Liberals, how will Obama bring jobs back to America (illegal, deportation, insurance)

[HappyTexan]

Originally Posted by softblueyz

Then why did Obama promise to do something that he couldn't, which would be to create 7 million jobs while campaigning in 2008?



7 Times In 2008 Obama Promised To Create 7 Million New Jobs

Because Americans ARE that stupid. You believe everything a politician tells you ?

Even now they are still claiming they are working on "job creation" bills in Congress.
It's what Americans want to hear so this is what they say.

The majority of Americans don't read past headlines and have seemed to forgotten everything they learned in school.

The government can only "create" government jobs. That's it in a nutshell.

[BigJon3475]

Originally Posted by ottomobeale

Imagine if the Dems in congress in 1981 had the mega snit the GOP has today...

O'Neill -

The evil is in the White House at the present time. And that evil is a man who has no care and no concern for the working class of America and the future generations of America, and who likes to ride a horse. He’s cold. He’s mean. He’s got ice water for blood.

Geraldine Ferraro -

The President walks around calling himself a good Christian, but I don’t for one minute believe it because the policies are so terribly unfair.

Jesse Jackson -

Reagan is closer to Herod than he would be to the family of Jesus.

Alan Cranston -

Reagan is a trigger-happy president [with a] simplistic and paranoid worldview leading us toward a nuclear collision that could end us all.

Henry Gonzalez -

Nothing is going to change President Reagan. He wants war, he is getting war . . . and he is not going to leave office without having war against Nicaragua and a direct invasion.

Barack Obama (1983) -

By organizing and educating the Columbia community, such activities lay the foundation for future mobilization against the relentless, often silent spread of militarism in the country. . . . The Reagan administration’s stalling at the Geneva talks on nuclear weapons has thus already caused severe tension and could ultimately bring about a dangerous rift between the United States and Western Europe.

Anthony Lewis, New York Times, March 10, 1983 -

I wonder how many people, reading about the [Evil Empire'] speech or seeing bits on television, really noticed its outrageous character… Primitive: that is the only word for it. … What is the world to think when the greatest of powers is led by a man who applies to the most difficult human problem a simplistic theology – one in fact rejected by most theologians?... What must the leaders of Western Europe think of such a speech? They look to the head of the alliance for rhetoric that can persuade them and their constituents. What they get from Ronald Reagan is a mirror image of crude Soviet rhetoric. And it is more than rhetoric: everyone must sense that. The real Ronald Reagan was speaking in Orlando. The exaggeration and the simplicities are there not only in the rhetoric but in the process by which he makes decisions.

Rick Hertzberg, New Yorker macher, quoted in the Washington Post, March 29, 1983 -

Something like the speech to the evangelicals is not presidential, it's not something a president should say. If the Russians are infinitely evil and we are infinitely good, then the logical first step is a nuclear first strike. Words like that frighten the American public and antagonize the Soviets. What good is that?

John B. Oakes, former senior editor, New York Times, November 1, 1981 -

President Reagan has substituted a mindless militarism for a foreign policy, rattling arms from El Salvador to Saudi Arabia, frightening our friends from Japan to West Germany. He proposes a 50 percent increase in ‘defense expenditures.’ Much of it will be dissipated in the self-defeating spiral of an open-ended nuclear-arms race that poses a greater threat to our own internal and external security than all the Communist propaganda that ever emanated from Moscow. Already, the cost of Reagan policies is devastating to our country in economic strength, in diplomatic influence, in national security, in moral stature.

Princeton Professor Stephen Cohen, 1983 -

All evidence indicates that the Reagan administration has abandoned both containment and détente for a very different objective: destroying the Soviet Union as a world power and possibly even its Communist system. [This is a] potentially fatal form of Sovietphobia… a pathological rather than a healthy response to the Soviet Union.

Robert Kaiser, Washington Post, October 30, 1983 -

We've really got to start talking,' says George Ball, undersecretary of state in the Kennedy and Johnson administrations. 'The fact is we've let these fellows get away with murder, and the situation now is much too serious for that.' To ideological men like Ronald Reagan, new information is only useful if it confirms old prejudices. Though he is shrewd enough to bend and budge under pressure (hence, for example, his abandonment of old positions on Taiwan), in his heart Reagan knows he has always been right about the nature of the world, of communism, of America's proper role.

Senator John Kerry, on SDI, the program that brought the evil empire to its knees, August 5, 1986 -

Are we rushing headlong into the next step of those 40 years of progressions by which we do something then they do something, by which we pretend that we're going to build this and it will somehow strengthen our deterrent then they do it, and low and behold, the next thing we know is, the President of the United States is addressing the nation saying, ‘My fellow Americans, I hate to tell you this, but the Soviet Union is deploying more of these, and we have to respond, and I'm asking the Congress for more money in order to respond.’ Star Wars is guaranteed to do that, and it's guaranteed to threaten the heavens -- the one line we haven't yet crossed with weaponry: the heavens.

Strobe Talbott, Time, April 18, 1983 -

In his distaste for bilateral efforts to manage the superpower rivalry and his instinctive predilection for unilateral ones, Reagan is counting on American technological and economic predominance to prevail in the end. The most striking, and questionable, theme in his star wars speech was his apparent belief that the U.S. could mobilize its scientific community and its economic resources in quest of an impenetrable antiballistic-missile shield over the entire nation without triggering perilously destabilizing countermeasures, both offensive and defensive, on the part of the U.S.S.R. Reagan's views notwithstanding, there is little reason to hope that the many handicaps of the Soviet economy will be decisively advantageous to the U.S. in the long run, allowing the U.S. to ‘beat’ the U.S.S.R. in an arms race.

Mary McGrory, Washington Post, June 10, 1982 -

Ronald Reagan came to Europe to persuade people that he is not the shallow, nuclear cowboy of certain unkind assessments. Said White House spokesman David Gergen, on the eve of departure, ‘Some in Europe do not know or understand him.’ But now that the president has been among them for over a week, Europeans may think they got him right the first time. In Rome, he made a stab at identifying himself as a ‘pilgrim for peace.’ But by the time he got to London he had reverted to type as a cold warrior. And yesterday in Bonn, he reiterated his commitment to ‘peace through strength’ – which is fancy talk for continuing the nuclear arms race.

[EinsteinsGhost]

Originally Posted by HappyTexan

The government can only "create" government jobs. That's it in a nutshell.

So, is that your response to the OP?

[JazzyTallGuy]

Originally Posted by VTHokieFan

Is he going to force them with one of his cute executive orders? Don't you understand he's one of the most anti-business president's we've ever had?

You can ask Mitt Romney the same thing. Because basically it's not a matter of bring jobs back to America. As long as things can be manufactured a lower cost in other countries they are going to have an advantage.

The real question is what can be done to CREATE JOBS here in America? Chances are most of the jobs that have been off-shored or outsourced to other countries are NOT coming back.

Romney's plan is basically Bush 43 version 2.0; cut taxes and let businesses do whatever they want and somehow things will get better. This is despite the fact all this was done between 2001 and 2008 and George W. Bush Jr. has the worst job creation record of any two-term president since the end of World War II, and a lack of regulation led to the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression.

[Ferd]

See, what it is, is....

They take money from people with money. Then the government spends money on stuff and that magically creates jobs.

its called trickle up economics. It is also called magic.

[EinsteinsGhost]

Originally Posted by Ferd

See, what it is, is....

They take money from people with money. Then the government spends money on stuff and that magically creates jobs.

its called trickle up economics. It is also called magic.

Then, Adam Smith believed in magic. Those into crony capitalism, however, don't.

[HappyTexan]

Originally Posted by JazzyTallGuy

Romney's plan is basically Bush 43 version 2.0; cut taxes and let businesses do whatever they want and somehow things will get better. This is despite the fact all this was done between 2001 and 2008 and George W. Bush Jr. has the worst job creation record of any two-term president since the end of World War II, and a lack of regulation led to the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression.

Can you sum up Obama's plan in one sentence like that ? (serious question Jazzy as I'm fuzzy on what exactly Obama's plan is and you summed up Romney pretty well).

[Wapasha]

Originally Posted by BucsLose

The government should be able to change the climate of confidence and positivity, which this Admin has not. There is little confidence out there, and Obama has done little to lift it up or bring hope.

Government creates the tax and regulatory climate to encourage risk taking and promote investments. But this president is doing the exact opposite. We never know what our tax liability will be from one year to the next, and if that is not bad enough, 0bama's EPA is pumping out punitive regulations at a rapid clip.

Business owners have no idea of what the future will bring, they have not been able to write a one year business plan much less a five year plan.

For example:

One day the president signs a law to give a tax break to corporate jet buyers, to stimulate the economy... the next day he demonizes corporate jet buyers and wants to take away the tax break he just gave them.

One day the president signs a two year extension to the Bush tax rates, claiming "You cannot raises taxes during a recession".... and the next day he pounds his fist demanding we repeal all or part of the Bush tax cuts.

This president and his administration are an erratic, and destabilizing influence on our economy. There have been dozens of new regulations which have been created out of the blue, by 0bama's EPA, FDA, Energy Dept and HHS, all of which greatly increased the day-to-day costs of doing business in the US. No one knows what our laws, taxes or regulations will be next month, or next year, so smart businesses are sitting on whatever wealth they have left, in an attempt to wait out this 0bama storm.

If I am a business owner, how can I justify hiring more employees if I don't know what the healthcare costs imposed by government will be next year? If I am the owner of a trucking company, or a manufacturer, how can I plan my business if energy prices keep going up, when we have a president and an Energy Sec. who both want to see prices for fuel and electricity skyrocket?

Even if I manufacture solar cells, how can expand or hire new employees and compete in the US market, when the US government is picking the winners and losers by giving hundreds of millions of dollars to my competitors here in the US?

[Mach50]

Bring the cheap labor into the US.

Illegals are better than outsourcing.

[EinsteinsGhost]

Originally Posted by HappyTexan

Can you sum up Obama's plan in one sentence like that?

No, only republicans believe in one-sentence plans and assume they apply universally.