Understand this. In the Republican perspective if you don’t have a job it is because YOU failed. You do not qualify for or deserve any help. You can’t do what 91% of Americans can do? And you expect the government to help you with that?
The Republican way of getting you off the unemployment roll is simple: because you have no money you will shortly begin to suffer the effects of such. Your diet will consist of a lot of products made from high fructose corn syrup. You will get cancer. Because you don’t have a job and thus cannot afford casual visits to the doctor, this cancer won’t be detected until it is a major health concern. You will die in pain and in debt but your family will contribute hundreds of thousands of dollars to the healthcare industry in a vain effort to save you. But when you die you all of a sudden become a hive of economic activity. There will be a funeral and lawyers to deal with (who will be carving up the remains of your estate to pay your health care bills). Your family, now motivated by your unfortunate and unnecessary demise, will work twice as hard to ensure the same thing doesn’t happen to them. They will take any job that comes along, knowing that if they can enrich the corporations they work for, the wealth generated will trickle down to them. As an added bonus, once you have died, you’re no longer on the unemployment rolls! So as you can see, you’re worth more to the Republicans dead than you are alive.
So there’s your answer: You should vote for the Republicans so you can die destitute and in pain, providing a vivid example of the consequences of personal failure in the USA. God Bless America.
It seems to me, first of all, from what I understand from economists, it’s really rare. If it’s a legitimate rape, the public body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down
That’s just the right policy to create more public education jobs. The wealthy will used their new found wealth to hire public school teachers on behalf of the government.
AHHHH, I remember you now. You’re the right winger who is/was a public employee and can’t see the disconnect.
If you really can’t stand that you have a black president, just be honest. Own it. You would actually be less ridiculous as an honest racist person than a public employee who is also a conservative repub.
I have no idea what you have seen Romney say that makes you think this is true, particularly for someone looking for employment in the public sector. You do realize, the majority of the cuts the Republicans want to make, if they get control of all three branches of government, is to slash public spending to the bone and beyond while giving tax breaks to the super wealthy, right?
How on earth do you imagine that type of policy would help you find employment?
A stimulus package and looser monetary policy would improve state finances and put thousands of teachers back to work. It wouldn’t have to be done entirely through direct aid via the Department of Education. This is textbook economics.
The Republicans have blocked stimulus measures and have inaccurately cried hyperinflation when the Fed has loosened in the past. Just because they have been proven wrong, doesn’t mean they won’t do that again.
Admittedly, if Romney is elected, the Republicans will do a 180 turn. After all, Ryan made Keynesian arguments back during GWBush’s first recession. So I’d expect looser monetary policy, tax cuts, and budget cut plans that don’t cover the cuts in taxes. That would be fine and well, except that tax cuts tend to have lower multipliers than spending increases, especially if they are directed towards higher income citizens, who would be expected to save a smaller share of it. Regardless, though I don’t expect a Democratic Congress to conduct economic sabotage. As of 2012, that’s not the way they roll.
I think the fact is that Saint Cad can’t stand a Democratic president. There’s plenty to criticize the OP about without resorting to unfounded accusations of racism.
The famous “Are you better off than four years ago?” question, taken literally, is a stupid one to base one’s vote on. If my house gets tornadoed between now and November, does that mean I should vote for Romney? Even “Is the country better off?” isn’t really the right question. It makes more sense to say “How well did the President do, given the circumstances that were beyond his control?” In Obama’s case, that includes the fact that he had to deal with a major recession right from the start. The fact that we were bleeding jobs when Obama took over isn’t his fault.
One can try to argue that Romney would have done a better job stopping the bleeding, but I’m not convinced. If the Romney camp is trying to say “Obama spent too much time focusing on health care instead of jobs”, this is undercut by the fact that they still want to focus on health care (specifically, repealing “Obamacare” and supposedly starting over). If we want Congress to quit debating health care and focus on jobs, then at this point the best way to achieve that would be to vote the Republicans out.
