Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Rick Perry's Chance Down The Drain

Tags:
Last response: in News & Leisure
Share
November 10, 2011 3:43:59 AM

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/moment-rick-perrys-presid...
We will never know the 3rd agency that needs to be taken out!!!
I am shocked that this actually kills his chances. What do you guys think will happen to his campaign?
November 10, 2011 12:26:25 PM

He is toast. Like Obama, he never had really good debate skills.

Three government agencies? Off the top of my head - NLRB, DoEd, BATFE, NEArts, PBS, NPR.
DoEnergy can be merged into Interior. EPA and FDA need overhauling badly.

More? Anything not specifically enumerated as a Federal responsibility in the U.S. Constitution.
November 10, 2011 12:31:11 PM

Its too bad he can't just be judged by his record in Texas. He seems to be a good executive/administrator. Just can't debate worth crap.
Related resources
November 10, 2011 9:39:35 PM

The correct answer Mr. Perry was looking for was: Dept. of Energy.

OK but what has he actually done in Texas? The claim that he created all these magical jobs is directly related to the Oil inudstry in Texas and would have come about with or without him, that's been established in analysis already.

Above that, he's signed legislation aiding in the education of immigrants (illegal and legal alike) which did not go over very well across the GOP and has been hammering points for Romney.

Personally I thought he never had a chance. Between him, Cain and the fringe (Bachman, Gingrich) there is so many distractions within the GOP that there is very little solidarity and consistency. He may appeal to a lot of the disconnected GOP voters but he had zero chance of swaying the centrists which will be needed to win this next election.
November 11, 2011 2:29:00 AM

Well, first off, government does not create jobs. All government can do is foster an environment where it makes it possible for the private sector to create jobs.

If government is involved in so called "job creation" you get Solyndra, nepotism, and crony capitalism.

So, he has been a good executive in that sense by staying the hell out of the way of the job creators in Texas.
November 11, 2011 11:19:14 AM

Oldmangamer_73 said:
Well, first off, government does not create jobs. All government can do is foster an environment where it makes it possible for the private sector to create jobs.

If government is involved in so called "job creation" you get Solyndra, nepotism, and crony capitalism.

So, he has been a good executive in that sense by staying the hell out of the way of the job creators in Texas.


Its funny you say that, did you know that Obama created more private sector jobs in 2010 than Bush did in 8 years? Bush also had the worst job creation of any president since record keeping started.

Source

And Here
November 11, 2011 11:20:55 AM

That's because Bush enjoyed near full employment during his terms as President. Hard to create jobs when everyone is already employed.
November 11, 2011 1:54:26 PM

Yes because 4.5% - 6.1% = 0%

Quote:
The seasonally adjusted unemployment rate rose from 4.3% in January 2001, peaking at 6.3% in June 2003 and reaching a trough of 4.4% in March 2007. After an economic slowdown, the rate rose again to 6.1% in August 2008 and up to 7.2% in December 2008. From December 2007 when the recession started to December 2008, an additional 3.6 million people became unemployed. And, as of January 1, 2009, his last month in office, the nation lost 655,000 jobs, raising the unemployment rate to 7.8%, the highest level in more than 15 years.
November 11, 2011 2:41:48 PM

I understand your young and may not realize that historically 5% unemployment is considered full employment by economists, no matter which party is in power. Your always going to have unemployed as some can't work, won't work, etc.

The only way you have full employment is if everyone works for the state. We know how that works out in the end.
November 13, 2011 12:07:30 AM

Oldmangamer_73 said:
I understand your young and may not realize that historically 5% unemployment is considered full employment by economists, no matter which party is in power. Your always going to have unemployed as some can't work, won't work, etc.

The only way you have full employment is if everyone works for the state. We know how that works out in the end.

:sweat: 

Translated to:

"Oh well, since you used real figures and statistics and have completely mooted my whole point, I'll make up excuses."

I'm 9 years your younger, assuming that is what 73 means, but I'm old enough to know when someone is just making excuses.

:) 

PS

Perry took credit for his magical job creation strategy, which is untrue in entirety, especially with your justification of the matter. Doing nothing does not equate to job creation, even if the role of the government is just to provide a good environment. He did nothing.
November 13, 2011 8:02:00 AM

l0ckd0wn said:
:sweat: 

Translated to:

"Oh well, since you used real figures and statistics and have completely mooted my whole point, I'll make up excuses."

I'm 9 years your younger, assuming that is what 73 means, but I'm old enough to know when someone is just making excuses.

:) 

PS

Perry took credit for his magical job creation strategy, which is untrue in entirety, especially with your justification of the matter. Doing nothing does not equate to job creation, even if the role of the government is just to provide a good environment. He did nothing.



:lol: 

Sorry, that's all I can do. Just laugh at you.
November 13, 2011 9:13:54 AM

Oldmangamer_73 said:
:lol: 

Sorry, that's all I can do. Just laugh at you.

It's not like you can or will come up with something other than laughs yourself, so cheers to giggles all around!

:kaola: 
November 13, 2011 2:43:40 PM

Its not an excuse dude. It's historical fact. Look it up.
November 14, 2011 5:23:29 AM

jsc said:
He is toast. Like Obama, he never had really good debate skills.

Three government agencies? Off the top of my head - NLRB, DoEd, BATFE, NEArts, PBS, NPR.
DoEnergy can be merged into Interior. EPA and FDA need overhauling badly.

More? Anything not specifically enumerated as a Federal responsibility in the U.S. Constitution.

PBS and NPR are not agencies.

Oldmangamer_73 said:
Well, first off, government does not create jobs. All government can do is foster an environment where it makes it possible for the private sector to create jobs.

The government employs people.


That is all.
November 14, 2011 11:46:48 AM

Nim Chimpsky said:
PBS and NPR are not agencies.


The government employs people.


That is all.



How does government pay those employees?
November 14, 2011 2:48:48 PM

wanamingo said:
Its funny you say that, did you know that Obama created more private sector jobs in 2010 than Bush did in 8 years? Bush also had the worst job creation of any president since record keeping started.
Oh puh-leez! Sure he did. Depends on how they skew the numbers; using Obama math or using real world numbers from the CBO or BLS.

If any jobs were actually created, this is only after implementing failed economic policy and passing a health care bill that raised the unemployment from 5.8% in 2008 to 9.6% in 2010.

So while using Obama math, he can claim he created jobs, he and two years of a democrat controlled House and Senate can also take credit for (almost) doubling the unemployment rate during the same time period. BTW, implementing policy that "stops job loss" does not equal job creation. Heck, Obama can't even claim a zero sum game with job creation and job loss, it's all been job loss, no real world gain.

I can't believe that after 3 years of a horrible economy, record unemployment, and 50M people on welfare (a 17% increase since 2008) that folks are still spewing the liberal propaganda that Obama and the democrats created jobs.
November 14, 2011 2:51:05 PM

mjmjpfaff said:
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/moment-rick-perrys-presid...
We will never know the 3rd agency that needs to be taken out!!!
I am shocked that this actually kills his chances. What do you guys think will happen to his campaign?
Perry never really had a chance to begin with. Most Americans do not want another Texas Republican as President, hence the rise of Herman Cain and Newt Gingrich.
November 14, 2011 3:30:36 PM

Oldmangamer_73 said:
If he was really interested in private sector jobs, why do this?

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/11/us/politics/administr...
Not only that, but why allow Immelt, who sits on his job panel, continue to offshore GE manufacturing jobs to China! Really now, how hard it would be for Obama to whisper in Jeffrey's ear, "Hey man, create jobs in America and quit shipping them to China, I'll give you the money!"

After dumping BILLION$ into a false green economy and continued backing of failed green investments, the last thing Obama and the democrats are going to do is admit that cheap, easily accessible oil sands (or coal, or natural gas for that matter!) from Canada (one of our greatest allies) is a good short term solution until truly implementable green technology is just as affordable and ready for the consumer market.
November 14, 2011 3:46:28 PM

Oldmangamer_73 said:
How does government pay those employees?

I think they do it on a scale, depending on what job you have.
November 14, 2011 4:03:33 PM

Nim Chimpsky said:
I think they do it on a scale, depending on what job you have.


No Nim. Where does government get the money to pay the government employees?

I'll answer for you. They get it from me, and those like me. Unless I get up in morning, go to work, earn a wage which is then taxed, there is no money to pay government employees. Got it?
November 14, 2011 5:00:09 PM

Oldmangamer_73 said:
No Nim. Where does government get the money to pay the government employees?

I'll answer for you. They get it from me, and those like me. Unless I get up in morning, go to work, earn a wage which is then taxed, there is no money to pay government employees. Got it?

Yeah, I thought that was assumed.
November 14, 2011 5:37:13 PM

The point being, there is no government "job" created unless the government first siphons money from the private sector in order to create that job. Assuming you have people in the private sector that are actually working and earning a wage/salary.

If the government focused more on private sector job creation, that would ultimately mean more revenue for the government to "play around with".

This is telling. It shows the government is not really concerned with real job creation and revenue generation. Just growing a bigger, bloated centralized government and control.
November 14, 2011 6:52:37 PM

Oldmangamer_73 said:
The point being, there is no government "job" created unless the government first siphons money from the private sector in order to create that job. Assuming you have people in the private sector that are actually working and earning a wage/salary.

Well now you're saying something quite different than before, when you said, "Well, first off, government does not create jobs." Now all you're saying is that it takes money to create a job, which is at once indisputable and trivial.

Oldmangamer_73 said:
If the government focused more on private sector job creation, that would ultimately mean more revenue for the government to "play around with".

This is telling. It shows the government is not really concerned with real job creation and revenue generation. Just growing a bigger, bloated centralized government and control.

On the one hand, I agree that any system will try to increase its own power (the second paragraph). On the other hand, it would be strange of that system did not try to increase its revenue to that end (the first paragraph).
November 14, 2011 7:05:23 PM

No, Im not saying something different. I'm saying when a government job is created it is at the expense of the private sector. The private sector only creates jobs when there is a demand or need. Governemnt creates jobs at taxpayer expense thus at the expense of the private sector job creating machine.

Some argue that government employees pay taxes too. Yes but they are paying taxes on money that is already tax payer money. The money government workers are paid is due to wealth creation in the private sector. Government employees do not create anything and therefore do not generate wealth.
November 14, 2011 7:47:02 PM

Oldmangamer_73 said:
No, Im not saying something different. I'm saying when a government job is created it is at the expense of the private sector. The private sector only creates jobs when there is a demand or need. Governemnt creates jobs at taxpayer expense thus at the expense of the private sector job creating machine.

Some argue that government employees pay taxes too. Yes but they are paying taxes on money that is already tax payer money. The money government workers are paid is due to wealth creation in the private sector. Government employees do not create anything and therefore do not generate wealth.

Are you arguing that there is no need for public employees? If so, that is a very strange line to take. You benefit every day from a publicly funded project. The internet, for example, or roads. Would you argue that the military is useless?
November 14, 2011 8:17:10 PM

Nim Chimpsky said:
Are you arguing that there is no need for public employees? If so, that is a very strange line to take. You benefit every day from a publicly funded project. The internet, for example, or roads. Would you argue that the military is useless?


Or that public education should be entirely privatized so only those with money can afford education?

What about the mail service; I hear all kinds of crap (not hear, yet) about wanting to privatize the mail service, which would mean huge portions of rural America would have no postage service at all.

What about public water treatment; should we trust all those privatized entities with our health and well being as their systemic purpose to show a profit, not protect public health?

I hate/love this line; "it's a slippery slope."
November 14, 2011 9:37:59 PM

Nim Chimpsky said:
Are you arguing that there is no need for public employees? If so, that is a very strange line to take. You benefit every day from a publicly funded project. The internet, for example, or roads. Would you argue that the military is useless?



No, I am saying the job creating machine is NOT government.

The internet is publicly funded? Last I checked I write my check pay to the order of Comcast.

I think I get it now. You have never run a business and have no idea what creates a job or maintains that job. It's not a criticism, just the truth, and it is understandable if you've never had to deal with the same problems a small business owner deals with.

Of course we need public service employees. Where would we be without the non-smiling, slow ass DMV worker that doesn't give a crap about who they are serving and how they serve? Whose salary is paid by the very people they are serving I might add.

As to water treatment; if it wasn't for private companies like the one I work for, most people in major population centers would already be dead.
November 14, 2011 10:52:16 PM

Oldmangamer_73 said:
No, I am saying the job creating machine is NOT government.

I take this to mean "the government is not the primary source of jobs." Is that a correct assessment of what you're saying? If so, I agree.

Oldmangamer_73 said:
The internet is publicly funded? Last I checked I write my check pay to the order of Comcast.

The internet was a government project, yes. See lockdown's link.

Oldmangamer_73 said:
I think I get it now. You have never run a business and have no idea what creates a job or maintains that job. It's not a criticism, just the truth, and it is understandable if you've never had to deal with the same problems a small business owner deals with.

Of course we need public service employees. Where would we be without the non-smiling, slow ass DMV worker that doesn't give a crap about who they are serving and how they serve? Whose salary is paid by the very people they are serving I might add.

As to water treatment; if it wasn't for private companies like the one I work for, most people in major population centers would already be dead.

I'm not saying the public sector is the sole source of good, or that there are no bad public employees. What a strange mischaracterization.
November 14, 2011 11:31:34 PM

Nim Chimpsky said:
Are you arguing that there is no need for public employees? If so, that is a very strange line to take. You benefit every day from a publicly funded project. The internet, for example, or roads. Would you argue that the military is useless?

i would prefer them to be like the hoover dam. build by a private workforce that is publicly funded for things like roads. the military belongs to the government ill say that.
November 15, 2011 12:24:44 AM

mjmjpfaff said:
i would prefer them to be like the hoover dam. build by a private workforce that is publicly funded for things like roads. the military belongs to the government ill say that.

Yeah, that works too. Another way the government creates jobs.

Oldmangamer_73 said:
Ahh, you mean intranet. Two different things. The world wide web as currently constituted did NOT come from government. It was private corporations that brought us this gem.

Ahh, yes, two entirely different things. Not like the internet started as a government project at all. [/sarcasm]
November 15, 2011 2:41:59 AM

Quote:
Yeah, that works too. Another way the government creates jobs.

they do create jobs. but ultimately the private sector needs to create the bulk of the jobs. im sure you agree with that.
November 15, 2011 3:15:03 AM

mjmjpfaff said:
Quote:
Yeah, that works too. Another way the government creates jobs.

they do create jobs. but ultimately the private sector needs to create the bulk of the jobs. im sure you agree with that.

For sure.
November 15, 2011 4:11:24 AM

Oldmangamer_73 said:
Ahh, you mean intranet. Two different things. The world wide web as currently constituted did NOT come from government. It was private corporations that brought us this gem.

However you want to split hairs is fine, but ultimately without its inception, it would not be in it's current state. Again, you'd rather deal with semantics than anything else, please spare me us.
November 24, 2011 9:20:09 AM

wanamingo said:
Its funny you say that, did you know that Obama created more private sector jobs in 2010 than Bush did in 8 years? Bush also had the worst job creation of any president since record keeping started.

Source

And Here


Actually your sources are incorrect. Yesterday, the Congressional Budget Office has revised the amount of jobs "saved or created" by Obama's stimulus plan to 750,000, mostly saved - not created. Keep in mind that the CBO is not a partisan agency. Most of these jobs that were "saved" are public sector jobs and temporary jobs - not permanent jobs that will help the economy. By any objective measure, the Obama Keynesian stimulus package is an absolute failure.

Honestly, when I took macro economics 101 in college in 1992, the chair of the economic department stated that Keynesian theories had largely been disproven and no longer are taken seriously by economists. I am not sure why anyone rational person would believe in this outdated, theoretical approach to the economy that at best has very limited benefits.

If you take the cost of $860 billion and divide it by 750,000 the cost to produce each job is $1,146,667 per job. But in an effort to be fair, let's highest number originally claimed by the Obama administration at 3.5 million. $860 billion / 3.5 million = $242,714 per job created. The economy would have benefited more if the $860 billion had just been GIVEN directly to each of the alleged 3.5 million workers instead of being sifted through dozens of government agencies each taking their own cut.

But even if you dispute the the above numbers you are still left with the cold-hard facts that real unemployment is hovering between 10%- 25% in various sections of the country. Under Bush, the unemployment hovered between 4%- 7%. This is reality that cannot be argued - especially to those suffering under the absolute economic incompetence of the Obama administration.
!