Wednesday, September 21, 2011

What Are the Independents to Do?

Two interesting points of view today regarding the future of the Obama Administration and the question of whether what the GOP is selling is preferable. Certainly, there is much to criticize about the current state of the nation, and change must come. Yet, when Obama puts out jobs plan that most Americans don't think will work, and statistics reveal that most secretaries don't, in fact, pay more in taxes than Warren Buffet, and David Walker, the respected former comptroller of the United States blasts Obama's deficit plan for not using CBO numbers, there is reason for independents to look for in new directions for answers.

The GOP offers cuts in spending and no new taxes on the "job creators."

Thomas Friedman and Dana Milbank take those two limited positions to task. Friedman offers a convincing argument about what true conservatives would do to address the financial stagnation and job slowdown - and it ain't just cutting. While clearly the tax code is in desperate need of review and reform, there is a need for the code to actually still generate revenue. Additionally, as Friedman notes, Countries that don’t invest in the future tend to not do well there. Real conservatives know that.

On the tax front, Dana Milbank identifies himself as a "job creator" who will never create jobs no matter how much the GOP cuts his taxes and offers him incentives. Milbank's analysis reveals the secrets of the 27 million small business owners in this country. Most of them are single employee businesses that are not designed to expand. Thus, more evidence arises about the "snake oil" argument that GOP leaders are continuing to peddle. They have no more ability to spur hiring than Obama does.

So, keep looking, Independents. Keep looking. Obama's basically got nothing ... but the GOP appears to have even less.

7 comments:

Darren said...

From Instapundit:
TALK ABOUT YOUR JOB-KILLING REGULATORY POLICIES: CEO Tells Congress He Was Fined For Hiring Too Many People. “I incurred more than $500,000 in legal bills to mitigate a more severe regulatory outcome as a result of hiring too many workers. I have also been prohibited from opening up additional offices. I had a major expansion plan that would have resulted in my creating hundreds of additional jobs. Regulations have forced me to put those jobs on hold.”

mazenko said...

I don't buy this argument - certainly not from one CEO. There's no widescale evidence of such burdens on business.

abellia said...

FYI

And it was Peter Schiff. You can pretty much discount anything that comes out of his mouth as propaganda. His business is scaring people and talking up his business on TV.

MikeAT said...

abellia

I looked at your link and it was Media Matter, a left wing propaganda web site. It's less truthful than the New York Times and that is saying something.

But this was interesting, ... However, Schiff's fine was imposed by a private entity

What private entity was this? If it's a fine there seems to be a level of legitimate force behind the "entity". So if it wasn't the Obama regime or a court who was it? The BBB? The mob? Who?

abellia said...

@MikeAT,

Left wing, right wing, I don't know, but all the information is right there. Read it if you like.

MikeAT said...

abelilla

It's a simple question you seem to want to dodge. What "private entity" imposed a 15k fine? The man is self employed so his employer can't do it. I doubt the Raccoon Lodgewould it because they don't have the power to do it. Only a court or regulatory agency, e.g. the EPA has the legitimate authority to do it. Your the one who put this crap into a debate...back up what you say.

abellia said...

No dodging Mike, I was just suggesting you read for yourself, as the article I linked to clearly showed that the fine was levied by FINRA. There are even links to scans of the letters from FINRA to Schiff's company.