To GOP: Be careful what you wish for : News-Record.com : Greensboro & the Triad's most trusted source for local news and analysis

Let’s suppose for a moment that Republicans succeed in winning the presidency and the majority in both houses of Congress next November, and when they’re done with all the cutting, privatizing, repealing, defunding, disenfranchising, deregulating, union-busting, amending, drilling, etc., as promised — what then?

Republicans’ stated goal is to bring down President Obama, but are they ready to risk bringing down our country as well? After causing the deepest recession since the Great Depression, Republicans have done nothing to create jobs, provide health care, build our infrastructure, or improve education to enable our children to compete in the global economy. They voted “no” on saving jobs for teachers, police, firefighters and medical first responders; “no” on rebuilding our infrastructure that would employ tens of thousands of construction workers, and “no” to raising tax rates on millionaires and billionaires, their so-called “job creators.” They were against the Affordable Health Care Act, which has already provided health coverage for children with pre-existing conditions, covered 2.5 million young people, ages 18 to 26, through their parents’ insurance, and saved seniors $2.1 billion in prescription drug costs. Just a word of caution to Republican voters: Be very careful what you wish for!

Joan Sova
Jamestown

BillWright

February 8, 2012 - 7:10 am EST

Like hope and change?

Sawdust

February 8, 2012 - 7:40 am EST

Well, we've certainly changed, all right. Or, rather, we've been transformed as a country. We're more divided than ever, the unemployment situation is as bad as it has ever been in my lifetime, and for longer, and the future is looking pretty bleak.

We're watching Greece go under, nobody knows for sure exactly what's going to happen there, but everyone is agreed that it won't be good. Do our leaders learn a lesson from Greece? No, they pursue the same policies that are bringing Greece to its knees, and possibly all of Europe with it.

Closer to home, we only have to look to Illinois, home of a few famous (and infamous) politicians to see where we're headed. Illinois has been spending more than they take in and raising taxes to try to make up the difference. As a result, businesses are fleeing the state in droves. Does that sound familiar to anyone? Illinois is in the worst shape of all the states, money-wise. And the great economic wizard, B Hussein Obama, has brought Illinois economic policy to the whole country. Is it any wonder that we don't have much hope?

February 8, 2012 - 8:03 am EST

On second thought, maybe there is a little hope: http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2012/02/08/santorum_stunning_swee...

February 8, 2012 - 7:16 am EST

Kevin Missel-
"Economic growth just 5-10 years ago was in the 5%-6% range, compared to the 1%-2% range we’re in right now. Why? Because the economic climate was business-friendly and jobs-friendly. Has Obama proposed anything to get businesses to expand and hire? He owns the economy at some point because of both his action and inaction. Has he proposed cutting the corporate tax rate to eliminate outsourcing and create more US jobs? Has he proposed a capital gains tax cut so companies can use profits to expand and create jobs? Has he proposed a payroll tax cut, which would truly help the middle class? This guy hasn’t done anything to give the non-rich a chance to improve their status. His spread-the-wealth policies, such as expanding the food-stamp program and bailing out bankrupt big businesses, have resulted in a massive spread of poverty, not wealth. Historically, a stagnant economy has always been a consequence of socialist policy — and we’re seeing that again now."

February 8, 2012 - 7:46 am EST

The main problem with Obama, as I see it, is that he believes in rewarding failure and punishing success. He wants those who have studied, worked hard, played by the rules, and made good decisions to foot the bills for those who have done none of those things. Is it any surprise that we're rapidly becoming a nation of freeloaders?

Conundrum

February 8, 2012 - 9:47 am EST

"He wants those who have studied, worked hard, played by the rules, and made good decisions to foot the bills for those who have done none of those things." Can you give an example of an Obama administration policy that supports your comment?

February 8, 2012 - 10:01 am EST

Well Obamacare is the first thing that comes to mind. Then of course Solyndra and LightSquared. And Chrysler. General Motors. I think you get the idea--reward failure if the failed are Obama voters. It's only money, and the taxpayers have plenty to go around.

February 8, 2012 - 2:13 pm EST

The ACA insures a lot of people who were previously uninsured. That sounds like a positive. As for Chrysler and GM, remember, that Pres. G.W. Bush floated the first loan to Chrysler. It's been reported, that the auto bailout saved about 1.5m jobs. That's 1.5m less people who have to rely on unemployment. That sounds like a positive. Plus, both companies are now profitable.

Newport

February 8, 2012 - 10:40 am EST

How about the proposed new housing bailout Obama is now offering. The liberals have an insatiable appetite for spending other peoples money with little or no results. They spend like drunken sailers and the bar is still open with someone else picking up the tab. If something hasn't worked in the past we just haven't tried it long enough or spent enough money on it yet. Social ideology trumps any rationale in that process. All we need to do is raise taxes to 30 or 40 % on someone who is successful to cover this. You can thank your liberal friends ( Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, Nancy Pelosi ) for advancing the idea of everyone should own a house. Lots of bad loans which should have never been made and is the total cause of the housing crisis and the lousy economy we now endure. They want Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to be the fall guys for more loan guarantees that surely will have a high default rate, which translates to more taxpayer dollars to rescue someone who probably shouldn't have bought a house in the first place. While I pay my mortgage on time each month I don't think someone who didn't play by the rules deserves a bailout. Phony income statements, phony application details and phony appraisals all helped the decline of this liberal social experiment which has been a disaster. How is that for an example or do you need another one Conundrum?

February 8, 2012 - 11:31 am EST

Statists like Obama will never allow the loony ideas of his party take the rap for the housing crisis, when in fact nearly all of it is due to their insane notion that everyone should, and can, own a house. People who don't get an education, aren't willing to work hard, and insist on giving birth to illegitimate children shouldn't own a taxpayer-subsidized house, imho.

February 8, 2012 - 2:16 pm EST

So Pres. G.W. Bush has no ownership in the housing crisis? It's all the fault of the Democrats? Didn't Pres. G.W. Bush push homeownership while he was in office?

And as far as spending goes, remember that this country became a debtor nation under Reagan. Also, you would be amazed at how much of this country's debt can be laid at the feet of Reagan, Bush 41 and Bush 43.

Snapper0274

February 8, 2012 - 2:50 pm EST

This country has been a debtor nation long before Reagan so stop kidding yourself. When GWB was in office it went from $5.8 to $10.2 trillion, $4.4 trillion in 8 years, indeed pathetic. But GWB is a lightweight compared to Obama, it's now $15.3 trillion, $5.1 trillion in only three years!!

February 8, 2012 - 3:11 pm EST

"...and 'submitted eight unbalanced budgets to Congress in succession.' Reagan made no promise whatsoever of a balanced budget in the document that codified Reaganomics, his White House’s 281-page message to Congress in February 1981. The historian Gil Troy has calculated that spending on entitlement programs more than doubled on Reagan’s watch. America slid into debtor-nation status, and Americans 'went from owing 16 cents for every dollar in national income in 1981' to owing 44 cents per dollar in 1988." It's your right to believe in the Reagan myth.

February 8, 2012 - 3:50 pm EST

I wish Obama was a myth. $5.1 trillion in 3 years. The debt went up $4 trillion under Reagan in 8 years, and remember he had a D congress, which is where spending originates, in the House. The budget was balanced under Clinton and remember, he had that Gingrich guy part of the time as speaker.

dubya

February 8, 2012 - 7:29 am EST

Joan Sova gives an excellent insight to the collectivist mind. Government is the answer in her world. The tab to provide health insurance to the shillrund is picked up by those who pay their own way and are seeing their premiums skyrocket as a result. Big government spending projects will increase the long term debt owed by her grand children while providing short term employment. Short sighted at best, stupidity on steroids at worst.

It never ceases to amaze how these liberal drones will bend over backwards to carry the water of Obabbler. He could propose no elections from here on out and the Joan Sovas of the country would swoon and dampen their sheets in response.

itsjustron

The letter writer struggles to get off the ground with theory, and then proves after using this line describing Republicans.." After causing the deepest recession since the Great Depression " that the only real purpose was to prove their own inability to accurately do research before angrily typing out a letter.

February 8, 2012 - 7:48 am EST

We've dropped the ball on the idea of getting together for a drink somewhere. I propose tomorrow night. Will you propose a place?

rmacz

February 8, 2012 - 8:02 am EST

I believe you said something about " The Celtic Fringe"...ha!

February 8, 2012 - 9:51 am EST

That's close for me, but a long way for the Greensboro folks, and I don't know if it's open yet. I'll check on that. I don't mind driving to Greensboro.

February 8, 2012 - 10:02 am EST

Not open yet.

February 8, 2012 - 8:06 am EST

I am unable any evening soon, my firm has a contract with a VA county to finishup a 40 acre landfill, and get it out to be bid on for construction.. I have been in this office 7 days a week almost 12 hours a day for a while now, I have another 3 weeks of it or so. Any free time Iget is letting my family know im still alive and keeping the kids and wife happy! But Havent forgotten about it for sure!

TomShuford

February 8, 2012 - 8:11 am EST

What then?

"Let’s suppose for a moment that Republicans succeed in winning the presidency and the majority in both houses of Congress next November..."

Bad times. The spending freight train is barreling along at such a clip --- annual trillion dollar deficits as far as the eye can see, the Fed keeping interest rates near zero for as far as the eye can see ---- the debt/dollar bubble is going to burst whoever is office. But unlike the bursting of previous previous asset bubbles (tech bubble in late nineties, housing bubble in late 2000s), the collapse of the debt/dollar bubble is going to be on a gargantuan scale.

Republicans, particularly a Ron Paul, might bring on a milder collapse quicker and create conditions for stronger recovery sooner, but the U. S. economy is on life support, prognosis bleak. Economic mismanagement from the Fed (whose rosy scenario comments just before the collapse of the housing market reveal just how little it understands economics) and from Washington make an economic collapse with a dollar with radically lower purchasing power inevitable. The question is timing.

It's hunker down time.

February 8, 2012 - 8:14 am EST

Looks like we are on the same page Tom, I was just one minute later in posting!

February 8, 2012 - 8:32 am EST

While the Liberal Democrats are in one of the Houses, spending will still be going out of control with O'bummer at the helm. Reagan tried to compromise with Democrats to pay down debt. H.W. Bush tried to compromise with the Democrats to pay down debt ( we read his lips). Clinton had no choice, both Houses were Republican, and the debt was brought under control. G.W. Bush had Democrat Houses the last two years of office.

O'bummer had a hay day when he hit the Lottery...ha!

Forrest Gump's Momma was right, "Life's like a box of chocolates, we don't know what we're going get next".

February 8, 2012 - 8:12 am EST

"...and when they’re done with all the cutting, privatizing, repealing, defunding, disenfranchising, deregulating, union-busting, amending, drilling, etc., as promised — what then?"

Won't happen. A president Romney will manage the continual decline of America but likely at a slower pace than Obama. Unfortunately no candidate will try to privatize, repeal, defund, etc. the leviathan in DC if elected, with the possible exception of Ron Paul, who will not win the nomination anyway. But eventually it will happen on it's own once the spigot of borrowed money runs dry and payback time arrives. That's a certainty out of any politicians control given the course this country is on. The federal govt. wasn't designed to be a perpetual nanny state that takes care of everyone's needs and wants and can no afford to be.

gsonc214

February 8, 2012 - 9:08 am EST

I think most people when talking politics like the LTE writer do a wonderful job of framing the facts to fit their argument. Yes, the Republicans have voted "no" to all of the things she mentions but they are not voting "no" to the concepts that she mentions, they are voting "no" to the fact that we have no funding for these programs and that no budget cuts are attached to these plans. They vote "no" to having future generations multiple decades down the line having to foot the bill for these short-term rescue plans. Instead of short term gain with longterm pain we need to look at the opposite. Now is the time to cut out the "extra" programs that are wonderful to have but not necessary to run our nation. Why do we have foreign military bases in sovereign countries? I haven't seen any German or Japanese bases here. How important to the survival of our nation is space exploration, Hubble telescope, etc? This is a time for cultural progams to be reduced as well. Again, when we are in a decent budget situation I can support all of these, but how do we support these when so much of the nation is in serious economic condition?

On a side note, very interesting article in Sunday's N&R about taxing the wealthy, the basis of which was if we took every dollar of net worth of the billionaires and millionaires in this country and applied it to the federal government it would support the current rate of spending for approximately 9 months if I remember correctly...

destinys mother in law

February 8, 2012 - 10:04 am EST

I remember the good old days when the economy was humming along, people respected each other, and the highest marginal tax rate was 90%. Of course, Blacks were excluded from good jobs, healthcare, and good educations. Now, the economy is not supporting the people, there is no respectful discourse, the highest marginal tax rate is under 40%, and no one has good jobs, health care or good educations. The democrats and republicans blame each other while Rome burns. Actually, they also are working on crucial issues like gay marriage, voter ID, and redistricting. And these comments continue to fuel the fire of Americans hating fellow Americans.

mamaboilermaker

February 8, 2012 - 10:56 am EST

If you want to talk about "crucial issues" then how about the administration's determination to get Catholics to pay for birth control, prohibiting military chaplains from reading a letter at Mass http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/02/07/military-chaplains-told-not-t...
and trying to prevent kids from working on family farms http://kschimmel.hubpages.com/hub/Government-Attacks-the-Family-Farm

February 8, 2012 - 11:46 am EST

I fail to see where my comment mentioned this as a race thing. You missed the main concept of my entire post being that spending is out of control and the Democrats have no concept of giving something up in order to add something to the budget, instead we print more money and get the value from the Chinese. I support higher taxes for the rich but my point from the article shows that even 100% taxes on the rich would not come close to matching government spending. There are multiple issues we need to address here and until both sides decide to attack all of them instead of their party pet we will continue to be stuck in the mud sliding deeper and deeper into financial ruin for future generations.

February 8, 2012 - 10:05 am EST

I'd rather take my chances with freedom than with socialism any day. I'm willing to wager my mistakes will be less ruinous than the mistakes bureaucrats make on my behalf and "for my own good."

news-record.com

OPINION