Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
"If he shows my state and he shows Americans that he has got a plan to take on these reforms, I think the real difference with what the president said this week is simple. The president and his allies believe success in government is defined by how many people are dependent on government programs. I think I, Governor Romney, and others, believe that success is just the opposite. How many fewer people are dependent on government programs because they have a job in the private sector where they can control their own freedom, their own destiny and ultimately lead to greater prosperity? That's the real difference there."
American wages are declining in real terms, especially those at the low end. I can see a not-distant future in which people currently dependent on government programs find themselves working for low/declining wages while programs are being cut.
On one hand these people will have a private sector job (crummy and dead-end, perhaps, but a job) and will no longer be dependent on government programs (because the programs have been cut and they have gone to work), yet no better off, and quite possibly worse off, than they were when they were dependent on goverment programs.
Is this success, in government or in the private sector?
"If he shows my state and he shows Americans that he has got a plan to take on these reforms, I think the real difference with what the president said this week is simple. The president and his allies believe success in government is defined by how many people are dependent on government programs. I think I, Governor Romney, and others, believe that success is just the opposite. How many fewer people are dependent on government programs because they have a job in the private sector where they can control their own freedom, their own destiny and ultimately lead to greater prosperity? That's the real difference there."
American wages are declining in real terms, especially those at the low end. I can see a not-distant future in which people currently dependent on government programs find themselves working for low/declining wages while programs are being cut.
On one hand these people will have a private sector job (crummy and dead-end, perhaps, but a job) and will no longer be dependent on government programs (because the programs have been cut and they have gone to work), yet no better off, and quite possibly worse off, than they were when they were dependent on goverment programs.
Is this success, in government or in the private sector?
The difference is that government handouts are a dead end. A job--even a low-paying job--is the first rung on the ladder of social mobility.
"If he shows my state and he shows Americans that he has got a plan to take on these reforms, I think the real difference with what the president said this week is simple. The president and his allies believe success in government is defined by how many people are dependent on government programs. I think I, Governor Romney, and others, believe that success is just the opposite. How many fewer people are dependent on government programs because they have a job in the private sector where they can control their own freedom, their own destiny and ultimately lead to greater prosperity? That's the real difference there."
American wages are declining in real terms, especially those at the low end. I can see a not-distant future in which people currently dependent on government programs find themselves working for low/declining wages while programs are being cut.
On one hand these people will have a private sector job (crummy and dead-end, perhaps, but a job) and will no longer be dependent on government programs (because the programs have been cut and they have gone to work), yet no better off, and quite possibly worse off, than they were when they were dependent on goverment programs.
Is this success, in government or in the private sector?
What Romney is doing is creating a strawman argument and just another example of Romney just making things up about Obama that are not true. There is nothing that President Obama has said that suggests that he wants more people dependent on government programs -- nothing. But facts don't seem to stop Romney from creating fiction.
Talking about private jobs, Romney is again fibbing. Overall employment in the Obama years has been held back by mass layoffs of schoolteachers and other state and local government employees. But private-sector employment has recovered almost all the ground lost in the administration’s early months.
"If he shows my state and he shows Americans that he has got a plan to take on these reforms, I think the real difference with what the president said this week is simple. The president and his allies believe success in government is defined by how many people are dependent on government programs. I think I, Governor Romney, and others, believe that success is just the opposite. How many fewer people are dependent on government programs because they have a job in the private sector where they can control their own freedom, their own destiny and ultimately lead to greater prosperity? That's the real difference there."
American wages are declining in real terms, especially those at the low end. I can see a not-distant future in which people currently dependent on government programs find themselves working for low/declining wages while programs are being cut.
On one hand these people will have a private sector job (crummy and dead-end, perhaps, but a job) and will no longer be dependent on government programs (because the programs have been cut and they have gone to work), yet no better off, and quite possibly worse off, than they were when they were dependent on goverment programs.
Is this success, in government or in the private sector?
Ok, fine. Show me a plan to bring back those jobs we've shipped off to China or India over the past 30 years. It's great to talk about private sector jobs, but when they're off-shored the only jobs remaining will be government jobs.
The president and his allies believe success in government is defined by how many people are dependent on government programs.
Really, Mr. Romney? Show me in exact quotes where the President or his allies have specifically said this. Otherwise, I'll consider it the same political gum-beating from the GOP it's always been.
What Romney is doing is creating a strawman argument and just another example of Romney just making things up about Obama that are not true. There is nothing that President Obama has said that suggests that he wants more people dependent on government programs -- nothing. But facts don't seem to stop Romney from creating fiction.
Talking about private jobs, Romney is again fibbing. Overall employment in the Obama years has been held back by mass layoffs of schoolteachers and other state and local government employees. But private-sector employment has recovered almost all the ground lost in the administration’s early months.
So you're saying that teachers, firefighters, dog catchers, police officers, etc. layoffs are the reason unemployment is at 8.2%? This must be in line with Barack Obama's recent proclamation that the "private sector is doing fine." The President walked back these comments, but yet here you are once again parroting the President's message like a good minion.
LOL
LOL
LOL
Trust me when I say no one on this forum believes this, other than you and your liberal flunkies who believe Barack Obama can do no wrong. NO ONE.
The reason for the falling wages (in real terms) is programs like the Feds QE programs. I believe that if McCain had been president or if Romney had been president he would have followed the same economic policies that we are currently following as far as the Fed goes.
The only difference would be which side is making the arguements.
So you're saying that teachers, firefighters, dog catchers, police officers, etc. layoffs are the reason unemployment is at 8.2%? This must be in line with Barack Obama's recent proclamation that the "private sector is doing fine." The President walked back these comments, but yet here you are once again parroting the President's message like a good minion.
LOL
LOL
LOL
Trust me when I say no one on this forum believes this, other than you and your liberal flunkies who believe Barack Obama can do no wrong. NO ONE.
Another thing is that Obama keeps promising amnesty for illegal aliens. They are holding jobs that millions of Americans need. If he is all about job creation rather than Americans living on the government dole then why is he promising them amnesty? Also, he has already given 300,000 of them a back door amnesty with work permits and has told HS not to deport any illegal aliens that haven't yet been "convicted" of a serious crime. Let the Obama defenders defend that policy! Both outsourcing and illegal alien labor is killing the job opportunities for Americans.
American wages are declining in real terms, especially those at the low end. I can see a not-distant future in which people currently dependent on government programs find themselves working for low/declining wages while programs are being cut.
On one hand these people will have a private sector job (crummy and dead-end, perhaps, but a job) and will no longer be dependent on government programs (because the programs have been cut and they have gone to work), yet no better off, and quite possibly worse off, than they were when they were dependent on goverment programs.
Is this success, in government or in the private sector?
One of the unfortunate side effects of technical progress that nobody wants to recognize is that it sometimes replaces a a number of jobs that might be viewed as "good" by the people dispaced from them. If the displaced employees are older, introverted, etc, and sent to a place further down in the pyramid, with micro-management and constant pressure for speed, the results can be very painful.
And I don't have the slightest idea how ro deal with that problem.
The reason for the falling wages (in real terms) is programs like the Feds QE programs. I believe that if McCain had been president or if Romney had been president he would have followed the same economic policies that we are currently following as far as the Fed goes.
The only difference would be which side is making the arguements.
Wages for 99% of America has fallen or has been stagnant for 30 years. Don't blame that on last year's monetary policy. BTW, the president doesn't set Fed policy.
For all those that hate unions, unions were responsible getting more of a share to more people:
So you're saying that teachers, firefighters, dog catchers, police officers, etc. layoffs are the reason unemployment is at 8.2%? This must be in line with Barack Obama's recent proclamation that the "private sector is doing fine." The President walked back these comments, but yet here you are once again parroting the President's message like a good minion.
LOL
LOL
LOL
Trust me when I say no one on this forum believes this, other than you and your liberal flunkies who believe Barack Obama can do no wrong. NO ONE.
Why should I trust you? You have been wrong all along. Facts speak for themselves. The President was right, private sector jobs are growing while the drag on jobs is the public sector.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
