(First posted in March 2013) You Might Live In A Country Founded By Geniuses But Run By Idiots, If…
This appearance was yesterday, House Whip Scalise was shot today. You will hear why Leftists want to shoot conservatives and Republicans — small government, low taxes, power to the people. Socialism (the shooters political position) wants the opposite of these.
- “President Trump has passed more legislation in his first 100 days than any president since Harry Truman.” — Tom McClintock on Friday, April 28th, 2017 in a radio interview
Michael Medved interviews House of Representatives Majority Whip and representative for Louisiana’s 1st congressional district, Steve Scalise. Steve responds first to a statement by Rachel Maddow that the House Republicans haven’t done anything since they took office. Then the discussion focused on this administrations work to help the middle-class and lower class get work, leave the dependent lifestyle, and the like.
Michael Medved responds to the food stamp issue that Democrats and the Left are bringing up. I take a clip from yesterday’s show and insert it into the middle of today’s show to give the listener some ammunition when these banal arguments come up. At the 5:17 mark, the caller mentions taxes for the millionaires as part of his argument. Medved Responds well to this challenge at the… and at the 6:24 mark you hear the caller respond with a bumper sticker jingle. In other words, talking about facts matters little to these people, but at least you will be able to influence those around you eavesdropping in on the conversation.
- For some good food stamp news items, see FOX NEWS.
- For my own “comparison,” see my post, COMPARE AND CONTRAST.
I posted this video on LIVELEAK, and a comment got me “clicking around” the internet to test what the person said. Here is the comment:
First, it should be noted that this idea was championed mainly by Moody’s chief economist Mark Zandi, a hard-core Keynesian. However, it should be noted that unfortunately “for Zandi, there has never been any empirical evidence of the Keynesian multiplier. Government doesn’t take one dollar and turn it into more by spending it. God doesn’t live in the White House, no matter how much Paul Krugman prays.” (AMERICAN THINKER)
HERITAGE FOUNDATION puts it like this:
They then respond to the above:
CATO likewise notes that the numbers were fudged to provide exaggerated outcomes:
Valerie Jarrett and Nancy Pelosi said similar things:
- JARRETT: Let’s face it: Even though we had a terrible economic crisis three years ago, throughout our country many people were suffering before the last three years, particularly in the black community. And so we need to make sure that we continue to support that important safety net. It not only is good for the family, but it’s good for the economy. People who receive that unemployment check go out and spend it and help stimulate the economy, so that’s healthy as well.
- PELOSI: Economists agree that unemployment benefits remain one of the best ways to grow the economy in a very immediate way. It immediately injects demand into our markets and increases employment. For every dollar spent on unemployment benefits, the economy grows by, according to one estimate, $1.52; by others, $2. So somewhere in that range, but much more than is spent on it…. We have a responsibility to the American people. These are people who have played by the rules, have lost their job through no fault of their own, and need these benefits in order to survive. So we must extend this insurance before the end of the year and we must extend it for at least a year. And I’d like to see that as we go forward before this year ends. Hopefully it could be part of a budget, but it doesn’t have to be part of a budget. It could be in its own vehicle as it goes forward, but it’s something we must consider.
Again, similar responses happened then as well:
I like Medved’s take because he (unlike many other commentators) takes calls which are negative to his view. A good short article on Trump’s budget is over at POWERLINE talking about the projected GDP. The WASHINGTON TIMES notes that this budget is shocking!
For a more negative review of the budget, see NATIONAL REVIEW’S article by Kevin D. Williamson.
The main reason this is the case — I mean besides the Democrats tendency to “spend-spend-spend,”
- California’s Real Debt Is $1.3-Trillion
- Jerry Brown Just Destroyed California’s Economy (SB 32)
- Jerry Brown Attacks California’s Dairy Industry
- John & Ken Discuss CalPERS Ponzi Scheme
- Minimum Wage and Regulations Killing L.A.’s Garment District
- John & Ken Discuss Rising Gas Prices via California Bill SB-350
HOTAIR tells the story of our fine State’s fudging of budgets:
What do Amtrak, public schools, and inner cities have in common? Democrats who abhor economic principles and thinking by spending more money fixes all ills. Larry Elder takes us on a tour of history as he bounces around the tragedy of the recent Amtrak derailment, and the derailing of our schools. The solution according to Democrats?
$$$$ MO MONEY – MO MONEY $$$$
This comes via The Blaze:
The Right Scoop quickly adds to the HULK confrontation:
- Jesse Watters went to Sundance Film Festival and spoke to a few actors and actresses about Obama and politics. When he got to Mark Ruffalo, who played the Hulk in Avengers, he brought Benghazi up and this liberal buffoon had the audacity to blame Republicans for Benghazi because he said they cut funding for security – even though we know that is absolutely false based on congressional testimony. Which is why we call him a buffoon.
A while ago, Breitbart put up this exchange in Congress about this very issue:
The Daily Caller makes the point that i will follow up on with an example from the Bush days about veterans benefits:
This explains why Charlene Lamb…
…the woman responding “no” in the video above, said “no”. A tactic used often in politics is to say somethig is “cut” that is merely a decrease IN ACTUAL increases in spending. From the Bush days we heard Democrats harping that Bush “cut” veterans benefits, when they have increased every year till then:
(Only in politics can an increase in a budget be considered a negative.) And this budget graph (below) likewise supports that the State Department got all the monies needed for their security, via Heritage (h/t, Publius1787):
….It is tempting to look for a scapegoat for the tragic events in Libya. However, if one exists, the overall budget for embassy security is not it. Funding for that purpose has risen sharply over the past decade. Moreover, the State Department has considerable latitude in allocating security funds based on current events and intelligence on possible threats. Why that latitude was not applied in Libya deserves further scrutiny.
- Still largest deficit compared to other admins;
- Lowered the most because he increased it the most;
- see “1”
Three Question Liberals NEVER ask:
- compared to what?
- at what cost?
- what hard-evidence do you have?