Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 17

Thread: On Public Investment, Republicans Again Show They Aren't Serious

  1. #1
    Havakasha is offline
    Havakasha's Avatar
    Joined: Sep 2009 Posts: 5,358

    On Public Investment, Republicans Again Show They Aren't Serious

    On public investment, Republicans again show they aren't serious
    By Steven Pearlstein
    Washington Post Staff Writer
    Wednesday, January 26, 2011

    When talking about the federal government and its budget deficit, Republican politicians love to score points by noting that "you'd never run your household or your business that way."

    Then again, you'd never run your household or your business by ignoring investment. Yet now that President Obama has proposed stepped-up public investment in infrastructure, energy, education and basic research, Republicans have suddenly decided their favorite analogy no longer applies.

    Asked about investment on the television talk shows Sunday, House Republican leader Eric Cantor (Va.) and Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.) each declared it was just another Democratic ploy to spend more money. Instead of Obama's "invest-and-grow," Republicans now offer "cut-and-grow," which will take its place beside "government ownership of the means of production" and "tax cuts that pay for themselves" in the Pantheon of Economic Nonsense.

    Republicans, it turns out, have no public investment strategy, just as they have no health-care strategy and no agreed-upon blueprint for reducing federal spending. What they have are poll-tested talking points, economic delusions and an overwhelming partisan instinct to say "no" to anything Barack Obama proposes. In their response to the president's State of the Union message, they remind us once again that they are not serious about economic policy and not ready to govern.

    In framing his retooled economic and political strategy, the president emphasized using public money to leverage private investment and innovation, once a popular Republican theme.

    In the short term, administration officials expect the bigger boost to the economy is likely to come not from jobs directly funded but from additional private investments spurred by increased confidence and a renewed sense of national purpose - "our Sputnik moment," as Obama called it.

    There is a similar emphasis on the private sector in the president's proposal for a National Infrastructure Bank, which will not only help to insulate the government's investment decisions from the political process but will focus on projects with demonstrable financial returns. Toll roads, smart grids, wind farms, freight lines and air-traffic control systems would compete for funding on the basis of their ability to generate user fees to repay the bank's bondholders.

    In the energy sector, Obama expects to untap tens of billions of dollars in private investment with modest amounts of seed money and the right regulatory incentive - in this case a requirement that 80 percent of electricity comes from environmentally clean sources by 2035.

    While high-speed or new transit projects may never generate enough revenue to cover the original investment, the president cited the experience with the transcontinental railroads and the interstate highway system - both started during Republican administrations - which showed that such projects could more than pay for themselves indirectly as a result of the private development they stimulated.

    You don't have to be Republican to question whether more education spending will be a worthwhile investment in human capital or just more money poured into an inefficient and unaccountable educational establishment. Through the Education Department's "Race to the Top" grants, the administration has already demonstrated its determination to use additional funding to leverage needed reforms. One would hope a similar strategy could now be used with these new investments in higher education, getting schools to improve productivity through creative use of technology and new teaching and learning techniques.

    Even with the proposed increases, of course, federal investment still will amount to a small slice of the budget. Other than interest on the national debt, all the rest is consumption: Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, veterans benefits, fighting wars, protecting the safety of workers and consumers, national parks, food stamps, farm subsidies, housing vouchers. Most Americans, I suspect, would consider some of that spending pretty vital, which is why Republican plans for across-the-board cuts are just plain dumb.

    As it happens, a bipartisan deficit commission has just finished laying out a plan for reducing the government's consumption spending, reforming the tax code and modestly increasing tax revenues. While Obama acknowledged the necessity of painful cuts in domestic spending, it was disappointing that he didn't use Tuesday's nationally televised speech to embrace the broad outlines and deficit reduction targets in the commission's report. White House officials are concerned that if the president "laid all his cards on the table," it would weaken his bargaining position in upcoming budget negotiations with Republicans.

    However, as the president should have learned from health-care reform, the danger in tailoring his strategy to the partisan back and forth on Capitol Hill is that he risks losing the more important battle for broad popular support. By endorsing the markers laid down by his own commission, Obama could have taken the the deficit issue away from Republicans and gained the political credibility he needs to push through his investment agenda. To use the president's phrase, that would have been doing "big things."

  2. #2
    Havakasha is offline
    Havakasha's Avatar
    Joined: Sep 2009 Posts: 5,358
    An important article in my opinion that should be read by all.

  3. #3
    SiriuslyLong is offline
    SiriuslyLong's Avatar
    Joined: Jan 2009 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 3,560
    Yeah, you posted it three times lol. How many times do you want me and Atypical to read it?

  4. #4
    Atypical is offline
    Yes, certainly. But absorbed is something else.

    Repukes succeed because they, with *Luntz's invaluable help, have mastered the art of simplistic, sound-bite, emotionally satisfying "us against them" positions. Because humans react strongly to simple thoughts, what one hears, if not subjected to stringent analysis, (in itself rare) always sounds at least good.

    Progressives generally can handle nuance and analysis but those skills are generally ignored by conservatives who favor fast decisions that satisfy pre-conceived biases. That's why the liberal position doesn't sell well. Too complicated. Too much nuance...too many details...(they're suspicious of details) so stop, we can't handle it!!! It's sooo boring!

    And the number one reason liberalism is a tough sell...we're "us for them". Definitely, not a good meme for those who like to hate.

    But, I state the tiresome, banal, obvious truth. We all know this, don't we? (sources available upon request)

    So, Havakasha, don't hold your ......

    * That's why they use Luntz - he tests everything to achieve the 'desired' outcome. Proves the point doesn't it?
    Last edited by Atypical; 01-27-2011 at 12:48 PM.

  5. #5
    Havakasha is offline
    Havakasha's Avatar
    Joined: Sep 2009 Posts: 5,358
    I will keep posting this S&L till you understand it, and acknowledge its factualness and significance. LOL.
    Since it will never happen i just might have to post it forever.

    Luntz is frightening.
    Last edited by Havakasha; 01-28-2011 at 09:06 AM.

  6. #6
    Atypical is offline
    I am in favor of posting the same factual article(s) daily. We don't know that anyone pays attention anyway - with the exception of ideologues who never actually consider anything that disagrees with their beliefs. It would be easier too. Think about it. We would have a lot of time to...

    Yes, he is. How does he sleep? No conscience obviously; just like the crew at Fox and elsewhere foisting lies for the purpose of getting POWER!

    Humans are regularly disgusting. On an ongoing basis. Frequently, too. Don't ever stop. They enjoy it. They like others who do it too. Blood brothers I guess. Hate creates bonds. It's fun to lie they say.

    Animals are nicer.
    Last edited by Atypical; 01-27-2011 at 04:19 PM.

  7. #7
    Havakasha is offline
    Havakasha's Avatar
    Joined: Sep 2009 Posts: 5,358
    I like that idea. Not that it will help change certain individuals minds very much.

  8. #8
    SiriuslyLong is offline
    SiriuslyLong's Avatar
    Joined: Jan 2009 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 3,560
    Since the "non idealogues" like lables, here are some truths exemplified by what has been written in these forums.

    Liberal Agenda or Communist Agenda?
    The word "Liberal" originally described honorable and principled men who held to a philosophy of government that advocated Constitutional Republicanism. Constitutional Republicanism is a type of government almost unknown to most of the world. America was originally a Constitutional Republic. A Constitutional Republic defined is characterized by a very small government with limits on its powers of taxation and whose other powers are strictly limited by rigorously enforced Constitutional edicts. The honorable old Liberals of the 19th century would certainly not recognize the "liberals" of today. Modern Liberals promote, advocate, and enforce the centralization of all political power into an all powerful central government.

    Some thoughts about modern liberals:

    At the most basic level, the Liberal is anti-God. The Liberal attempts to use government to eliminate all moral consequences for immoral behavior. The Liberal imagines that freedom from moral consequence can be secured by a collectivist, totalitarian state.

    Liberals use moralistic platitudes and catchy phrases like "social justice" and "The Brotherhood of Man" to appeal to the naive masses who are duped into believing that the ultimate goals of Liberals are genuinely good..

    The fundamental power struggle of Liberals may be classified as the individual versus the collective. The Liberal supports the collective in every contest against the individual. Liberals hate Individualism because it demands moral responsibility. Liberals support collectivism because they hope to eliminate the need for moral responsibility.

    The U.S. Constitution and specifically the support for rugged individualism which is evident in the Bill of Rights, is the enemy of the Liberal. The Liberal despises the United States because it is the premier protector and promoter of individualism in the world.

    In the mind of a Liberal, all institutions and concerns schools, environment, courts, etc. - serve no relevant purpose other than the promotion of collectivism.

    To a Liberal, abortion becomes necessary to guarantee sexual freedom and eliminate moral consequence.

    Any religion or religious person who believes or teaches that there are moral consequences for sin, is the enemy of Liberalism and must be oppressed. Thus for the collectivist Liberal bent on imposing socialism upon a nation, Christianity is the number one enemy above all other enemies. Christianity must be eliminated..

    Strong families are one of the greatest threats to the final goals of Liberalism. The total disintegration of the American family in recent decades among some ethnic communities has occurred as a direct result of the design and intention of Liberals.

    Private ownership of guns is the single greatest symbol of individual power, and therefore is despised by Liberals.

    The Liberal despises national sovereignty. Why? Because the best protection of individual freedoms is found in small decentralized governments.

    The Liberal promotes the growth of multi-national and international governments such as the European Union and the United Nations because these organizations advance the cause of socialism and seek to destroy the very individualism that is best protected by sovereign states.

    The Liberal fears any hint of individualism in any part of the world, and is obsessed with the centralized control of all human activity and thought. Thus the Liberal constantly seeks total control over all forms of media.

    "Multi-culturalism" is the liberal code word for a single, oppressive, collectivist culture.

    Liberals speak often of tolerance, but they only tolerate Liberals and Liberal ideas. (no arguement there, is there?)

    The Liberal seeks to criminalize any speech that promotes morality or individualism as "hate speech." Thus we see Liberal Judges and Liberal Courts outlawing the Bible and gutting the free speech provisions of the first amendment of the constitution. Liberal Judges are now declaring that the Bible's proscriptions against homosexuality are illegal "hate speech" and scripture is now in the process of being outlawed from any appearance in public discourse or the public square.

    The Liberal's only method of debate is to appeal to the emotions of uneducated and illogical persons. Liberals seek to insult and discredit anyone who dares to disagree with them, especially in the college classroom. Why? Because the facts of logic and history do not support the agenda they are seeking to advance.

    When possible, Liberals oppress anyone who questions their beliefs.

    Liberals despise all innocence - especially the innocence of a child. Thus Hollywood Liberals seek to steal the innocence of our children as early as possible and the public schools assist them in this goal.

    Liberals seek to sexualize our children, eliminate age of consent laws and promote the normalization of pedophilia, all in the pursuit of sexual freedom.

    The Liberal typically chooses a career in a field that produces nothing of value. A Liberal will look for employment in field such as public education, an employee of local, county, state or federal government, an "activist," a lawyer, or a bureaucrat in a tax free foundation or an NGO devoted to advancing Liberal goals, etc.

    Liberal do-good programs enrich Liberals and do little to actually help the poor.

    Liberals are not obsessed with sex, but with promiscuity. Promoting promiscuity among the masses is the primary mission of the Liberals who control the Hollywood, Television and print media monopoly. Why? Because Liberals know that the twin pillars that support conservatism are family values and faith in God. By promoting promiscuity Liberals know that they are simultaneously attacking both of the main support pillars of rugged individualism.

    Liberals say that they despise marriage and family because they are "patriarchal institutions" that oppress women and children. But the real reason they despise marriage and family values is because these institutions oppose, disapprove and limit promiscuity thus undermining one of the principal supports for Liberalism.

    Liberals seek to control public schools, and force all children into them, in order to foster promiscuity and instill collectivist ideology into the minds and hearts of our children.

    Liberals are obsessed with demonstrating their putative "moral superiority." Thus even though they live their lives without really helping anyone, the political activism they engage in is dedicated to convincing themselves that they are truly good people. Liberals are driven by the need to validate the unspoken assertion that "I care more than you do," which is ironic in the extreme since none of the government programs liberals have designed can be shown to have an overall positive influence in our society.

    Whenever a Liberal expresses concern "for the children," invariably they are using and targeting children to expand their own power, promote promiscuity, advance collectivism and enlarge their personal income at the expense of the taxpayer.

    Liberals are elitists who exempt themselves from the oppressive rules they impose on the general population.

    Liberals howl if a homosexual transvestite or convicted felon is even slightly offended, but they openly bash Christians.

    Liberals claim to be against violence, but make excuses for Liberals like Lenin, Stalin, Mao and Castro who murder and torture political dissidents. Liberals claim to be against violence, but they seek to disarm individuals and render them powerless before the thugs, thieves and murderer's who rule the inner cities.

    Liberals have enormous compassion for criminal predators, but little for the victims.

    In the Liberal world, all problems stem from individualism, and all solutions are collective.

  9. #9
    Havakasha is offline
    Havakasha's Avatar
    Joined: Sep 2009 Posts: 5,358
    LMFAO. That is the biggest bunch of NONSENSE i have yet seen you post. I think we finally see your true colors. You've obviously become friends with Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachman and Rand Paul. Good luck.

    P.S. This was a thread about the Republican approach to public investment. Sorry you felt the need to hijack it to post some crap that expresses your deep sited hatred of Liberals.
    Last edited by Havakasha; 01-28-2011 at 09:08 AM.

  10. #10
    SiriuslyLong is offline
    SiriuslyLong's Avatar
    Joined: Jan 2009 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 3,560
    Quote Originally Posted by Havakasha View Post
    LMFAO. That is the biggest bunch of NONSENSE i have yet seen you post. I think we finally see your true colors. You've obviously become friends with Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachman and Rand Paul. Good luck.

    P.S. This was a thread about the Republican approach to public investment. Sorry you felt the need to hijack it to post some crap that expresses your deep sited hatred of Liberals.
    I am a non party affiliate. It is verifiable. In my quest to understand both conservative thinking and progressive thinking I did come upon that web site. As a centrist, I could see that many of the observations about "liberals" were true, and to be fair, some are just plain stupid.

    I don't hate anyone. That's nonsense and you should be ashamed of yourself. It's funny that you accuse me of things, yet you,re the staunch liberal waging war on anything Republican. You fuel the divide. You are part of the problem. I guess for you, it is war.

    Every polical stance "quiz" I've taken has placed me right in the center. They are posted. Several of them.

    Am I not on record about Sarah Palin? Or have you conveniently forgotten as to incite and divide some more?

  11. Ad Fairy Senior Member
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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