Boehner Out Golfing Amid Government Shutdown Talks

Could someone point out any legislation passed by the House since the Republicans took the majority that has increased employment or that directly relates to creating jobs?

Not unless you happen to be a caddy or a bartender at the country club.

archer wrote: I'm not complaining that it isn't getting done fast enough......I'm complaining that a lot of lip service was given to creating jobs during the Republican campaigns, but now it seems like the Republicans have a whole different agenda.....and creating jobs isn't on it.

What Republicans understand, and Democrats fail to, is that the only jobs the government can create are government jobs. The type of jobs the country needs are created by the private sector. To that end it is the taxing policies of, and spending by, the federal government that needs to be addressed. The legislation being pursued in the House at the moment is precisely the type of reform at the federal level that businesses are looking for before they rehire or expand.

Prohibition of federal agencies to legislate via policy, cutting not only the current budget, but also the proposed record deficit budget that Obama has submitted for consideration, strongly resisting any attempts to raise income taxes on not only the workers, but those that have the capital to invest in the economy, including businesses and corporations. As long as the people who don't need to work are facing more severe penalties on the profits they earn when they risk their capital, they won't risk the capital. They will hold onto their capital instead and wait for a more favorable climate, or a more favorable location, in which to risk their money. If you want the millionaires and billionaires to stop sitting on their money, you are going to have to come to grips with the fact that they will continue to do so until you allow them to keep more of the rewards rather than taking more of the rewards away from them. They don't need more money, they already have millions and billions of dollars.

It is such a simple concept, I fail to understand why it is so difficult to comprehend. If you want more money donated to charity such that government charity can be reduced, you reward those who give to charity, not increase the taxes they pay if they do so. If you want someone to risk their capital, you enact policies that reward, not punish, what they reap after having sown their capital into the economy.

I hear from all these rich progressives that they didn't need their tax rate kept the same and it could have been raised on them. Fine, submit the money that you would have owed if your taxes had been raised voluntarily to the national treasury. But they don't do that, do they. Of course not. Know why? Because they know their money would be wasted. They would rather give that money to charities other than the federal ones because they know their money is more wisely spent by a private charity and has greater affect in the lives of those the charity serves. That ought to tell us something, and it does tell the conservatives something. The federal government shouldn't be in the charity business serving the individual welfare of individual people. It may be a noble endeavor, but it is not one that is properly within the purview of the federal government to address. Collective salvation does not work, has not worked and won't ever work and one of the best examples of this natural law can be found in our public schools.

The net result of taking control of the local school away from the local control and placing that control in the hands of larger entities has been the decline of the school system. The more power and control that is consolidated at ever higher levels, the worse the problem has become. The more power and control the federal government has sought by means of granting or withholding funding, the more the focus has shifted away from teaching the students how to reason for themselves. They are not teaching them how to solve their own problems, how to think their way to a solution for a problem they have not seen before. Instead they are teaching them how to score well on standardized tests so that the funding that comes from the federal and state governments won't be lost. Want to reform education? Let the parents, not the politicians, decide where they spend the money to educate their children. The same holds true for the nation in general. The people are much better at deciding where to spend money than the politicians are. People spend money to realize a monetary profit, politicians spend it to realize a political profit.

Printsmith:

You Sir, are too logical for the Liberal Entitlement desiring, America hating :Koolaid: drinkers that frequent this forum. They don't want truth and logic. They want to know who to attack that thinks differently than they do. Of course, I think you know that, but like the rest of us, still try to make some sense to them, but they aren't buying it, only because they don't want to accept the truth.

I actually thought it was an excellent response to them. Too bad it is wasted on them.

PrintSmith wrote: What Republicans understand, and Democrats fail to, is that the only jobs the government can create are government jobs. The type of jobs the country needs are created by the private sector.

For 2 years all we heard here was where are the jobs that Obama and the democrats promised to create......now that Republicans are in control in the house you argue that government can't create jobs....woo hoo....can we assume there will be some apologies forthcoming?


this is just tooooooooo funny.

According to an independent economic report released by Moody's today:

"The House Republicans’ proposal would reduce 2011 real GDP growth by
0.5% and 2012 growth by 0.2%. This would mean some 400,000 fewer
jobs created by the end of 2011 and 700,000 fewer jobs by the end of
2012"

http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/ ... 022811.pdf

This is the same Mark Zandi that helped write the SwindleUs saying that unemployment would peak at about 9% in 2010, fall to under 8% in 2011 and be under 6% in 2012 if it was adopted, isn't it?

Hmmmm. So far the guy was wrong, on nearly every point he made in support of the SwindleUs he helped to write, but I'm sure, along with all of you, that the guy will be right this time around. :Whistle

Something the Dog Said wrote: Could someone point out any legislation passed by the House since the Republicans took the majority that has increased employment or that directly relates to creating jobs?

So you are saying the Republicans have created the same number of jobs in 6 weeks as the Pelosi Democrats did in 4 years, zero?

At least Boehner and the boys still have time to turn around things as opposed to the Pelosi experiment which kept unemployment much higher than Hastert.

SS109 wrote:

Something the Dog Said wrote: Could someone point out any legislation passed by the House since the Republicans took the majority that has increased employment or that directly relates to creating jobs?

So you are saying...........

No, he asked the question: "Could someone point out any legislation passed by the House since the Republicans took the majority that has increased employment or that directly relates to creating jobs?"

What good does passing a bill in the House do when the Senate won't pass it and the Pres will veto it anyway. The main job creator would be to crush the idiotic healthcare bill (which the GOP is attempting) and take that future burden off employer's backs. Oh but wait, the bill is suppose to lower costs and create jobs!! rofllol rofllol