# Republicans: How would you reduce America's jobless rate? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 7, 2010, 10:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-how-would-you-reduce-americas-jobless-rate/542352 "2010-06-07T22:30:22Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2010, 10:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-how-would-you-reduce-americas-jobless-rate/542352/81 "2010-06-10T22:51:58Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > Yes. > > Regards, > Shodan ☹_sigh_ . . . Then I guess there really **will** be a class war . . . The real thing, the full Monty (or the full Karl, whatever) . . . ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2010, 10:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-how-would-you-reduce-americas-jobless-rate/542352/82 "2010-06-10T22:53:30Z")
> [@Sateryn76](#): > > Bolding mine. > > Yes, I feel it is. First of all, Wal-Mart only “puts out of business” stores which offer a lower value for your money. So, if I have to spend $25 on a nice shirt at the local Threads store, I’m out $25 for one shirt. At WM, I can buy a nice shirt for $14.99 and have almost $10 left to spend elsewhere. > > That’s a clear economic benefit, isn’t it? It is if you **have** $25 to spend on a shirt, because you haven’t been laid off from your job at a retail store that had to compete with a new Wal-Mart. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2010, 10:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-how-would-you-reduce-americas-jobless-rate/542352/83 "2010-06-10T22:56:17Z")
> [@An\_Arky](#): > > Other than that, though, I’m not so sure that America’s jobless rate is actually anything more than an adjustment towards reality. We’ve got a pretty bad national case of the [Dunning-Kruger Effect](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning-Kruger_effect), which we need to get over, pronto. If you mean we’re under the illusion that Americans deserve more prosperity than we get, I don’t think any “get over it” message is going to appeal to many voters, this year or any other. Nor is there any reason why it should. ---
**Author:** ![Dick\_Dastardly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c4cdca/32.png) [@Dick\_Dastardly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dick_Dastardly)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2010, 11:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-how-would-you-reduce-americas-jobless-rate/542352/84 "2010-06-10T23:48:29Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > The number one job creation problem right now is market uncertainty. This uncertainty is driven by several things: > > - An honest, realistic belief that the world is undergoing transitional changes that make it hard to predict where markets are going. > > - High levels of public and private debt, which are causing financial instability and a decrease in aggregate demand > > - Activist government proposing new policies almost daily, which makes it hard for businesspeople to plan for the future > > - A worldwide demographic transition which will potentially disrupt markets substantially in the next 10-20 years. > > It`s a little-known fact that more jobs were shed in the 2001 recession than were shed in the current recession. However, the unemployment rate didn’t spike because the private sector created far more jobs than it’s doing now, even during the recession. Over 8 million more jobs were created during and after the 2001 recession than have been created in this one. > > Even more disturbingly, job creation by small business is way down, and the jobs that are being created are coming from a smaller group of large, government-connected businesses like GE. Small businesses are especially susceptible to fears of regulation, financial uncertainty, difficulties getting credit, and other such problems. But the economy will stagnate and calcify if job creation doesn’t move back into the small business/entrepreneurial sector. > > So what can the government do to help this, bearing in mind that some of the problems are global and systemic? The main thing is to shift its focus from new regulations, new stimuluses, and other new programs to _stabilization_. Announce a regulatory moratorium. Create a sound deficit plan that is credible and enforceable and leads to reasonable deficit reduction over the medium and long term. Scrap big, scary programs like cap and trade, Obamacare, card check, etc. Announce that there will be no more bailouts, no more stimulus packages. > > The government doesn’t have to cut taxes at this time, and would probably be foolish to do so, as anything that makes the deficit worse at this time will probably just add to uncertainty. It can probably get away with letting the Bush tax cuts expire, as these have already been discounted by the market. But it should announce a moratorium on new taxes other than those. > > There’s very little room for tax cuts to stimulate the economy, and even less room for more spending. Obama’s request for a worldwide tax on banks has been shot down by the G20, as has his request that governments engage in more fiscal stimulus. The stimulus programs have widely been seen to be, if not an outright failure, certainly nowhere near as effective as promised, and governments around the world are running away from them. So on the fiscal side, not much more can be done. > > There is one area that could offer some stimulus at no cost: Regulation. Not willy-nilly deregulation of everything (we don’t need to argue about food inspection), but there are certainly regulations on the books which have been shown to be much more expensive than the economic benefit they provide. These could be removed, or at least a regulatory holiday for some of them could be considered. > > Obama needs to get his regulatory agencies under control. The EPA’s threat to make CO2 a pollutant is a perfect example of how misguided regulators are injecting uncertainty into a marketplace that’s already very volatile. > > Regulations in America cost business several trillion dollars per year. Many of them return more in economic benefit and should remain. But there’s plenty of room in there for fat to be trimmed. > > So… Modest regulatory easing, and credible plans for economic and regulatory stabilization. That’s what the government can, and should do. Forget ‘change’. Forget the radical re-inventing of America. If you want to do that, wait for good times when you have the money and political capital to do it, and when the markets have some resiliency left in them that can absorb the change. Come on Sam, surely you can do better than cutting and pasting some hack article from the Heritage Foundation : [http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2010/03/The-Cause-of-High-Unemployment-Still-Due-to-Dwindling-Job-Creation](http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2010/03/The-Cause-of-High-Unemployment-Still-Due-to-Dwindling-Job-Creation) Are Heritage/you seriously expecting us to believe that business aren’t expanding or hiring because the government may pass some cap-and trade legislation that a. won’t take effect for years to come and b. will be a corporate giveaway anyway? It might not be because we’ve just had the biggest economic collapse in living memory and have massive overcapacity now anyway? Or because the banks still aren’t lending? After the events of the last few years you’d think the guys who spent decades calling for less government regulation and massive tax cuts would at least have the good grace to keep quiet for a while but no, the same old crap over and over again. A sense of shame obviously isn’t something that burdens right wing nutjob think tanks. And after the events of the last few years Heritage/you’re seriously arguing that less regulation is a good idea for American businesses? Christ on a bike. ---
**Author:** ![Mr\_Smashy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/2bfe46/32.png) [@Mr\_Smashy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr_Smashy)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2010, 12:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-how-would-you-reduce-americas-jobless-rate/542352/85 "2010-06-11T00:35:45Z")
> [@Dick\_Dastardly](#): > > And after the events of the last few years Heritage/you’re seriously arguing that less regulation is a good idea for American businesses? It is a good idea for American businesses. Just not so much for the enviornment, workers’ rights, ignorant investors, etc. Where the line gets drawn is what politics is all about, I suppose. ---
**Author:** ![Mr\_Smashy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/2bfe46/32.png) [@Mr\_Smashy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr_Smashy)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2010, 12:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-how-would-you-reduce-americas-jobless-rate/542352/86 "2010-06-11T00:40:05Z")
> [@appleciders](#): > > Sorry to post and run- I’m not opposed to minimizing the number of government employees in principle and in the long run. However, putting them out of work en masse in the middle of a recession will make things worse by adding to the jobless rate. The ideal time to minimize government is when the economy is doing well- that way, these people will be able to find jobs. That’s the problem, of course. When things are good, the left urges politicians to share the wealth (through mostly permanent re-distribution programs). And when things are bad, they cry that this is the worst possible time to put people out of work, etc. [George Will](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/04/AR2010060403753.html) did a column about this on Sunday > [@](#): > > We are witnessing a familiar government dance, the Prosperity-to-Hysteria Two-Step: When revenue grows, governments put in place permanent spending streams; when revenue falls, governments exclaim that any retrenchment, even back to spending levels of a few years ago, is a “catastrophe.” Any honest liberal would admit that this has been the US reality over the last few decades. ---
**Author:** ![foolsguinea](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foolsguinea/32/14751_2.png) [@foolsguinea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/foolsguinea)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2010, 12:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-how-would-you-reduce-americas-jobless-rate/542352/87 "2010-06-11T00:46:26Z")
Reducing the jobless rate? Why would we do that? Full employment is Communist!!!1! ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2010, 1:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-how-would-you-reduce-americas-jobless-rate/542352/88 "2010-06-11T01:09:05Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > I understand that. And the answer is NO, you can’t just close off the world and employ all your people locally and be happy. Or rather, you can… if you’re willing to cut per-capita GDP in half and return the country to pre-globalization standards of living. So… cut off foreign trade, cut the minimum wage to $3.00, accept that the rest of the world will have better, cheaper goods than you do, and watch the American dollar collapse to half its value and have massive deflation that destroys wealth, and maybe you can get back to some previous era where a farm employs 10X the number of people per acre and factories have to hire people to do menial tasks like sewing shirts. > > In the meantime, your iPhone is going to cost $800 (no cheap Chinese labor for you!), and T-shirts will be $40 instead of $8.00. > > But hey, you might ‘restore American manufacturing’. Crappy, labor-intensive, unsatisfying, poor-paying manufacturing, but apparently that’s not really important to you. > > The economic damage done through trade protectionism is one of the most settled issues in Economics, and is about as close to an ‘established fact’ you’re going to find in that field outside the basic supply/demand curve. I’m sure you can dredge up some far-left, pro-labor economists who disagree, just like I can dredge up far-right economists who think there should be no regulation at all. But none of them would represent the mainstream of economic thought. > > America is a \*developing economy? Why what possible goofy standard? The U.S. is still the most advanced, largest economy in the world. If it’s a ‘developing economy’, which ones aren’t? > > The author is talking about transitions from 3rd world economies to 1st world economies, like South Korea in the 1960’s or Vietnam today. But even so, his ideas are far outside the mainstream. The other countries we trade with do protect their industries and jobs. China, India and many others have tariffs on foreign goods. They don’t allow foreigners to take jobs from their people either. They protect their production and their jobs. It is simply logical to take care of your homeland. But our corporations are so international that they don’t recognize America as anything special. We are just another market, that has too many environmental restrictions and the workers make too much money. When our Engineering was going to India ,I thought I would check out working there. They made it plain that I was welcome if I was bringing work and hiring locals. But I could not take an Indian job. We don’t operate that way. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2010, 1:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-how-would-you-reduce-americas-jobless-rate/542352/89 "2010-06-11T01:23:37Z")
> [@foolsguinea](#): > > Reducing the jobless rate? Why would we do that? Full employment is Communist!!!1! I’m amazed the right never seems to get this. Income inequality is a major factor at work here. Republicans seem to have a “what’s mine is mine” mentality and how dare anyone take any of it away for something as quaint as equality. People need to work for what they get! Thing is this income inequality is ultimately counterproductive. The rich get richer, everyone else is screwed. Taken to an extreme you end up with something like North Korean society. Thing is, the rich get even richer still when the inequality is less. Yes, a greater percentage of rich guy’s money may be taken from him but a wealthier population overall can buy more stuff. Sometimes a lot of dimes can be more than a few dollars. Evidence backs this up (bolding mine): > [@](#): > > It is well known that income inequality in the United States has been on the rise for about 30 years now — an unsettling development that has finally touched the public consciousness. But Professor Bartels unearths a stunning statistical regularity: Over the entire 60-year period, income inequality trended substantially upward under Republican presidents but slightly downward under Democrats, thus accounting for the widening income gaps over all. And the bad news for America’s poor is that Republicans have won five of the seven elections going back to 1980. > > \ > > The accompanying table, which is adapted from the book, tells a remarkably consistent story. It shows that when Democrats were in the White House, lower-income families experienced slightly faster income growth than higher-income families — which means that incomes were equalizing. In stark contrast, it also shows much faster income growth for the better-off when Republicans were in the White House — thus widening the gap in income. > > **The table also shows that families at the 95th percentile fared almost as well under Republican presidents as under Democrats (1.90 percent growth per year, versus 2.12 percent)**, giving them little stake, economically, in election outcomes. But the stakes were enormous for the less well-to-do. Families at the 20th percentile fared much worse under Republicans than under Democrats (0.43 percent versus 2.64 percent). Eight years of growth at an annual rate of 0.43 percent increases a family’s income by just 3.5 percent, while eight years of growth at 2.64 percent raises it by 23.2 percent. > > SOURCE: [http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/31/business/31view.html?scp=3&sq=unequal%20democracy%20bartels&st=cse](http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/31/business/31view.html?scp=3&sq=unequal%20democracy%20bartels&st=cse) So there ya have it but despite this republicans just froth at the mouth to think some liberal will take their money for some do-gooder stuff even if they themselves make less money as a result. IIRC there was a thread around here awhile ago where a conservative poster flat out stated they would rather make less money overall to be sure someone else did not get money from them they felt was undeserved. Boggles the mind. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2010, 1:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-how-would-you-reduce-americas-jobless-rate/542352/90 "2010-06-11T01:43:25Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > The author is talking about transitions from 3rd world economies to 1st world economies, like South Korea in the 1960’s or Vietnam today. But even so, his ideas are far outside the mainstream. [Ha-Joon Chang’s](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ha-Joon_Chang) book has been highly praised by Nobel-Prize-Winning economist [Joseph Stiglitz.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Stiglitz) Is he “far outside the mainstream” too? ---
**Author:** ![Snag](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/94ad74/32.png) [@Snag](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snag)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2010, 4:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-how-would-you-reduce-americas-jobless-rate/542352/91 "2010-06-11T04:44:30Z")
> [@IdahoMauleMan](#): > > Did they cut adminstrative, janitorial and other non-teaching personnel first? > > Did they cut contributions to pensions and healthcare plans for existing and/or retired employees, or at least require them to contribute more to those plans, first? > > Just curious. You know, maybe this is an idea. We need to also cut 401K’s and healthcare benefits in the private sector as well. Think about it. This will relieve the burden on businesses, thus they’ll have more money to hire more workers. Are you in, **IdahoMauleMan** and other conservatives? Maybe it’s time to get congress to reduce workers benefits across the board, not just in the public sector. If we all reduce the benefits owed us that will help with our prosperity! ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2010, 6:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-how-would-you-reduce-americas-jobless-rate/542352/92 "2010-06-11T06:47:50Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > I’m sure some of those **are** unemployed. Yeah, but they’re plenty stupid enough to opt for killing themselves on principle! ---
**Author:** ![appleciders](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/85f322/32.png) [@appleciders](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/appleciders)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2010, 7:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-how-would-you-reduce-americas-jobless-rate/542352/93 "2010-06-11T07:50:49Z")
> [@Mr\_Smashy](#): > > That’s the problem, of course. When things are good, the left urges politicians to share the wealth (through mostly permanent re-distribution programs). And when things are bad, they cry that this is the worst possible time to put people out of work, etc. > > [George Will](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/04/AR2010060403753.html) did a column about this on Sunday > > Any honest liberal would admit that this has been the US reality over the last few decades. The only part of this that I object to is that both sides do this- they spend like crazy when times are good (on different things), then throw a fit when asked to tighten their belts when revenues drop. ---
**Author:** ![Icerigger](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/icerigger/32/432_2.png) [@Icerigger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Icerigger)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2010, 10:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-how-would-you-reduce-americas-jobless-rate/542352/94 "2010-06-11T10:33:42Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > That was what blurred the boundaries between the American working class and middle class, and made it possible for laborers to have a middle-class outlook and something near a middle-class standard of living. Are you saying that it is completely impossible for that state of affairs ever to be restored? > [@Shodan](#): > > Yes. It is refreshing to hear conservatives finally admit that the middle class life style is eroding alway and will never return just what liberals have known for decades. Some talk about economics like it was the laws of physics, this is baloney it was a series of decisions and strategies institute by elites in the business world to maximize profit at the top by using cheap labor overseas to realize huge profits at the top. I have no problem with free trade with nations at the same standard of living what you can not have is “free trade” with first world and third world nations. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2010, 11:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-how-would-you-reduce-americas-jobless-rate/542352/95 "2010-06-11T11:52:49Z")
> [@Icerigger](#): > > It is refreshing to hear conservatives finally admit that the middle class life style is eroding alway and will never return just what liberals have known for decades. Nonsense - nobody said this. Unskilled labor has no future, and cannot be made into a highly-paid profession by protectionism or unions. The notion that this means the middle class is going to disappear is silly in the extreme. Standards of living are much higher now than they were during the heyday of labor in the USA, and the “disappearing” middle class is caused by people moving up into the upper middle class, and by the aging of the baby boomers as they entered their peak earning years. There isn’t going to be a class war, Marxist fantasies notwithstanding. The fact that the huge majority in the US identifies with the middle class rules this out. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2010, 1:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-how-would-you-reduce-americas-jobless-rate/542352/96 "2010-06-11T13:08:18Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > Nonsense - nobody said this. > > Unskilled labor has no future, and cannot be made into a highly-paid profession by protectionism or unions. The notion that this means the middle class is going to disappear is silly in the extreme. Standards of living are much higher now than they were during the heyday of labor in the USA, and the “disappearing” middle class is caused by people moving up into the upper middle class, and by the aging of the baby boomers as they entered their peak earning years. > > There isn’t going to be a class war, Marxist fantasies notwithstanding. The fact that the huge majority in the US identifies with the middle class rules this out. Interesting. IIRC a lot of Americans do view themselves as middle class while not actually being middle class. The [Human Poverty Index](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Poverty_Index) has the US ranked 17th in the world. Note the US has the highest probability on that list of not surviving to age 60 and the highest percentage of population below 50% of median income. Interestingly we have a better long-term unemployment rate than anyone else (i.e. fewer people unemployed for a long time). So, better employment yet the most below 50% median income. Clearly other countries manage those things better so why the fatalism that the US cannot and things just are the way they are? ---
**Author:** ![IdahoMauleMan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/71c47a/32.png) [@IdahoMauleMan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IdahoMauleMan)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2010, 1:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-how-would-you-reduce-americas-jobless-rate/542352/97 "2010-06-11T13:22:29Z")
> [@Snag](#): > > You know, maybe this is an idea. We need to also cut 401K’s and healthcare benefits in the private sector as well. Think about it. This will relieve the burden on businesses, thus they’ll have more money to hire more workers. Are you in, **IdahoMauleMan** and other conservatives? Maybe it’s time to get congress to reduce workers benefits across the board, not just in the public sector. > > If we all reduce the benefits owed us that will help with our prosperity! I’m absolutely in with that. The government takes 15+% of the wages available in a employer-employee relationship right now (via FICA and Medicare taxes) to prop up bankrupt Social Security and Medicare Ponzi schemes. Supposedly for my own good…apparently I can’t be trusted to keep that money for myself and take care of myself. And Obama wants more of that, by the way. A direct correlation to the OP. It will raise the cost of employment. Let me negotiate with my employer for my share of those wages, and I’ll keep them and take care of myself at retirement. The government (meaning you) won’t owe me a dime. That’s an outstanding idea. Thanks for bringing it up. By the way, where do you think ‘401k’s and healthcare benefits’ that are attached to jobs come from? Where do you think that money comes from? ---
**Author:** ![Mr\_Smashy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/2bfe46/32.png) [@Mr\_Smashy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr_Smashy)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2010, 1:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-how-would-you-reduce-americas-jobless-rate/542352/98 "2010-06-11T13:37:13Z")
> [@appleciders](#): > > The only part of this that I object to is that both sides do this- they spend like crazy when times are good (on different things), then throw a fit when asked to tighten their belts when revenues drop. Historically, maybe, but I think that’s what the tea party movement is all about. An uncle who considers himself a member rails all the time about the need to reduce government spending. I think the ‘new crop’ of politicians (the Cantors, the Pence’s) are definitely making that their pitch. ---
**Author:** ![Digital\_Stimulus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/aeb1de/32.png) [@Digital\_Stimulus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Digital_Stimulus)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2010, 1:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-how-would-you-reduce-americas-jobless-rate/542352/99 "2010-06-11T13:52:18Z")
> [@Mr\_Smashy](#): > > Historically, maybe, but I think that’s what the tea party movement is all about. An uncle who considers himself a member rails all the time about the need to reduce government spending. I think the ‘new crop’ of politicians (the Cantors, the Pence’s) are definitely making that their pitch. Is there another Cantor and Pence you’re referring to of whom I’m not aware? 'Cuz the two currently in the House – having both served through the entirety of Bush 43 tenure – don’t really have a record that matches up with what you’re describing. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2010, 1:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-how-would-you-reduce-americas-jobless-rate/542352/100 "2010-06-11T13:55:32Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > IIRC there was a thread around here awhile ago where a conservative poster flat out stated they would rather make less money overall to be sure someone else did not get money from them they felt was undeserved. > > Boggles the mind. RWs often charge leftists, labor unions, and/or the poor with “envy,” that is, with basing their view of “social justice” on what **others** have compared with what they have. That’s as may be, but envy can take more than form, and this is another. (See Jesus’ parable about the laborers who object that the owner of the vinyard gives the same denarius to those who’ve worked all day and to those who arrived late.) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-how-would-you-reduce-americas-jobless-rate/542352.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-how-would-you-reduce-americas-jobless-rate/542352.md?page=6)