Van Jones, Coulter and Huckabee Clash on ‘This Week’ Over Adding Jobs to the Public Sector (http://www.theblaze.com/stories/van-jones-coulter-and-huckabee-clash-on-this-week-over-adding-jobs-to-the-public-sector/)


President Barack Obama may have given further fuel to the fire for those campaigning to unseat him in 2012. During a press event at the White House Friday morning, the president told a room full of journalists that “the private sector is doing fine.”

This comes following 40 straight weeks of the unemployment rate over 8 percent.

On ABC’s “This Week” With George Stephanopoulos Sunday, discussion on the gaffe and a rough week for the president served as a starting point for a lively debate featuring Ann Coulter and former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, coming at odds against Van Jones and former Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell. Originally discussing how the insensitive comment may be used politically, Coulter shifted the conversation towards the public sector, and the president’s plans to look to growing the public sector as a means to get people back to work and the economy back on track.

When asked earlier on the program about the “fine” remark, the president’s Senior Campaign Advisor David Axelrod said “the American people are smarter than that,” and understood the context of the president’s remarks on our economy as “the storm clouds that are rolling in from Europe and elsewhere.” Axelrod went on to say that one of President Obama’s steps to promote job creation is adding jobs in the public sector:

And put the teachers and firefighters and police who have lost their jobs over the last — we have had 4.3 million private sector jobs created over the last 27 months, but we lost almost half a million public sector jobs, and most of them are teachers. Many of them are firefighters and police. And his argument was that we ought to move on this, Congress ought to move on this.

[clip]

As the discussion began to evolve into a shouting match involving all four panelists, Stephanopoulos silenced the crowd and questioned Gov. Huckabee directly; “What is wrong with the jobs for teachers, firemen and policemen.”

“There is nothing wrong with it, my did was a fireman, I love firemen jobs,” replied Gov. Huckabee. “But here’s what you need, you need enough firemen to put out the fires. You don’t go arbitrarily hire firemen, policemen or teachers, unless you have more kids in school. And what we need to be talking about is, we need not to be hiring more teachers, but hiring better teachers and getting rid of the ones that don’t teach.

“When 50 percent of the kids in Chicago, where Obama’s campaign headquarters is located, aren’t even graduating,” added Gov. Huckabee,”we need to be talking about improving education and not just increasing the number of public employees, who in Chicago get $100,000 a year in salary and benefits.”

Because Obama, Axelrod, et al… are socialists, and anti-capitalist, they see the private sector as inconsequential and meaningless.

Can someone - actually, can ANYONE - explain to me what a "public economy" is?

From where I sit, it doesn't exist. It's pretty much - "we didn't get enough money to pay for everything". That's it. It doesn't respond to demand. It doesn't hire and fire based on competition and response to the consumer. It has no semblance that I can see to the "private economy".

In fact, the one thing I do see is, the "public economy" crashes when the private sector collapses, because it's pretty much a parasite feeding off the private sector - the only difference being how fast does it such the blood out.

"public economy" is?

It's pretty much - "we didn't get enough money to pay for everything".



IMHO this ^

For me, it appears as a big shell game. Let Obama reward his friends in the states that cannot manage their budgets, such as Maryland, Penn., California, Michigan (all under Democrat control) and punish his enemies for those states that have managed to control their budgets under Republican control.

All with Federal Tax Dollars. Simple enuf explanation?

I understand sometimes that managing a state or city government can be rough - you have a finite amount of funds and sometimes more obligations on things that do need to get done - run the schools, fix the roads and so forth.

But the public sector is a parasite on the back of the private sector. If it doesn't get enough blood, it's just going to make things worse if it keeps sucking more and more of it. Like any successful parasite, it survives if it doesn't kill the host by taking too much.

There is no "public economy". There's just public sector budgets that overspend.

Can someone - actually, can ANYONE - explain to me what a "public economy" is?

A socialist economy.

I understand sometimes that managing a state or city government can be rough - you have a finite amount of funds and sometimes more obligations on things that do need to get done - run the schools, fix the roads and so forth.

But the public sector is a parasite on the back of the private sector. If it doesn't get enough blood, it's just going to make things worse if it keeps sucking more and more of it. Like any successful parasite, it survives if it doesn't kill the host by taking too much.

There is no "public economy". There's just public sector budgets that overspend.

The problem is the belief that the economy can be controlled and managed by the government and still be called the ‘private sector’. Funds to the government were not intended to run economies. They are intended to run the government; in a very limited fashion.

The problem is, our general population has become accustomed to looking toward the government to fix our economic problems. So, of course the government is going to feel responsible in responding with policies that do nothing more than draw power to them and take power away from the private sector. A socialist’s dream.

As much as I want to blame all this crap on our government, the blame really lies on voters that put these people in power.

The Gobberment in the Answer to any question a Progressive has ....... Just Ask Andrew .......

As much as I want to blame all this crap on our government, the blame really lies on voters that put these people in power.

That would be pretty much all of us, yes?

What will be interesting is to see how Mitt comports himself and debates and discusses what Ann is talking about;

How did you cut spending in Massachusetts and what were the results?

What did you do to make the Olympics a success?

Where will you make Bain like changes in the federal government?

Mitt can plausibly say his health care plan was appropriate for a state and not at the federal level and stand firm on that ground. However, what of the rest? If we, the people, are supposed to elect him as the Midas Touch guy, there needs to be a believable narrative as to how he takes his free market experience and success and takes that, successfully, into the public sector with all it's rules and regulations and interest groups that care nothing about the greater good; only their own good.

Other notes; This would have been a better conversation had Van and Mike left and let Ann and Ed talk.

That would be pretty much all of us, yes?

I know where you’re trying to go with this. There are unintended consequences in voting for someone you THOUGHT was one thing and turned out to be another. What can you really do about this, except complain that you were lied to? Then there are those that vote for people that ‘in your face’ tell you ‘I am a spread the wealth socialist’. Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, and even John McCain have track records that can’t be missed when voting for them. Of course Obama announced his intentions on a massive billboard with his exchange with Joe the Plumber.

I do all I can to stay informed. I do all I can to help bring that information to others. I can be deceived by lying politicians just as easily as the next person. There isn’t much else I can do outside of that. I vote on my conservative principles to the best of my ability. In my mind conservatism, limited government, and capitalism are the solution to these problems we have. Those who consciously vote for socialists that aim to do all they can to tear down capitalism and our constitution are the problem. There is no amount of oxygen and frequency range I can expel from my oral orifice to convince people not to make bad voting decisions.

:shrug:

I know where you’re trying to go with this. There are unintended consequences in voting for someone you THOUGHT was one thing and turned out to be another. What can you really do about this, except complain that you were lied to? :

Uh, uh, err, uh....not vote for them again?

As you Bush De Nile Syndrome types are so fond of, he didn't do what he did on his own.

The wars
Immigration
Housing
Entitlements
oil
China


You name it. George W. Bush and the GOP establishment are globalists and they do not care, do NOT care where that leaves what you and I think of as 'America'. They can't. There was a conservative, pro America, American, if you will, way to deal with each of those issues and each time he, and they, promoted and took a global view. Do you think for one second, that simply isn't the way it is now and for the near and at least mid term view?

You promoted the idea of a slowing as opposed to my high speed u turn. Where do you see Mitt doing that? Let's pick and easy one; He's talked of ending Obama-care. Great. He's talked of market reforms. Great. That means one and only one thing; promoting competition. As we have learned, that is NOT what the GOP is interested in. Far from it. They liked things the way they were. They were not for more competition. They just didn't want the government messing up their gig.

What do you, honestly, think Mitt will do?

Only when the GOP has lost as much as Americans have will they be motivated to change. As it is, status quo is their gig. Look at Baynor. There isn't even a ripple of a challenge to him from the vaunted TEA party freshman. How can that be?

That would be pretty much all of us, yes?

At least somewhat over 50% of us, or in my case, them, since I am not in the 50+% that voted for any of those that represent me, or rather don't represent me, on the national level.

At least somewhat over 50% of us, or in my case, them, since I am not in the 50+% that voted for any of those that represent me, or rather don't represent me, on the national level.

Abstinence, in this case, does not prevent you from getting...

:lol:

Uh, uh, err, uh....not vote for them again?

As you Bush De Nile Syndrome types are so fond of, he didn't do what he did on his own.

The wars
Immigration
Housing
Entitlements
oil
China


You name it. George W. Bush and the GOP establishment are globalists and they do not care, do NOT care where that leaves what you and I think of as 'America'. They can't. There was a conservative, pro America, American, if you will, way to deal with each of those issues and each time he, and they, promoted and took a global view. Do you think for one second, that simply isn't the way it is now and for the near and at least mid term view?

You promoted the idea of a slowing as opposed to my high speed u turn. Where do you see Mitt doing that? Let's pick and easy one; He's talked of ending Obama-care. Great. He's talked of market reforms. Great. That means one and only one thing; promoting competition. As we have learned, that is NOT what the GOP is interested in. Far from it. They liked things the way they were. They were not for more competition. They just didn't want the government messing up their gig.

What do you, honestly, think Mitt will do?

Only when the GOP has lost as much as Americans have will they be motivated to change. As it is, status quo is their gig. Look at Baynor. There isn't even a ripple of a challenge to him from the vaunted TEA party freshman. How can that be?

Are we going through this exercise again? :groan:

How many times do I have to tell you where I stand on Bush? Trying to point out to you how Bush deceived us, and how others did the same, seems to be pointless. You’re hearing it, even though you lived it. You voted for the guy both times. How did this happen Larry? With the exception of never voting again or leaving the country, how can you possibly avoid it again?

I have NEVER stated I am a Mitt supporter. I do not support ‘the GOP establishment’. I am a Paul-esk-minded person: smaller/limited government, slash spending, slash taxes, get government out of the auto/health insurance/energy business, let the economy fail and recover on its own, no more stupid wars…

The question is… how do we get people in there to accomplish this? You have to have people with these principles actually run, stand out, and win. If they don’t run and win, where do we go from there?

We are stuck with Mitt as the GOP guy. Given the choice between him and BO I pick Mitt. But I don’t want Mitt. I voted for Paul in the primary even though I knew he wasn’t going to win. I voted on principle and still got stuck with Mitt. What the heck do we do with this? Not vote? Leave the country?

What are we going to do when the GOP takes control of congress and it turns out to be nothing more than a bunch of establishment-types that does nothing more than promote slightly less than what Obama is already doing. We thought 4 years of Obama would have woken people up and moved them to the right. Has this really happened? Maybe slightly.

But we a still a country that is drifting to the left. What can we really do about it?

Are we going through this exercise again? :groan:

How many times do I have to tell you where I stand on Bush? Trying to point out to you how Bush deceived us, and how others did the same, seems to be pointless.

I keep coming back to it when I see people trying to square the circle; "Bush merely deceived us." That is the exact same excuse we made for him when the left tried to blame him for both being this criminal mastermind and an incompetent dolt. Bush, while he was potus, decider in chief, wasn't forced to decide what he did by the left or the media. Much of what he did that flies in the face of limited constitutional government occurred when he had all the legislative power a president could reasonably ask for. The problem is the party. The party, the GOP, is all for big government and big spending. They just are. That won't change until they are rejected. That's not going to happen because us lemmings are simply going to fall back on the same old same old; Les Evil, practicality, electability, etc, and just hope. I think that is absurd and silly and is exactly how we got here; no principles other than power.

Obama is imploding. His coalition is coming apart at the seems and soon enough D's in congress will overtly turn their backs on him to protect themselves. Mitt is growing more likely to win every day and will likely have an R congress. House nearly for sure. Senate a reasonable possibility. In any event, we will then have four years to see what hope turns into.

There are two major keys to actual widespread economic recovery; housing and energy. Working folks will be in terrible shape until housing gets reset to market values and their debt load is written off and energy costs come WELL down relieving day to day pressure on everything from the gas tank to home to food. Obama has failed because he chose other segments and ignored those two.

What will Mitt do? He is a Wall Street guy as is most of the GOP, so, it's tough to see him taking them to the woodshed. The GOP is also not interested in cheap energy. I will hope along with everyone else he does a good job. I just don't, with the GOP such as it is, see how.

:buddies:

But we a still a country that is drifting to the left.

PS; You said that some time back and I argued against it. If I haven't said 'you were right' I am now.

:buddies:

But we a still a country that is drifting to the left. What can we really do about it?






PS; You said that some time back and I argued against it. If I haven't said 'you were right' I am now.

:buddies:



:nono:


only if 'left' is greater Gov. Handouts, [aka Socialism] not Helping up ....... more and more entitlements, not working for themselves .........

:nono:


only if 'left' is greater Gov. Handouts, [aka Socialism] not Helping up ....... more and more entitlements, not working for themselves .........

Look, that horse has left the barn. We are a socialist country now, We just are. The messes we have are all rooted in socialist impulses, the government direction of economic activity towards housing, energy, healthcare, industry, entitlements and so forth and we are in so deep that the pain and discomfort of reversing them through market forces simply is not going to happen.

All socialist countries had/have undercurrents of free markets but, only on the small and local scale and we will retain that to varying degrees. But, on all the major issues of the day, all our major challenges, the combat between ideas is no longer whether a given issue is best addressed by individuals acting in their own interests on the one hand OR government on the other. It is now, on all major issues, simply a question of how much government.

If we just accept that reality, then, we can look at Mitt and emphasize his competencies in understanding how to get entities to function better and hope for the best. The problem is we need competency at the secretary level and department heads; State, commerce, defense, etc and so forth. The office of the president is not the place for a good manager because it's not a managerial position. It is an executive position, a position where vision and ideas matter, not dollars and cents.

Of course, by saying that, I reveal my die hard wish that we were still a nation of ideas individuals and not just a giant ever growing bureaucracy of groups. So, forcing myself back to acceptance, maybe that is how Mitt can do a good job; the Office of the President of the United States of America has become a managerial role.

:shrug:

Obama is imploding. His coalition is coming apart at the seems and soon enough D's in congress will overtly turn their backs on him to protect themselves. Mitt is growing more likely to win every day and will likely have an R congress. House nearly for sure. Senate a reasonable possibility. In any event, we will then have four years to see what hope turns into.



..And every time the wheels start to come off, they try to fix the wagon by using "Fire Fighters, Police, and teachers". They did it in 2009, 2010, and now again.

Fool me once...fool me twice....fool me thrice?

..... they try to fix the wagon by using "Fire Fighters, Police, and teachers".





Libs, when desperate for MORE Money, always trot out the 'Sacred 3'

or limit operating hours of the Public Libraries and the DMV .......

Libs, when desperate for MORE Money, always trot out the 'Sacred 3'

or limit operating hours of the Public Libraries and the DMV .......

And what do we 'conservatives' do? Trot out 'security, security' security!!!'. Or, in the case of TARP and GM, just give it to 'em.

:shrug:

PS; You said that some time back and I argued against it. If I haven't said 'you were right' I am now.

:buddies:

Now if only my grammar were betterer.

I take no pride in being right about something like this.

I keep coming back to it when I see people trying to square the circle; "Bush merely deceived us." That is the exact same excuse we made for him when the left tried to blame him for both being this criminal mastermind and an incompetent dolt. Bush, while he was potus, decider in chief, wasn't forced to decide what he did by the left or the media. Much of what he did that flies in the face of limited constitutional government occurred when he had all the legislative power a president could reasonably ask for. The problem is the party. The party, the GOP, is all for big government and big spending.

And I have admitted to being a stubbornly slow learner on these facts. I just didn't want to believe that Bush was actually the deceiver-in-chief.

And what do we 'conservatives' do? Trot out 'security, security' security!!!'. Or, in the case of TARP and GM, just give it to 'em.

:shrug:



:nono:


do not confuse Conservatives with the Current GOP Leadership ............

:smack: