Mitt Was Going To Give All of Us Jobs - Now We're All Unemployed Because We're Lazy Socialists Who Don't Know How To Make Our Own Luck.

Ron Paul

unread,

Nov 10, 2012, 10:16:36 AM11/10/12

to

I hear that Limbaugh's hiring Mexicans to wash his cars! So is Trump!

The rich always give us jobs, but Mitt promised that his government was
going to give us more! He's just like Bush, those were the days.

Don't listen to Krugman, he's got an education and doesn't watch Fox
News.

On “This Week with George Stephanopolous” yesterday, Senator Rand Paul
and Professor Paul Krugman got into a quick argument about the size of
government under President Obama.

Here is ABC’s transcript:

Mr. Paul: … understand is you are arguing that the government
sector is struggling. Are you arguing that there are fewer government
employees under Obama than they were under Bush?

Mr. Krugman: That’s a fact.

(CROSSTALK)

Mr. Paul: No, the size of both — of government is enormous under
President Obama.

Mr. Krugman: If government employment had grown as fast under Obama
as it did under Bush, we would have a million-and-a-half more people
employed right now, directly.

(CROSSTALK)

Mr. Paul: Are there less people employed or more people employed
now by government?

Phlip

unread,

Nov 10, 2012, 10:29:13 AM11/10/12

to

> Mr. Paul: … understand is you are arguing that the government
> sector is struggling. Are you arguing that there are fewer government
> employees under Obama than they were under Bush?

Meanwhile, O'Reilly whines Obama won the election because "people want
stuff"...

...and Romney was promising to give them a "20% tax cut". That's not
promising people "stuff"??

Yak

unread,

Nov 10, 2012, 10:39:58 AM11/10/12

to

You think letting people keep more of their money is "giving them
stuff"? As if the govt is entitled to that money first and out of
pure benevolence they will let you keep more? Contrast that with the
govt specifically giving people food stamps, welfare checks, child
care, etc.

Phlip

unread,

Nov 10, 2012, 10:43:07 AM11/10/12

to

and you don't mind Romney's "plan" was a flat-out lie, with no real
economics to back it up?

Yak

unread,

Nov 10, 2012, 10:45:10 AM11/10/12

to

You didn't answer my question. No surprise.

Phlip

unread,

Nov 10, 2012, 10:56:40 AM11/10/12

to

okay. Without taxes, there's no police, no roads, no teachers, no
regulations, no laws. This is Civics 101, and its why we vote on what
to do with our taxes. Hence gov't's best interests are served by
keeping the actual tax rate (on the _middle_class_) low, and doing
their job well, to increase revenue by enacting policies, such as
universal health care, that increase prosperity.

Part of increasing prosperity is giving poor people more services, to
make sure they stay in the system, and don't drop out to become a
burden on everyone. I don't hear you whining about your taxes
supporting our huge prison industry, but I'm sure you will complain
about public schools, which are orders of magnitude cheaper & more
efficient.

But modern political corruption has betrayed the working poor, by
giving huge wads of free cash to parasites like Exxon and BofA. And by
coaching you to blame the powerless, and grovel as a lickspittle of
the uppercrust.

That's your answer. I'm aware you have been taught canned responses to
the details; go ahead and post them, but rest assured I will ignore
them as useless drivel & excretions of a sick mind.

wolfagain

unread,

Nov 10, 2012, 11:08:41 AM11/10/12

to

DUMB ASS!!! Romney was promising to give TAX PAYERS a 20% tax
cut.....the Colored Boy wants to "give stuff" to his KIND of people
who don't work...who look quite similar like himself.

Yak

unread,

Nov 10, 2012, 11:10:52 AM11/10/12

to

Without taxes? Who said anything about without taxes, except you?
You don't create prosperity by taking money from one group and giving
it to another as our govt does. If that was in any way true there
would be no 'war on poverty'. Look around you, fool. Do you think the
middle class and poor are prosperous in spite of how much has been
redistributed already?

Goran

unread,

Nov 10, 2012, 11:39:02 AM11/10/12

to

Phlip <wrote:

> okay. Without taxes, there's no police, no roads, no teachers, no
> regulations, no laws.

Why pay taxes when we can force Libertarians to do most of the menial
labor, at gun point as our slaves?

It's better than lynching the selfish cocksuckers.

Ayn Rand was an athiest who relied on socialist health care because
she didn't want to pay for a doctor.

There's no evidence that her followers are any different.

Joe Cooper

unread,

Nov 10, 2012, 12:29:14 PM11/10/12

to

Goran <random_...@yahoo.com> wrote in news:c68a844d-83d8-4b70-a9dc-
cf4c4b...@c17g2000yqe.googlegroups.com:

> Why pay taxes when we can force Libertarians to do most of the menial
> labor, at gun point as our slaves?
>
> It's better than lynching the selfish cocksuckers.

Let's see...libertarians complain when proggie morons confiscate their
money to give to other proggie morons like the CEO of Solyndra and you
call THEM selfish?

I'd say it's the proggie morons going thru life with their hands in other
folks' pockets that are the selfish ones.

--

"The SEALs removed one threat to America,
damned shame the voters failed to remove the other."

Message has been deleted

Tyrone

unread,

Nov 12, 2012, 3:01:09 PM11/12/12

to

...and all the "smaller government" yapping works out for who? the 1% of course, what an amazing coincidence. We need the correct size government that benefits the majority of Americans, not only is that sensible economics (see federal tax rates and middle class income growth 1950-1975), it is a moral imperative.