com/forums/showthread.php?t=231921[/URL]

  13. #13
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    13,565
    [QUOTE=parafly;4474755]Agreed. Romney's experience as an executive in the private sector and as Governor is certainly a big plus for him.

    Last summer, I posted an article here which suggested that the government should implement debt reducing strategies similar to those of successful big businesses in the past. It didn't go over too well with some of the conservatives here.

    [URL="www.jetsinsider.com/forums/showthread.php?t=231921"]www.jetsinsider.com/forums/showthread.php?t=231921[/URL][/QUOTE]

    Except that this example in the article and Lean Six Sigma have very little in common.

    One would work, the other is like trying to fit a square peg into a round hole.

  14. #14
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    6,959
    [QUOTE=JetPotato;4474762]Except that this example in the article and Lean Six Sigma have very little in common.

    One would work, the other is like trying to fit a square peg into a round hole.[/QUOTE]

    I disagree. They both have their places as effective debt reduction strategies. Thanks for the reference to Lean Six Sigma, very educational.

  15. #15
    [QUOTE=kennyo7;4474571]No matter how many times you keep repeating it, Obama is NOT a "Euro Style Socialist" .[/quote]

    No matter how much you deny it, he won't be any less a ESWSocialist/Collectivist/"Fairness Czar" either. In point of fact Ken, we both know he's simply not ENOUGH Socialist FAST ENOUGH for your own tastes in policy. You, like a few here, want Sweeden/Denmark/Norway, and you want it yesterday.

    [QUOTE]Look at his policies,(ObamaCare, bailout of banks and Wall Street, Continuation of Bush'sTax Cuts, Continuation of Patriot Act, War in Afghanistan, keeping Gitmo open, continuing with the indefinite detention of terror suspects)- none of these are consistent with liberalism let alone soialism.[/QUOTE]

    Best Universal Health he could get passed combined with standard-issue millitarism and secrecy? There is nothing inherantly "unsocialist" or "unliberal" about either. Not is it "unsococialist" to bail out the banks, have the Govt. own portions of them, GM, etc, and hence gain additional power over them.

    [quote]Its insulting to guys who truly are "Euro Styled Socialists" to hear this absurdity. Im not even sure if i would consider him a traditional liberal.[/QUOTE]

    Aye, as stated above, he's just not enough of socialist fast enough for you Ken. Never was a doubt about that tbqh.

  16. #16
    [QUOTE=FF2;4474690]What I do have a problem with is thinking Romney's experience at Bain would somehow translate to being an effective president. The skills needed at Bain are quite different that the skills needed to be POTUS.[/QUOTE]



    Absolutely fair. Each of us should determine what experience and qualifications (and policy of course) matters to us.

    For example, Romney has Bain and being a Governor. Obama had Community Activism and being a Senator. Which is "better" will be in the eyes of each voter.

    Personally, I side with the business side. Govt. is just as venture capitalist as Bain, excpet they do it with our money, not their own, and they don't care if it works out or not, as long as their intentions were "good" or "fair". I think if our Govt. is going to do that, having a successful Venture Capitalist wouldn't hurt, at least hen maybe we (via the Govt.) woiuld stick to investing in profitable or successful ventures, and not any good-feeling failure that lines up with our policy desires (i.e Solyndra, singualrly worse an investment than anything Romney ever touched at Bain).

  17. #17
    [QUOTE=parafly;4474774]I disagree. They both have their places as effective debt reduction strategies. Thanks for the reference to Lean Six Sigma, very educational.[/QUOTE]

    Agreed. The problem is, you can't take the steps that article proposed - slashing spending in inefficient areas and increasing spending in areas that promote growth - until you've reformed [B]how [/B]government spends money

  18. #18
    [QUOTE=parafly;4474755]Agreed. Romney's experience as an executive in the private sector and as Governor is certainly a big plus for him.

    Last summer, I posted an article here which suggested that the government should implement debt reducing strategies similar to those of successful big businesses in the past. It didn't go over too well with some of the conservatives here.

    [URL="www.jetsinsider.com/forums/showthread.php?t=231921"]www.jetsinsider.com/forums/showthread.php?t=231921[/URL][/QUOTE]

    It didn't go over well for good reason. The role of government is not to incubate companies with the hopes that some will succeed. The best way for Government to promote growth is to remove the obstacles to growth put up by government. The cost of healthcare is an obstacle. The cost of fuel is an obstacle. Punishing and useless regulation is an obstacle. Out of control tort is an obstacle. High taxes is an obstacle.

    Government can do plenty by fixing those obstacles. It should not be in the business of investing in private enterprise.

  19. #19
    What exactly has Obama done in 4 years. He bailed GM and Chrysler with our tax money. Has a big donor who was in charge of Bain Capial when the Steel Maker went belly up. Used our tax money for Solyndra and other bad adventures. Lets not forget the gunrunning to Mexico in which thousands of Mexicans and US Border Agents have been killed with.
    So what about Obama's Record?

    Just Say No to O!

  20. #20
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    6,959
    [QUOTE=doggin94it;4474821]Agreed. The problem is, you can't take the steps that article proposed - slashing spending in inefficient areas and increasing spending in areas that promote growth - until you've reformed [B]how [/B]government spends money[/QUOTE]

    Agreed 100%. For context purposes, keep in mind the article was written during the debt ceiling fiasco last year.

    I believe that current government revenue is at reasonable levels. The country needs tax reform much more so than increased tax rates or revenues, and spending needs to be restructured fundamentally.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us