JOBS: The Killer Question Republicans Couldn't Answer Tuesday Night

[Lakhota]

I'm willing to bet a dollar that you didn't ACTUALLY watch the debate ... but rather, are drinking from the kool-aid fountain at the Huffington Post.

There were numerous examples of ways to increase job growth - apparently, your reporter wasn't smart enough to understand them.

I, for one, apologize for them not making it simplistic enough for the leftist mind to understand. If you like, I'll be happy to explain each and every one of them to you. (I'm good with small words)

I watched and listened to every minute of the debate, with headphones, while also following the debate thread I created.

Then, maybe, you should have paid closer attention.

Want the tutorial, or just want to sit and whine?

Well, please share your wisdom with us about how any of the candidates provided a "credible" plan to create JOBS - other than the same old NaziCon bullshit of smaller government, lower taxes and fewer regulations.

Oh you mean the plan that actually has created jobs? As opposed to the old Democrat bullshit plan of more infrastructure and higher spending.

Really? Didn't you read the "Killer Question" in the OP from moderator Gerard Baker, the editor-in-chief of The Wall Street Journal?

 

[Indeependent]

I'm willing to bet a dollar that you didn't ACTUALLY watch the debate ... but rather, are drinking from the kool-aid fountain at the Huffington Post.

There were numerous examples of ways to increase job growth - apparently, your reporter wasn't smart enough to understand them.

I, for one, apologize for them not making it simplistic enough for the leftist mind to understand. If you like, I'll be happy to explain each and every one of them to you. (I'm good with small words)

I watched and listened to every minute of the debate, with headphones, while also following the debate thread I created.

Then, maybe, you should have paid closer attention.

Want the tutorial, or just want to sit and whine?

Well, please share your wisdom with us about how any of the candidates provided a "credible" plan to create JOBS - other than the same old NaziCon bullshit of smaller government, lower taxes and fewer regulations.

Oh you mean the plan that actually has created jobs? As opposed to the old Democrat bullshit plan of more infrastructure and higher spending.

Really? Didn't you read the "Killer Question" in the OP?

What? TheRabbi Read!?

 

[The Rabbi]

Yeah, but you left out Carly's BRILLIANT response!

"Yes, problems have gotten much worse under Democrats."

....and that's it. Yep. That was her answer to the question. Wow.

Lying.

That's the republican 'answer.'

If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor.



DailyCaller

• Home
• 2016
• Politics
• US
• Entertainment
• Sports
• Business
• Tech
• Education
• Opinion
• Outdoors
• Energy
• Blogs
  • The Mirror
  • Matt Lewis
  • DC Trawler
• Send a Tip

Politics
Obamacare Architect: Lack of Transparency Was Key Because ‘Stupidity Of The American Voter’ Would Have Killed Obamacare

Patrick Howley
Political Reporter
10:30 PM 11/09/2014
25267
2330


Obamacare architect Jonathan Gruber said that lack of transparency was a major part of getting Obamacare passed because “the stupidity of the American voter” would have killed the law if more people knew what was in it.

Gruber, the MIT professor who served as a technical consultant to the Obama administration during Obamacare’s design, also made clear during a panel quietly captured on video that the individual mandate, which was only upheld by the Supreme Court because it was a tax, was not actually a tax.

“This bill was written in a tortured way to make sure CBO did not score the mandate as taxes. If CBO scored the mandate as taxes, the bill dies. Okay, so it’s written to do that. In terms of risk rated subsidies, if you had a law which said that healthy people are going to pay in — you made explicit healthy people pay in and sick people get money, it would not have passed… Lack of transparency is a huge political advantage. And basically, call it the stupidity of the American voter or whatever, but basically that was really really critical for the thing to pass… Look, I wish Mark was right that we could make it all transparent, but I’d rather have this law than not.”


Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2014/11/09/o...er-would-have-killed-obamacare/#ixzz3rDi3dXKw

 

[Indeependent]

Great, so Obama and Fiorina are BOTH failures.

 

[Spare_change]

I'm willing to bet a dollar that you didn't ACTUALLY watch the debate ... but rather, are drinking from the kool-aid fountain at the Huffington Post.

There were numerous examples of ways to increase job growth - apparently, your reporter wasn't smart enough to understand them.

I, for one, apologize for them not making it simplistic enough for the leftist mind to understand. If you like, I'll be happy to explain each and every one of them to you. (I'm good with small words)

I watched and listened to every minute of the debate, with headphones, while also following the debate thread I created.

Then, maybe, you should have paid closer attention.

Want the tutorial, or just want to sit and whine?

Well, please share your wisdom with us about how any of the candidates provided a "credible" plan to create JOBS - other than the same old NaziCon bullshit of smaller government, lower taxes and fewer regulations.

I will be more than happy to .... with one proviso. We will recognize how you have given yourself an automatic out, by changing the question. Your original premise was that no one had provided a plan to increase job growth - now, you claim nobody provided 'credible' plan - 'credible', of course, being defined by you. So, I could tell you about the plan to raise the minimum wage to $25/hour - put everybody on the government payroll - and you would simply say it wasn't 'credible'. Therefore, you have created an impossible conundrum for me - how to answer your nonsensical (and judged by you) question.

Well, I'll take the chance that other readers can see thru your transparency - and try something in remarkably short supply around here - the truth.

Several candidates proposed tax cuts AND decreased government spending. One without the other is like putting a band-aid on a gaping chest wound. Some candidates suggested a flat tax, while some suggested a simplified progressive tax.

Decreased spending was addressed numerous times. Several government agencies were targeted for elimination, and one candidate has identified 645 government programs to be canceled.

The suggestion of zero-based budgeting has particular merit. It would force an annual bottom-up review of government expenditures. The federal government is unique, in that it has no quantitative measurement of performance or definitive criteria for success. Thus, the only way to succeed in the government is to grow your power base - get bigger and more expensive. Zero-based budgeting offers a measurement of performance.

Virtually all of them proposed regulatory roll-back of onerous government rules - particularly as it impacts small business. One of them - Obamacare - was especially indicted for strangling small business, and targeted for complete repeal.

All candidates proposed some form of tax amnesty or tax repeal that would facilitate bringing back money from overseas.

That was just a few of the suggestions - ALL of which would result in increased velocity of money in the economic system. If you have more money in your pocket, you will spend more. If I have more money in my bank account, I will invest more.

The real answer, I suspect, lies in selecting 1 from Column A and 2 from Column B - some combination of each recommendation, applied intelligently. It will be, of course, easy for you to select an item, take it to absurd proportions, and find it not 'credible'. Instead, you need to look at the overall sum of the approaches suggested.

By the way - it's probably no accident that the Dems have offered NO jobs growth plan at all - other than Hillary's suggestion to remove investment capital from the market by increasing capital gains tax. Where is THEIR plan to balance the budget, rein in spending, and free up money for the people? Unless, of course, you don't consider that to be 'credible', either.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

I wish Republicans would give Americans an honest and credible answer as to why they have refused to pass Obama's American Jobs Act. Hell, they refused to pass ANY of it.

The house passed 40 job bills. all were rejected by Obama.

Obama's job bills act had a $447 billion dollar price tag on it. In case you haven't heard, this country is damn near broke!

 

[Indeependent]

I wish Republicans would give Americans an honest and credible answer as to why they have refused to pass Obama's American Jobs Act. Hell, they refused to pass ANY of it.

The house passed 40 job bills. all were rejected by Obama.

Obama's job bills act had a $447 billion dollar price tag on it. In case you haven't heard, this country is damn near broke!

No wonder we're build Afghanistan.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

I wish Republicans would give Americans an honest and credible answer as to why they have refused to pass Obama's American Jobs Act. Hell, they refused to pass ANY of it.

The house passed 40 job bills. all were rejected by Obama.

Obama's job bills act had a $447 billion dollar price tag on it. In case you haven't heard, this country is damn near broke!

No wonder we're build Afghanistan.

Can you repeat that in English?

 

[Lakhota]

I wish Republicans would give Americans an honest and credible answer as to why they have refused to pass Obama's American Jobs Act. Hell, they refused to pass ANY of it.

The house passed 40 job bills. all were rejected by Obama.

Obama's job bills act had a $447 billion dollar price tag on it. In case you haven't heard, this country is damn near broke!

Have you read those NaziCon bills that basically gutted regulations? Did Harry Reid pass any of them? Did any of them make it to Obama's desk?

 

[Lonestar_logic]

I wish Republicans would give Americans an honest and credible answer as to why they have refused to pass Obama's American Jobs Act. Hell, they refused to pass ANY of it.

The house passed 40 job bills. all were rejected by Obama.

Obama's job bills act had a $447 billion dollar price tag on it. In case you haven't heard, this country is damn near broke!

You rate this as funny Lakhota because you obviously can't deny it.

Your surrender is duly noted. Surrendering must run in the family.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

I wish Republicans would give Americans an honest and credible answer as to why they have refused to pass Obama's American Jobs Act. Hell, they refused to pass ANY of it.

The house passed 40 job bills. all were rejected by Obama.

Obama's job bills act had a $447 billion dollar price tag on it. In case you haven't heard, this country is damn near broke!

Have you read those NaziCon bills that basically gutted regulations? Did Harry Reid pass any of them? Did any of them make it to Obama's desk?

Which bills? Please be specific.

 

[Lakhota]

I'm willing to bet a dollar that you didn't ACTUALLY watch the debate ... but rather, are drinking from the kool-aid fountain at the Huffington Post.

There were numerous examples of ways to increase job growth - apparently, your reporter wasn't smart enough to understand them.

I, for one, apologize for them not making it simplistic enough for the leftist mind to understand. If you like, I'll be happy to explain each and every one of them to you. (I'm good with small words)

I watched and listened to every minute of the debate, with headphones, while also following the debate thread I created.

Then, maybe, you should have paid closer attention.

Want the tutorial, or just want to sit and whine?

Well, please share your wisdom with us about how any of the candidates provided a "credible" plan to create JOBS - other than the same old NaziCon bullshit of smaller government, lower taxes and fewer regulations.

I will be more than happy to .... with one proviso. We will recognize how you have given yourself an automatic out, by changing the question. Your original premise was that no one had provided a plan to increase job growth - now, you claim nobody provided 'credible' plan - 'credible', of course, being defined by you. So, I could tell you about the plan to raise the minimum wage to $25/hour - put everybody on the government payroll - and you would simply say it wasn't 'credible'. Therefore, you have created an impossible conundrum for me - how to answer your nonsensical (and judged by you) question.

Well, I'll take the chance that other readers can see thru your transparency - and try something in remarkably short supply around here - the truth.

Several candidates proposed tax cuts AND decreased government spending. One without the other is like putting a band-aid on a gaping chest wound. Some candidates suggested a flat tax, while some suggested a simplified progressive tax.

Decreased spending was addressed numerous times. Several government agencies were targeted for elimination, and one candidate has identified 645 government programs to be canceled.

The suggestion of zero-based budgeting has particular merit. It would force an annual bottom-up review of government expenditures. The federal government is unique, in that it has no quantitative measurement of performance or definitive criteria for success. Thus, the only way to succeed in the government is to grow your power base - get bigger and more expensive. Zero-based budgeting offers a measurement of performance.

Virtually all of them proposed regulatory roll-back of onerous government rules - particularly as it impacts small business. One of them - Obamacare - was especially indicted for strangling small business, and targeted for complete repeal.

All candidates proposed some form of tax amnesty or tax repeal that would facilitate bringing back money from overseas.

That was just a few of the suggestions - ALL of which would result in increased velocity of money in the economic system. If you have more money in your pocket, you will spend more. If I have more money in my bank account, I will invest more.

The real answer, I suspect, lies in selecting 1 from Column A and 2 from Column B - some combination of each recommendation, applied intelligently. It will be, of course, easy for you to select an item, take it to absurd proportions, and find it not 'credible'. Instead, you need to look at the overall sum of the approaches suggested.

By the way - it's probably no accident that the Dems have offered NO jobs growth plan at all - other than Hillary's suggestion to remove investment capital from the market by increasing capital gains tax. Where is THEIR plan to balance the budget, rein in spending, and free up money for the people? Unless, of course, you don't consider that to be 'credible', either.

That's some funny shit. Just more smaller government, lower taxes, and fewer regulations bullshit. Thanks for playing.

 

[Lakhota]

I wish Republicans would give Americans an honest and credible answer as to why they have refused to pass Obama's American Jobs Act. Hell, they refused to pass ANY of it.

The house passed 40 job bills. all were rejected by Obama.

Obama's job bills act had a $447 billion dollar price tag on it. In case you haven't heard, this country is damn near broke!

Have you read those NaziCon bills that basically gutted regulations? Did Harry Reid pass any of them? Did any of them make it to Obama's desk?

Which bills? Please be specific.

Which bills? Those 40 job bills you mentioned above.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

I'm willing to bet a dollar that you didn't ACTUALLY watch the debate ... but rather, are drinking from the kool-aid fountain at the Huffington Post.

There were numerous examples of ways to increase job growth - apparently, your reporter wasn't smart enough to understand them.

I, for one, apologize for them not making it simplistic enough for the leftist mind to understand. If you like, I'll be happy to explain each and every one of them to you. (I'm good with small words)

I watched and listened to every minute of the debate, with headphones, while also following the debate thread I created.

Then, maybe, you should have paid closer attention.

Want the tutorial, or just want to sit and whine?

Well, please share your wisdom with us about how any of the candidates provided a "credible" plan to create JOBS - other than the same old NaziCon bullshit of smaller government, lower taxes and fewer regulations.

I will be more than happy to .... with one proviso. We will recognize how you have given yourself an automatic out, by changing the question. Your original premise was that no one had provided a plan to increase job growth - now, you claim nobody provided 'credible' plan - 'credible', of course, being defined by you. So, I could tell you about the plan to raise the minimum wage to $25/hour - put everybody on the government payroll - and you would simply say it wasn't 'credible'. Therefore, you have created an impossible conundrum for me - how to answer your nonsensical (and judged by you) question.

Well, I'll take the chance that other readers can see thru your transparency - and try something in remarkably short supply around here - the truth.

Several candidates proposed tax cuts AND decreased government spending. One without the other is like putting a band-aid on a gaping chest wound. Some candidates suggested a flat tax, while some suggested a simplified progressive tax.

Decreased spending was addressed numerous times. Several government agencies were targeted for elimination, and one candidate has identified 645 government programs to be canceled.

The suggestion of zero-based budgeting has particular merit. It would force an annual bottom-up review of government expenditures. The federal government is unique, in that it has no quantitative measurement of performance or definitive criteria for success. Thus, the only way to succeed in the government is to grow your power base - get bigger and more expensive. Zero-based budgeting offers a measurement of performance.

Virtually all of them proposed regulatory roll-back of onerous government rules - particularly as it impacts small business. One of them - Obamacare - was especially indicted for strangling small business, and targeted for complete repeal.

All candidates proposed some form of tax amnesty or tax repeal that would facilitate bringing back money from overseas.

That was just a few of the suggestions - ALL of which would result in increased velocity of money in the economic system. If you have more money in your pocket, you will spend more. If I have more money in my bank account, I will invest more.

The real answer, I suspect, lies in selecting 1 from Column A and 2 from Column B - some combination of each recommendation, applied intelligently. It will be, of course, easy for you to select an item, take it to absurd proportions, and find it not 'credible'. Instead, you need to look at the overall sum of the approaches suggested.

By the way - it's probably no accident that the Dems have offered NO jobs growth plan at all - other than Hillary's suggestion to remove investment capital from the market by increasing capital gains tax. Where is THEIR plan to balance the budget, rein in spending, and free up money for the people? Unless, of course, you don't consider that to be 'credible', either.

That's some funny shit. Just more smaller government, lower taxes, and fewer regulations bullshit. Thanks for playing.

Three things you liberals despise.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

I wish Republicans would give Americans an honest and credible answer as to why they have refused to pass Obama's American Jobs Act. Hell, they refused to pass ANY of it.

The house passed 40 job bills. all were rejected by Obama.

Obama's job bills act had a $447 billion dollar price tag on it. In case you haven't heard, this country is damn near broke!

Have you read those NaziCon bills that basically gutted regulations? Did Harry Reid pass any of them? Did any of them make it to Obama's desk?

Which bills? Please be specific.

Which bills? Those 40 job bills you mentioned above.

Those 40 Job bills gutted regulations? The onus is on you to prove that.

 

[Lakhota]

I watched and listened to every minute of the debate, with headphones, while also following the debate thread I created.

Then, maybe, you should have paid closer attention.

Want the tutorial, or just want to sit and whine?

Well, please share your wisdom with us about how any of the candidates provided a "credible" plan to create JOBS - other than the same old NaziCon bullshit of smaller government, lower taxes and fewer regulations.

I will be more than happy to .... with one proviso. We will recognize how you have given yourself an automatic out, by changing the question. Your original premise was that no one had provided a plan to increase job growth - now, you claim nobody provided 'credible' plan - 'credible', of course, being defined by you. So, I could tell you about the plan to raise the minimum wage to $25/hour - put everybody on the government payroll - and you would simply say it wasn't 'credible'. Therefore, you have created an impossible conundrum for me - how to answer your nonsensical (and judged by you) question.

Well, I'll take the chance that other readers can see thru your transparency - and try something in remarkably short supply around here - the truth.

Several candidates proposed tax cuts AND decreased government spending. One without the other is like putting a band-aid on a gaping chest wound. Some candidates suggested a flat tax, while some suggested a simplified progressive tax.

Decreased spending was addressed numerous times. Several government agencies were targeted for elimination, and one candidate has identified 645 government programs to be canceled.

The suggestion of zero-based budgeting has particular merit. It would force an annual bottom-up review of government expenditures. The federal government is unique, in that it has no quantitative measurement of performance or definitive criteria for success. Thus, the only way to succeed in the government is to grow your power base - get bigger and more expensive. Zero-based budgeting offers a measurement of performance.

Virtually all of them proposed regulatory roll-back of onerous government rules - particularly as it impacts small business. One of them - Obamacare - was especially indicted for strangling small business, and targeted for complete repeal.

All candidates proposed some form of tax amnesty or tax repeal that would facilitate bringing back money from overseas.

That was just a few of the suggestions - ALL of which would result in increased velocity of money in the economic system. If you have more money in your pocket, you will spend more. If I have more money in my bank account, I will invest more.

The real answer, I suspect, lies in selecting 1 from Column A and 2 from Column B - some combination of each recommendation, applied intelligently. It will be, of course, easy for you to select an item, take it to absurd proportions, and find it not 'credible'. Instead, you need to look at the overall sum of the approaches suggested.

By the way - it's probably no accident that the Dems have offered NO jobs growth plan at all - other than Hillary's suggestion to remove investment capital from the market by increasing capital gains tax. Where is THEIR plan to balance the budget, rein in spending, and free up money for the people? Unless, of course, you don't consider that to be 'credible', either.

That's some funny shit. Just more smaller government, lower taxes, and fewer regulations bullshit. Thanks for playing.

Three things you liberals despise.

Just more "trickle down" bullshit.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Then, maybe, you should have paid closer attention.

Want the tutorial, or just want to sit and whine?

Well, please share your wisdom with us about how any of the candidates provided a "credible" plan to create JOBS - other than the same old NaziCon bullshit of smaller government, lower taxes and fewer regulations.

I will be more than happy to .... with one proviso. We will recognize how you have given yourself an automatic out, by changing the question. Your original premise was that no one had provided a plan to increase job growth - now, you claim nobody provided 'credible' plan - 'credible', of course, being defined by you. So, I could tell you about the plan to raise the minimum wage to $25/hour - put everybody on the government payroll - and you would simply say it wasn't 'credible'. Therefore, you have created an impossible conundrum for me - how to answer your nonsensical (and judged by you) question.

Well, I'll take the chance that other readers can see thru your transparency - and try something in remarkably short supply around here - the truth.

Several candidates proposed tax cuts AND decreased government spending. One without the other is like putting a band-aid on a gaping chest wound. Some candidates suggested a flat tax, while some suggested a simplified progressive tax.

Decreased spending was addressed numerous times. Several government agencies were targeted for elimination, and one candidate has identified 645 government programs to be canceled.

The suggestion of zero-based budgeting has particular merit. It would force an annual bottom-up review of government expenditures. The federal government is unique, in that it has no quantitative measurement of performance or definitive criteria for success. Thus, the only way to succeed in the government is to grow your power base - get bigger and more expensive. Zero-based budgeting offers a measurement of performance.

Virtually all of them proposed regulatory roll-back of onerous government rules - particularly as it impacts small business. One of them - Obamacare - was especially indicted for strangling small business, and targeted for complete repeal.

All candidates proposed some form of tax amnesty or tax repeal that would facilitate bringing back money from overseas.

That was just a few of the suggestions - ALL of which would result in increased velocity of money in the economic system. If you have more money in your pocket, you will spend more. If I have more money in my bank account, I will invest more.

The real answer, I suspect, lies in selecting 1 from Column A and 2 from Column B - some combination of each recommendation, applied intelligently. It will be, of course, easy for you to select an item, take it to absurd proportions, and find it not 'credible'. Instead, you need to look at the overall sum of the approaches suggested.

By the way - it's probably no accident that the Dems have offered NO jobs growth plan at all - other than Hillary's suggestion to remove investment capital from the market by increasing capital gains tax. Where is THEIR plan to balance the budget, rein in spending, and free up money for the people? Unless, of course, you don't consider that to be 'credible', either.

That's some funny shit. Just more smaller government, lower taxes, and fewer regulations bullshit. Thanks for playing.

Three things you liberals despise.

Just more "trickle down" bullshit.

Nothing "trickle down" in what Spare Change stated. Nice dodge though.

 

[Lakhota]

Then, maybe, you should have paid closer attention.

Want the tutorial, or just want to sit and whine?

Well, please share your wisdom with us about how any of the candidates provided a "credible" plan to create JOBS - other than the same old NaziCon bullshit of smaller government, lower taxes and fewer regulations.

I will be more than happy to .... with one proviso. We will recognize how you have given yourself an automatic out, by changing the question. Your original premise was that no one had provided a plan to increase job growth - now, you claim nobody provided 'credible' plan - 'credible', of course, being defined by you. So, I could tell you about the plan to raise the minimum wage to $25/hour - put everybody on the government payroll - and you would simply say it wasn't 'credible'. Therefore, you have created an impossible conundrum for me - how to answer your nonsensical (and judged by you) question.

Well, I'll take the chance that other readers can see thru your transparency - and try something in remarkably short supply around here - the truth.

Several candidates proposed tax cuts AND decreased government spending. One without the other is like putting a band-aid on a gaping chest wound. Some candidates suggested a flat tax, while some suggested a simplified progressive tax.

Decreased spending was addressed numerous times. Several government agencies were targeted for elimination, and one candidate has identified 645 government programs to be canceled.

The suggestion of zero-based budgeting has particular merit. It would force an annual bottom-up review of government expenditures. The federal government is unique, in that it has no quantitative measurement of performance or definitive criteria for success. Thus, the only way to succeed in the government is to grow your power base - get bigger and more expensive. Zero-based budgeting offers a measurement of performance.

Virtually all of them proposed regulatory roll-back of onerous government rules - particularly as it impacts small business. One of them - Obamacare - was especially indicted for strangling small business, and targeted for complete repeal.

All candidates proposed some form of tax amnesty or tax repeal that would facilitate bringing back money from overseas.

That was just a few of the suggestions - ALL of which would result in increased velocity of money in the economic system. If you have more money in your pocket, you will spend more. If I have more money in my bank account, I will invest more.

The real answer, I suspect, lies in selecting 1 from Column A and 2 from Column B - some combination of each recommendation, applied intelligently. It will be, of course, easy for you to select an item, take it to absurd proportions, and find it not 'credible'. Instead, you need to look at the overall sum of the approaches suggested.

By the way - it's probably no accident that the Dems have offered NO jobs growth plan at all - other than Hillary's suggestion to remove investment capital from the market by increasing capital gains tax. Where is THEIR plan to balance the budget, rein in spending, and free up money for the people? Unless, of course, you don't consider that to be 'credible', either.

That's some funny shit. Just more smaller government, lower taxes, and fewer regulations bullshit. Thanks for playing.

Three things you liberals despise.

Just more "trickle down" bullshit.

List those 40 so-called "job bills" and we can discuss them.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Well, please share your wisdom with us about how any of the candidates provided a "credible" plan to create JOBS - other than the same old NaziCon bullshit of smaller government, lower taxes and fewer regulations.

I will be more than happy to .... with one proviso. We will recognize how you have given yourself an automatic out, by changing the question. Your original premise was that no one had provided a plan to increase job growth - now, you claim nobody provided 'credible' plan - 'credible', of course, being defined by you. So, I could tell you about the plan to raise the minimum wage to $25/hour - put everybody on the government payroll - and you would simply say it wasn't 'credible'. Therefore, you have created an impossible conundrum for me - how to answer your nonsensical (and judged by you) question.

Well, I'll take the chance that other readers can see thru your transparency - and try something in remarkably short supply around here - the truth.

Several candidates proposed tax cuts AND decreased government spending. One without the other is like putting a band-aid on a gaping chest wound. Some candidates suggested a flat tax, while some suggested a simplified progressive tax.

Decreased spending was addressed numerous times. Several government agencies were targeted for elimination, and one candidate has identified 645 government programs to be canceled.

The suggestion of zero-based budgeting has particular merit. It would force an annual bottom-up review of government expenditures. The federal government is unique, in that it has no quantitative measurement of performance or definitive criteria for success. Thus, the only way to succeed in the government is to grow your power base - get bigger and more expensive. Zero-based budgeting offers a measurement of performance.

Virtually all of them proposed regulatory roll-back of onerous government rules - particularly as it impacts small business. One of them - Obamacare - was especially indicted for strangling small business, and targeted for complete repeal.

All candidates proposed some form of tax amnesty or tax repeal that would facilitate bringing back money from overseas.

That was just a few of the suggestions - ALL of which would result in increased velocity of money in the economic system. If you have more money in your pocket, you will spend more. If I have more money in my bank account, I will invest more.

The real answer, I suspect, lies in selecting 1 from Column A and 2 from Column B - some combination of each recommendation, applied intelligently. It will be, of course, easy for you to select an item, take it to absurd proportions, and find it not 'credible'. Instead, you need to look at the overall sum of the approaches suggested.

By the way - it's probably no accident that the Dems have offered NO jobs growth plan at all - other than Hillary's suggestion to remove investment capital from the market by increasing capital gains tax. Where is THEIR plan to balance the budget, rein in spending, and free up money for the people? Unless, of course, you don't consider that to be 'credible', either.

That's some funny shit. Just more smaller government, lower taxes, and fewer regulations bullshit. Thanks for playing.

Three things you liberals despise.

Just more "trickle down" bullshit.

List those 40 so-called "job bills" and we can discuss them.

So you admit that when you stated these bills gutted regulations you were talking out of your ass and that you really don't know what the hell you're talking about.

Speaker.gov/JOBS

 

[The Rabbi]

Well, please share your wisdom with us about how any of the candidates provided a "credible" plan to create JOBS - other than the same old NaziCon bullshit of smaller government, lower taxes and fewer regulations.

I will be more than happy to .... with one proviso. We will recognize how you have given yourself an automatic out, by changing the question. Your original premise was that no one had provided a plan to increase job growth - now, you claim nobody provided 'credible' plan - 'credible', of course, being defined by you. So, I could tell you about the plan to raise the minimum wage to $25/hour - put everybody on the government payroll - and you would simply say it wasn't 'credible'. Therefore, you have created an impossible conundrum for me - how to answer your nonsensical (and judged by you) question.

Well, I'll take the chance that other readers can see thru your transparency - and try something in remarkably short supply around here - the truth.

Several candidates proposed tax cuts AND decreased government spending. One without the other is like putting a band-aid on a gaping chest wound. Some candidates suggested a flat tax, while some suggested a simplified progressive tax.

Decreased spending was addressed numerous times. Several government agencies were targeted for elimination, and one candidate has identified 645 government programs to be canceled.

The suggestion of zero-based budgeting has particular merit. It would force an annual bottom-up review of government expenditures. The federal government is unique, in that it has no quantitative measurement of performance or definitive criteria for success. Thus, the only way to succeed in the government is to grow your power base - get bigger and more expensive. Zero-based budgeting offers a measurement of performance.

Virtually all of them proposed regulatory roll-back of onerous government rules - particularly as it impacts small business. One of them - Obamacare - was especially indicted for strangling small business, and targeted for complete repeal.

All candidates proposed some form of tax amnesty or tax repeal that would facilitate bringing back money from overseas.

That was just a few of the suggestions - ALL of which would result in increased velocity of money in the economic system. If you have more money in your pocket, you will spend more. If I have more money in my bank account, I will invest more.

The real answer, I suspect, lies in selecting 1 from Column A and 2 from Column B - some combination of each recommendation, applied intelligently. It will be, of course, easy for you to select an item, take it to absurd proportions, and find it not 'credible'. Instead, you need to look at the overall sum of the approaches suggested.

By the way - it's probably no accident that the Dems have offered NO jobs growth plan at all - other than Hillary's suggestion to remove investment capital from the market by increasing capital gains tax. Where is THEIR plan to balance the budget, rein in spending, and free up money for the people? Unless, of course, you don't consider that to be 'credible', either.

That's some funny shit. Just more smaller government, lower taxes, and fewer regulations bullshit. Thanks for playing.

Three things you liberals despise.

Just more "trickle down" bullshit.

List those 40 so-called "job bills" and we can discuss them.

Bullshit. If he listed all 40 bills you would still insist that everyone one of them "gutted" regulations. Just like you maintain that Bush gutted banking regulations and cause the recession.