Explain This To Me
I know that a lot of political rhetoric is untethered from reality but I find the Republican rhetoric on jobs completely puzzling. They talk about “spending cuts” and balanced budgets somehow creating jobs. Even they know that investment brings jobs. Look at what Michele Rollins said in yesterday’s debate:
Rollins said her family’s business enterprises have provided thousands of jobs — at the Brandywine Town Center and at Dover Downs, where her late husband, John W. Rollins Sr., also built a 430-room hotel.
So they built a hotel and built the Brandywine Town Center. Then they hired people to work in it. I get this — this is how jobs are created. Someone has a vision and they spend money to make it happen, hoping that they will make this money back in time. Most people do this on credit since this kind of investment is expensive (even the very rich) and most people don’t have spare cash laying around.
So why do Republicans say the U.S. must not spend any money on domestic job creation? How does cutting services help anyone get a job? In fact, a lot of people have lost jobs in budget cutting – state workers. To answer my own question – Republicans do this because it works for them. I guess my real question is why do people believe them?
Tags: DE-AL, Michele Rollins, The Economy
Because a sizeable amount of the American people never listened in Civics or History classes.Now,they can be easily led like sheep to the SLAUGHTER!By the likes of FAUX NEWS and the REPUBLICAN BIG BUCKS PR campaign.
Once again,DEMOCRATS,by being NICE GUYS,and this TESTICULARLY CHALLENGED president we elected to CHANGE what the REPUBLICANS almost completely DESTOYED,blew their once in a LIFETIME opportunity.
GOD help us all!
She wanted to be a female Mike Castle but finds herself trying to be a female Ann Coulter.
And Jason for the win!
A very good question to ask here is what kind of subsidies (in the form of tax credits or anything else) that the State or these counties put on the table to get these two projects done. Bet there were some AND they count as government spending.
One Rollins family business — Rollins Environmental — certainly did crash and burn in a fairly spectacular manner as a whole bunch of people across the country who lost their jobs there can attest.
Not sure Urkel could use that since his wealth is probably based on tax subsidies as well.
At the risk of pointing out the obvious, all those jobs at Dover Downs exist because the state government rescued their failing horse-racing operation at extremely favorable rates, without charging a licensing fee, and with government limiting the number of competitors.
Without government regulation, of course, anyone could open a casino, which would make her license far less lucrative. If she lived out her professed beliefs, she wouldn’t take part in such a mockery of free-market free enterprise, would she?
Good point, Cassandra. Urquhart hammered Rollins on the bailout money received by her bank but didn’t talk about all the tax subsidies she’s no doubt received over the years.
Because when push comes to shove, he’s a spouter of talking points, he’s unwilling to do his homework and, more importantly, he’s as ready to take advantage of the government he claims to loathe as she is.
Has anyone ever added up all the taxpayer money Rollins has received? I’ll bet it dwarfs the $300/wk the 99ers are being denied by people like Rollins.
Listen again, there was extensive dialoge about the track subsidies, maybe you took a powder during that point. Michelle Rollins and John Carney are both dependent on big government. She with an exclusive casino partnership with big government….
I certainly heard his nonsense when the zoning question came up — specifically, how did he respond to the charge that Isaac’s Glen went against the county plan and would have strained infrastructure. He sputtered about how it was better to build sprawl than to build more in the resort areas, thereby proving that he’s unfit to develop anything because he doesn’t understand what it does to infrastructure. The congestion on Del 1 from Lewes to Fenwick would instead be congestion from Milton to Fenwick. He’s clueless even about his own business.
U.I.,
Rollin’s website does not mention “spending cuts” at all.
http://michellerollinscongress2010.com/budget_and_spending.html
She proposes cutting out the 20 billion in “earmarks”
But 20 billion in a 3.2 trillion budget is 0.63 %.
She proposes leaving mandatory spending, MedicAid, SS, and MediCare “untouched” and “freezing” all discretionary spending.
So Rollins position on federal spending is reminiscent of the Bush 1.0 administration positions on just about everything. Do absolutely nothing.
If the ability to do nothing is now a qualification for congress, any of the millions of unemployed could do as well in congress as Michelle intends.
The problem isn’t spending money on job creation, it is where this “job creation money” is going to go. If we are going to borrow money, then it should go into manufacturing jobs. We need to create domestic and foreign policy changes that will lessen the trade deficit.
No more money should go into banking or the stock market period. It’s kind of ironic that we borrow from banks just to bail them out. Speaking of banks, we should put our currency back into the hands of the american people through the treasury department. I think we would be doing a lot better if we didn’t have to pay about $400bn in interest on our money.