Obama criticizes Republicans for being the party of the rich

myp · Jul 17, 2010

Obama lashed out at Republicans over the weekend due to initiatives by some party members to stop the proposed extension of unemployment insurance. He called the GOP the party of the rich and saw the block as not caring for the poor. Republicans are citing the budget deficit and a culture of continued big spending as reasons for the opposition along with a belief that the extension would not help the economy or the poor.

source: http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE66G0LD20100717?type=politicsNews

Thoughts?

Kyuubi · Jul 17, 2010

Pelosi did say that the fastest way to create jobs was through unemployment benefits. Of course IMHO it amounts to promoting laziness. Don't get me wrong, I think unemployment benefits are essential to those who are legitimately seeking work, but it's also true that the longer you offer it, the longer some people are to just sit on their butts :\

As far as I'm concerned - and not to be offensive or anything - I don't think Obama grasps the reality of what his policy decisions are doing.

David · Jul 18, 2010

Kyuubi said:
Pelosi did say that the fastest way to create jobs was through unemployment benefits. Of course IMHO it amounts to promoting laziness. Don't get me wrong, I think unemployment benefits are essential to those who are legitimately seeking work, but it's also true that the longer you offer it, the longer some people are to just sit on their butts :\

As far as I'm concerned - and not to be offensive or anything - I don't think Obama grasps the reality of what his policy decisions are doing.

Nor do the Republicans. The gov't is in a position to offer everyone employment but fear a backlash due to the needed expansion of gov't. Frankly, 100% employment is something I'd be willing to suffer a larger gov't for.

myp · Jul 18, 2010

David said:
Nor do the Republicans. The gov't is in a position to offer everyone employment but fear a backlash due to the needed expansion of gov't. Frankly, 100% employment is something I'd be willing to suffer a larger gov't for.

That only creates a moral hazard and would end up blowing up the whole system a few years down the road. Prosperity can't be created by just handing out jobs like that. Paychecks come from value, they come from productivity. I would much rather stop with the meddling and give some certainty to companies so they can grow and hire more on the backs of their own productivity which would lead to sustainable job growth (tax cuts and regulation cuts wouldn't hurt either

)

David · Jul 18, 2010

myp said:
That only creates a moral hazard and would end up blowing up the whole system a few years down the road. Prosperity can't be created by just handing out jobs like that. Paychecks come from value, they come from productivity. I would much rather stop with the meddling and give some certainty to companies so they can grow and hire more on the backs of their own productivity which would lead to sustainable job growth (tax cuts and regulation cuts wouldn't hurt either )

I think this is more an ideological issue then an economic 1 tbh. Wether you're working for a business or a gov't, it doesn't really change the economics.

And by gov't jobs, I'm thinking of stuff like employing unemployed construction workers remodeling gov't buildings to green standards, creating a military unit that does strictly civilian jobs (farming, road building, ect., think the ACoE but open to civilians), giving cops laid off from bankrupt city jobs jobs in the BP and the like. Not a moral hazard as they'd be real jobs and not just filler jobs to keep unemployment numbers low.

Kyuubi · Jul 19, 2010

I figure the economic aspect would be more analogous given the history of what happens with monopolies or companies with high market dominance. There may be some ideological overlap in it, but I don't think as much as you suggest.

notimpressed · Jul 19, 2010

Of coursze it is, there is the realtiy of that statement, Obam is hardly the first to state that reality. The rest would be the murky waters of partisian politics and spin. Simply because people whom are not rich and are Republican doesnt make the party not a rich mans institution. It is.

Obama criticizes Republicans for being the party of the rich

myp

Kyuubi

David

myp

David

Kyuubi

notimpressed

Similar threads