Election 2012 Is Comming

You missed the point, they wouldn't need the benefits if they had 3,000 good paying jobs. Outsourcing to foreign countries breeds unemployment that leads to government assistance.

john b wrote: I love our country enough not to sell it out for 5% savings. That's $7,600,000,000 on the project that this country will never get back. that money would have bought a lot of goods and services at home. In addition how much are unemployment benefits, food, and housing assistance, and all the other benefits that will be needed to sustain the 3,000 families that didn't get the jobs. Remember, when Americans profess that "freedom is not free" it doesn't just mean putting a bumper sticker flag on your foreign car. it also doesn't only mean that we can expend the lives of our young soldiers. Everyone must pay their share. What some do not understand is that we are fighting a war right now, an economic war, and we are losing. China has the perfect weapon, greed. American business and government is assisting by worshiping the almighty dollar. I would prefer that we don't sell our country out to a totalitarian communist regime aimed at world domination. It appears I stand with the minority on that issue. How long before Nautiques are made in China? Do you want one if it is? Many of the high end yachts are being produced under contract there now, and they are getting into recreational boats right now. Feel good about yourself, do something good for the country... while we still have one. Oh, and that big savings costing 3,000 jobs. That is roughly $1 per California resident. It would be made up in short order from the tolls they intend to charge.

Another thing you don't seem to understand, Critter. And I'm not picking on you, is that by sending $7,600,000,000 to China to build the bridge, we are losing out on over $2,000,000,000 in state, federal, and sales taxes that would have been paid by the American families who got the jobs, to support our government and country. Great trade off for a savings of $400.000.000 don't you think. Like I said, that money isn't coming back.

John, What is your solution? Order people to pay more? Not in a free country! How about taking a real look at why American companies cannot compete and making changes that will keep our jobs here. The economy is changing. We have the left in this country that wants a one world society. They think we use to many of the worlds resources and have to much of the worlds wealth. Take a close look because this is what redistribution looks like. It does not hurt the rich, they have the resources to adapt. It hurts those that work for the rich who are not as adaptable. You cannot love employment and hate employers at the same time and expect to keep employment.

The Quote of the Decade:

“The fact that we are here today to debate raising America's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the US Government cannot pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government's reckless fiscal policies. Increasing America's debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that, "the buck stops here.' Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better.”

~ Senator Barack H. Obama, March 2006!

Some republicans have been "compromising" with the left and letting spending increase. Conservatives have been complaining about it all along, democrats never seem to concerned with it especially after they are in office.

Even with your ridiculous argument of "see what the Democrats made me do" it stands that:

1- Democrats have raised the debt ceiling fewer times and less.
2- Republicans are unable to effectively manage the economy.

You can't have it both ways. Facts and statistics are just that, not hyperbole fabricated to influence and control the gullible.              

OverMyHead wrote: Actually the presidents does not vote on the debt ceiling, the house originates spending and was democratically controlled through all Regans 8 years.

So according to this argument Obama really bears no blame at all. After all, we have a Republican House.
Your argument reminds me of how one of my many Irish friends described an Irishman;

" An Irishman is a person who can argue both sides of an issue, often at the same time"

My Irish "brother" O'bama and I will likely not be accused of this!

The Republicans would oppose hugging their mothers on mothers day if Obama suggested it. They can only be judged by their record. They are the ultimate spenders/ debt raisers. The record shows that to, in fact, be true.

john b wrote: The Republicans would oppose hugging their mothers on mothers day if Obama suggested it. They can only be judged by their record. They are the ultimate spenders/ debt raisers. The record shows that to, in fact, be true.

So are you suggesting that the best solution to our problems is to elect Obama for another 4 years and have the Dems take back the House and Senate? The only way out is to let the Dems solve our problems?

John, I am starting to get the impression that you are a Democrate...
Am I close ??
I am an Independent in case I was giving you any impression.... Do not
like not getting to vote in Primaries but I understand the reasoning.

john b wrote: OverMyHead wrote: Thus the distinction between republicans and true conservatives. Conservatism is on the rise. I am not trying to be a smart alec, but what is a "true conservative" to you. Many people I talk to seem to have different opinions of what it means.

You are not being a smart Alec that is a good question. To me there are two different aspects to conservatism, fiscal and social, I for the most part stay away from the social issues, because they tend to be no win and very divisive. I would include pro life , pro traditional marriage, and pro abstinence, in with social conservatives, of course many other viewpoints can be rightfully or wrongfully attributed to this group. Conservatives also tend towards founding principles, liberty and personal responsibility. (They believe in the individuals abilities and that it is wrong to take away their opportunity to prove themselves. )Conservatives tend to be religious.

On the fiscal side conservatives believe in limited government, (sounds familiar from somewhere) limited spending, and limits on regulating the freedoms of others. They like to give to charity, but by choice, not by decree. They don't like being forced to fund that which they fundamental disagree with.

The Republicans are split between conservatives and moderates. Moderates (Also know as big tent republicans and RHINO's Republican in name only's) often claim fiscal conservatism and social moderation, but they tend to be moderate on both, they are quick to compromise on spending giving democrat spending plans majorities even when they shouldn't have them. That is why we end up with deficits. Bush II was a big tent republican, and gave us bailouts and medicare part D.

Of course we all human and have our quirks and will do things out of character or have a belief that is contradictory to our general principles. That makes life interesting, but it also means we have to closely watch those in power to make sure they stay true to their promises. Voting records speak stronger than words as both Bush and Obamas campain speeches have shown us.

Thank you for your opinion Overmyhead.
As I have said before, I normally avoid political discussions. This is the only site where I have seen it done with respect. Must be a CC thing.

Dave, I gotta ask, when you go to the booth, do you vote just based on the "R" button across the board?"
the bridge is a perfect example of why we are falling on our asses, you think those nip workers put their paychecks in Bank USA, fck they are probably shacked up, 8 to a room in Cali somewhere, eating rice and creating that sucking sound once again.
once again you have to realize the job loss from the beginning to the end of the entire process, it starts in the ore mines, and ends on the last ribbon cutting when that sub-par bridge opens, once that money leaves here its gone, it doesnt re-circulate,
however you spin it, that bridge, cost more than it ever would being done by a union worker....I guareen***************inteeya that when that bridge has a defect, if it ever does, the US government will be liable. I really dont trust those nip bastards, I trust our government moreso than them,
What the hell was Arnie thinkin? you got people that cant pay their mortgage and he gives the work away, WTF is wrong with him, those American workers purchase cars, homes, food, pay taxes and i would bet that those nip workers dont have to pay one dime in federal taxes. this is the *************** you have to decipher and break down when you baffle the average American that you saved the state a couple of bucks

eric lavine wrote: do you vote just based on the "R" button across the board?"

Takes 2 seconds to vote... every yr!!

Eric, as far as the bridge in Califoria, You are looking at a potential version of the future. It will start in the cash strapped states where dollars will become the only consideration. California is proof that you cannot afford everything, and when you have spent more than you can afford somehting will have to give. It would also be smart to look at this future from a business viewpoint. You are correct that it is bad for this country when we cannot be competitive for our own business. We have to look at where our companies loose out in the process, is it profit? costs of labor? supplies? regulation? taxes? Efficiency/productivity? It likely is a combination of nearly all of these. We have to realise we are in a new economy and things have to change. It is good for American companies to loose a big one and be forced to figure out they need to be more competitive, the same goes for our labor, It would be far better for 3000 workers to be employed at a little lower rate than be sitting on unemployment.Unemployment pays 70% of average wages, would it not be better for everyone to have those workers working and paying taxes at 70 % of thir previouse wage, than having business paying them through unemployment rates. It would be far better for our government to take a smaller cut of taxes on the project than get nothing at all. Everyone must share the burden, and that does not mean just the rich.