Obama Urges GOP to Join Dems on Job-Creation Efforts

[Dragoon68]

Our objective should not be to compromise or even to "play nice". Our objective should be to defend our Constitution and make only those minimal laws that are absolutely necessary and within the Constitution. Whether Democrats and Republicans get along or not is not our concern. What our Congress does or does not do is our concern.

It's my experience that sometimes when people don't get what they want they use the "team work" argument to make it appear that the other side is not a "team player" and needs to embrace compromise. Obama knows this game! This is only good when the gaining side is correct in what they're wanting to do. It's very bad when it's the other way around. The compromise always leads to the next.

It also seems to me that it may well be better for our nation if Congress remains in complete deadlock for years passing no new legislation. This is based upon the fact that most of what is being passed only makes things worse.

Face to Face, Obama Urges GOP to Join Dems on Job-Creation Efforts

 

[RAdam]

It's funny, before the Mass. election he had no desire to reach across the aisle.

 

[Johnv]

I'm all for the Federal Government backing job creation. But the way they should be doing it is to give private businesses tax incentives to hire people, and to make it easier for private businesses to hire people. I don't believe their current policy does that.

 

[carpro]

It's funny, before the Mass. election he had no desire to reach across the aisle.

He still doesn't.

What he expects is to stay so far to the left that he's off the aisle, while expecting republicans to move left to kiss his ring.

 

[Johnv]

That's the sense that I get. What I hear is "reach across the aisle", but what I see is "make the republicans come across the aisle to the democrat side". Granted, I'm probably looking at this from a conservative bias, but that's how I see it.

 

[just-want-peace]

That's the sense that I get. What I hear is "reach across the aisle", but what I see is "make the republicans come across the aisle to the democrat side". Granted, I'm probably looking at this from a conservative bias, but that's how I see it.

Just to prove your point, compare what "center" is to day with 1950!

The center has moved so far left, that even JFK looks like a conservative today.

The liberals start out demanding the ranch, but when confronted decide to settle for a couple of acres, making it look like thay have really conceded some ground. In reality, only a couple of acres was all they wanted to begin with, but by starting out more extreme the right appears to be getting a "deal"!!! YEAH, RIGHT!!!!

Basically ALL the compromise has been FROM the right TO the LEFT, hence moving the goalposts by increments until we are bordering on socialism.

For me, I say NO MORE COMPROMISE and let the gov't shut down if need be, cause like somebody said earlier, every time they vote, it's bad for America!!!!!!

 

[Johnv]

Just to prove your point, compare what "center" is to day with 1950!

The center has moved so far left, that even JFK looks like a conservative today.

And I think that's why the Republican Party lost the election in 2008. Rather than putting up a classic conservative, we put up John McCain. I do think, though, that the party is learning its lesson, and I suspect 2012 will see a Reganesque republican candidate that has not been seen in a long time.

 

[just-want-peace]

And I think that's why the Republican Party lost the election in 2008. Rather than putting up a classic conservative, we put up John McCain. I do think, though, that the party is learning its lesson, and I suspect 2012 will see a Reganesque republican candidate that has not been seen in a long time.

Boy, I sure hope you are right!!!!!!!

Well, you ARE RIGHT on the first part - I HOPE you are right on the last part!

 

[JohnDeereFan]

Our objective should not be to compromise or even to "play nice". Our objective should be to defend our Constitution and make only those minimal laws that are absolutely necessary and within the Constitution. Whether Democrats and Republicans get along or not is not our concern. What our Congress does or does not do is our concern.

It's my experience that sometimes when people don't get what they want they use the "team work" argument to make it appear that the other side is not a "team player" and needs to embrace compromise. Obama knows this game! This is only good when the gaining side is correct in what they're wanting to do. It's very bad when it's the other way around. The compromise always leads to the next.

It also seems to me that it may well be better for our nation if Congress remains in complete deadlock for years passing no new legislation. This is based upon the fact that most of what is being passed only makes things worse.

Face to Face, Obama Urges GOP to Join Dems on Job-Creation Efforts

If Oba-Mao is going to urge the GOP to get on the job creation bandwagon, then it's up to him to explain how the government "creates" jobs in the first place and where the Constitution says that it's the role of the government to create jobs.

 

[Johnv]

Boy, I sure hope you are right!!!!!!!

Well, you ARE RIGHT on the first part - I HOPE you are right on the last part!

Heheh! Thanks. I noted in an earlier thread that, because Obama's popularity is low, a defeat is 2012 is likely, but in order to secure a Republican win, they have no choice but to put up a Reagan-type classic Republican. Putting up a McCain-type candidate will considerably increase Obama's chance of being reelected.

 

[targus]

I don't get it.

Obama has been patting himself on the back for the success of the stimulus bill.

Now he is saying that we need a jobs bill.

Obama sold the stimulus bill as a jobs bill.

Remember all that talk about shovel ready jobs?

I heard on the news today that 40% of the stimulus money is still not spent.

This all makes no sense unless you consider that none of it is what we are being told that it is.

I am also wondering what is the point of this high speed rail line that Obama is pushing now.

How many years would it take to even get started on such a project?

It by no means would be a shovel ready project by any definition.

 

[Revmitchell]

I don't get it.

Obama has been patting himself on the back for the success of the stimulus bill.

Now he is saying that we need a jobs bill.

Obama sold the stimulus bill as a jobs bill.

Remember all that talk about shovel ready jobs?

I heard on the news today that 40% of the stimulus money is still not spent.

This all makes no sense unless you consider that none of it is what we are being told that it is.

I am also wondering what is the point of this high speed rail line that Obama is pushing now.

How many years would it take to even get started on such a project?

It by no means would be a shovel ready project by any definition.

This high speed rail they are pushing here in Florida is something else. None of the current public transportation means are sound. None of them support themselves. And Florida employers will not higher anyone who does not have their own car. They cannot trust them to get to work on time. Public transportation is not reliable.

And no one wants to use it. If you have to be at work at 8am then you need to be at the bus stop at 5am. As much as 6 hours of their day is spent on the road. pure junk

 

[targus]

This high speed rail they are pushing here in Florida is something else. None of the current public transportation means are sound. None of them support themselves. And Florida employers will not higher anyone who does not have their own car. They cannot trust them to get to work on time. Public transportation is not reliable.

And no one wants to use it. If you have to be at work at 8am then you need to be at the bus stop at 5am. As much as 6 hours of their day is spent on the road. pure junk

If a rail line is actually necessary then it should be financed by riders.

Would the proposed line in Florida be profitable?

If not - then why do it?

If yes - then why not finance it like any private company would. Put together the cost and income projections and obtain bank financing or investors.

I heard that 41 of 44 AmtracK routes lose money.

Would 42 of 45 be an improvement?

 

[donnA]

thought he'd already created all kinds of jobs?
oops, I remember now, those were made up and didn't exist.

 

[just-want-peace]

The GOP needs to tell him that the only way the GOP will be a part of his "jobs creation" is for that bill to lower taxes across the board, cut spending across the board, and stay out of any hint of dabbling in the free enterprise system for the rest of his term - well a few other things too, but I'm sure you get my drift.:tongue3:

Hey, a fella CAN dream, can't he???:smilewinkgrin::thumbs:

PS: I can almost guarantee that IF the GOP did basically just this, there would be a massive sweep of getting the libs outta DC come this Nov.:thumbs:

 

[blackbird]

And I think that's why the Republican Party lost the election in 2008. Rather than putting up a classic conservative, we put up John McCain. I do think, though, that the party is learning its lesson, and I suspect 2012 will see a Reganesque republican candidate that has not been seen in a long time.

Like who, John?????

I can name LA Gov Bobby Jendyl---MS Gov Haley Barber---maybe Mike Huckabee-----------but who can rise to the heights of Reagon???---not a trick question----just wanting to know who you may think Republicans will throw in the race

 

[Revmitchell]

Like who, John?????

I can name LA Gov Bobby Jendyl---MS Gov Haley Barber---maybe Mike Huckabee-----------but who can rise to the heights of Reagon???---not a trick question----just wanting to know who you may think Republicans will throw in the race

I am looking at Mike Pence

 

[Dragoon68]

The sad thing about "high-speed rail" is that it doesn't really address the larger and more important aspect of railroad transportation which is the freight hauling business. That business can and does pay its own way. It has a profitable future. Warren Buffet finally recognized that and bought BNSF. It does not need to be "high-speed" but rather high capacity and reasonable speed. It is an efficient means of transportation but, like all other business, is encumbered with an every increasing burden of government regulation. Further, our tax money has gone to building highways, airports, and ports - not railroads which has long dealt them an unfair disadvantage. This isn't the long distance Amtrak sink hole I'm referring to into which the government has poured much money for several decades for political reasons. That's what gets public attention but it's not really what railroad transportation is about in this century. With less regulation - and less federal money going to the other transportation means - the railroads can make it on their own hauling freight.

The "high-speed rail" the politicians are talking about is essentially local commuter systems and, to some extent, intercity systems in densely populated areas. It has its place in certain areas. Those areas that need it, want, and can pay for it should finance it. It is very expensive to build and operate these systems but it does work. The locals don't want to pay the fares needed to make it break even and they want their expressways in addition to the high-speed rail. So, the politicians see that through the federal government they can tax everyone and redistribute the funds. With that comes federal control and the politics of who gets the service and who doesn't. Then, on the other hand, we already pay for highways and airports and ports much of which benefits concentrated areas. All this is increasingly controlled by the federal government. Everyone has long been paying for the expressways of the larger cities. The cities and states should handle these problems and the federal government should stay out of it.

 

[Johnv]

Like who, John?????

It's way too early to tell. 2012 is too far away.

 

[billwald]

>and to make it easier for private businesses to hire people

??? Seems like most on this list want the government to make it harder for me or a private business to hire some people. You all want the government to make it easier to hire your kind of people.

Most every city has an area where people without jobs congregate and anyone can stop in the area and hire them. Should not any business person be permitted to hire them?