Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Regaining Middle America - Republicans must stop putting moneyed interests ahead of the American...
National Review Online ^ | APRIL 14, 2014 | Robert W. Patterson

Posted on 04/14/2014 7:06:19 PM PDT by neverdem

Republicans must stop putting moneyed interests ahead of the American family.

Now taking his third shot at the Republican nomination for the U.S. Senate from New Jersey, Jeffrey Bell has spent his career warning of the risks of kicking the cultural leg out from under Ronald Reagan’s coalition of defense, economic, and social conservatives. Indeed, his 2012 magnum opus, The Case for Polarized Politics, argues that social conservatism, rooted in the moderate Enlightenment that informed the Founders, is indispensable to American exceptionalism and to any Republican resurgence in our time.

But the political theorist overstates the ability of even the most skillful defense of bourgeois social norms to help a party that, in the post-Reagan era, has delivered few economic benefits to Middle America, the very segment of the population where social-conservative ideals have the most traction. Given the social and economic dislocations of the past 25 years, which have downsized the middle class — and thus the once-great Reagan coalition — such appeals motivate fewer voters than they once did.

Consequently, social conservatives face a dilemma. While rightly insisting that the party take their concerns seriously, pro-family leaders have largely gone along with the shift in U.S. economic and trade policies, starting with the George H. W. Bush presidency and the Bill Clinton–Newt Gingrich era, that have left their own constituency behind. This ominous departure from the Reagan consensus — via policies sacrificing a national high-wage economy to the gods of globalization and financialization — has pampered the upper-income set, Wall Street, and multinational corporations but has liquidated the GOP’s natural base of religious conservatives, Reagan Democrats, and middle-income voters.

This accommodation to moneyed interests also creates a problem for the party at large. As William Voegeli of the Claremont Institute documented in his 2010 examination of the welfare state, Never Enough, the GOP’s focus on delivering marginal tax cuts — rather than, say, well-paying jobs — has done nothing to win it the political loyalty of U.S. households that represent the bottom three-fifths of the income distribution. Cutting to the heart of the problem, Voegeli laments: “It’s doubtful that a political coalition for limited government can be purchased so cheaply.”

No wonder the Republican electoral batting average has plummeted over the last six presidential elections. Bell thinks that consistently and properly framing social issues would reverse the free-fall. Yet the two most recent of the four GOP presidential victories that he lifts up as models (1984, 1988, 2000, and 2004) were anything but triumphs. George W. Bush lost the popular vote in 2000; he barely squeaked by four years later, winning fewer electoral votes than Richard Nixon won in 1968. The party’s failure to rack up even 300 electoral votes in those two contests suggests that the GOP no longer understands what Bush 41 veteran Lloyd Green calls the transactional nature of elections: that voters expect something in return from a party to which they give their votes.

Republicans surely acted upon these realities from 1952 to 1988, when they went seven for ten in presidential elections, averaging 367 electoral votes in those ten contests. All three Republicans who won second terms — Eisenhower, Nixon, and Reagan — promised and delivered tangible benefits to a broad swath of the American public. Those deliverables included millions of stable family-wage jobs with dependent benefits, higher Social Security checks for retirees, and bold defense and infrastructure initiatives that kept domestic manufacturing alive, turned the wheels of innovation, and boosted living standards. In contrast, the last two-term GOP winner, George W. Bush, presided over a lost decade, the first since the 1930s to record zero net job creation.

Social conservatives raise a good point: The legal deconstruction of family- and child-centered mores — pursued since the 1970s by a rising American adversarial class in cahoots with the global Left — cannot be ignored as a source of the current malaise. Nevertheless, they could really help the party with an alternative economic agenda that would reverse the descent of Middle America into a Hunger Games–type wasteland even as stocks surge to record highs.

Indeed, pro-family strategists can draw on a respectable history of economic thought that begins with the pioneer of their movement, Theodore Roosevelt, who considered the natural family a critical component of American identity. Although some conservatives balk at his brand of progressivism, the 26th president leaned on Pope Leo XIII, the British journalist G. K. Chesterton, and Dutch prime minister Abraham Kuyper to protect motherhood, children, and average working stiffs from the naked forces of industrialization. Policies he championed as “the highest and wisest form of conservatism” kept America from turning socialist.

Social conservatives have nothing to lose in drawing on that heritage. The party’s hopes will only be dashed again in 2016 if Republicans bring out the same old talking points, even if dressed up as “reform conservatism,” the latest attempt among the party’s best and brightest to salvage an economic message that the voters have rejected. This influential crowd still accepts outsourcing and the free-trade regime, offers no plan to rebuild our defense and industrial infrastructure base, and entertains notions of helping the poor and illegal immigrants — never reliable sources of GOP votes — while advancing a strategy aimed at cutting popular earned-benefit programs like Social Security and Medicare.

But with a promising vision that elevates the needs of average Americans above the demands of global markets, and a commitment to delivering tangibles to an anxious electorate, social conservatives could help restore the Eisenhower/Nixon/Reagan magic. And Jeffrey Bell might find more Americans siding with his social-conservative underdogs, not with powerful elites, in the ongoing struggle to define the meaning of America.

— Robert W. Patterson, a veteran of the administrations of President George W. Bush and Governor Tom Corbett of Pennsylvania, was editor of The Family in America: A Journal of Public Policy, from 2009 to 2012.


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Culture/Society; Editorial; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: billclinton; georgewbush; jeffreybell; newjersey; newtgingrich; pennsylvania; robertwpatterson; tomcorbett

1 posted on 04/14/2014 7:06:19 PM PDT by neverdem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: neverdem

You can’t use socialism to help the middle class. You can’t do it.

It’s not possible.

But that’s not going to stop politicians from trying.


2 posted on 04/14/2014 7:07:29 PM PDT by Tzimisce
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #3 Removed by Moderator

To: neverdem

How did those moneyed interests get their money?

Generally it would have been by producing something good. An exception can be made for those in government sinecures or on the dole of course.

One could do worse than making way for the producers of good things, although to be fair there’s almost no good excuse for subsidies.


4 posted on 04/14/2014 7:14:28 PM PDT by HiTech RedNeck (Embrace the Lion of Judah and He will roar for you and teach you to roar too. See my page.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

I fear GopE will do the opposite. They seem to be set on abandoning Christians.


5 posted on 04/14/2014 7:17:43 PM PDT by redgolum ("God is dead" -- Nietzsche. "Nietzsche is dead" -- God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HiTech RedNeck

We need to allow industry to profit. Here.

If people can make money through industry, they will try to make money, increase industry and create jobs.

It isn’t rocket science, except to socialists and liberals.


6 posted on 04/14/2014 7:23:33 PM PDT by rlmorel ("A nation, despicable by its weakness, forfeits even the privilege of being neutral." A. Hamilton)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: HiTech RedNeck
How did those moneyed interests get their money?

The author is talking about crony capitalists, who use lobbyists to take advantage of the system. He is advocating for Republicans to return to real economic growth and jobs, instead of "Capital-gains tax cuts" that only help Wall Street.

7 posted on 04/14/2014 7:25:15 PM PDT by Extremely Extreme Extremist (GO WISCONSIN BADGERS GO!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

I think the Democrats are as much in the tank for Crony Capitalist as the Establishment Republicans. It is stupid for us to leave the Dems off the hook.


8 posted on 04/14/2014 7:27:23 PM PDT by stocksthatgoup (Take out the trash)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tzimisce
You can’t use socialism to help the middle class. You can’t do it.

It’s not possible.

Indeed, the first objective of socialism is to eliminate the middle class!

The middle class, with its ambitions and mobility, is simply not compatible with the societal structure that socialism desires to achieve -- a two-tier society composed of a.) the proletarian masses and b.) the governing elites.

9 posted on 04/14/2014 7:29:52 PM PDT by okie01 (The Mainstream Media -- IGNORANCE ON PARADE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Yeah, protectionism and “infrastructure initiatives” are the key. Sure.


10 posted on 04/14/2014 7:32:43 PM PDT by Impy (RED=COMMUNIST, NOT REPUBLICAN)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AdmSmith; AnonymousConservative; Berosus; bigheadfred; Bockscar; cardinal4; ColdOne; ...
That's a piece of troll wisdom if ever I read one. The Demagogic Party has systematically used a massive increase in legislation and bureaucracy (particularly "environmental" law) to undermine employment in this country; they've fought at every turn to raise taxes, not merely opposing tax cuts and reforms. What I'm saying is, the author is full of ####.
But the political theorist overstates the ability of even the most skillful defense of bourgeois social norms to help a party that, in the post-Reagan era, has delivered few economic benefits to Middle America, the very segment of the population where social-conservative ideals have the most traction. Given the social and economic dislocations of the past 25 years, which have downsized the middle class — and thus the once-great Reagan coalition — such appeals motivate fewer voters than they once did.
Please, "bourgeois"?!? Thanks neverdem.
11 posted on 04/14/2014 7:33:03 PM PDT by SunkenCiv (https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Extremely Extreme Extremist

I’d eliminate the tax on manufacturing. Its seldom talked about but its a big one.


12 posted on 04/14/2014 7:35:24 PM PDT by cripplecreek (REMEMBER THE RIVER RAISIN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

Not one mention of Barney Frank?


13 posted on 04/14/2014 7:35:31 PM PDT by SunkenCiv (https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: neverdem

I really don’t think the path to prosperity for the middle class is terribly difficult:

1. Federal policy should match successful Republican policies in states such as North Dakota, Wisconsin, Texas

a. more energy
b. right to work
c. lower taxes

2. Ban sex selection abortions in the United States

This destroys the war on women meme.
Talk about how abortion is the most successful form of violence against women in the world.

3. Enact a property tax on federally held lands that are unproductive [not developed].

a. send refunds to lower 1/3 of tax payers
b. work to return federal lands in the West to the states

4. Lower corporate income taxes

a. send refunds of raised revenue to families paying taxes
b. plan for 4% plus growth

5. Make some parts of the federal government such as the EPA subject to lawsuits.

6. Drop federal funding to American universities that don’t allow ROTC on campus. There is not excuse at this point.

7. Keep Obamacare mandate [require people to buy health insurance]— remove all enforcement mechanisms.

8. Massively increase drilling on federal lands. Again establish a kickback to the public among taxpayers similar to states like Alaska.

9. Overall, enact policies that increase economic growth and return revenue surpluses to TAXPAYERS. When taxpayers at the bottom get most of the funds that will destroy incentives for staying poor and taking handouts.

10 Remove export bans on fossil fuels. Natural gas, oil and coal could all crush the petro tyrants and reduce US defense costs.

11. Penalize bird killing wind and solar.

This is not impossible or improbable. The US has massive potential to grow at over 4% annually. If we grew at that rate, government revenue would explode and dwarf spending within 2 years. If federal government growth were held to 2% or less surpluses and refunds would be easy. This was true from about 1998-2001 when Republicans were most in charge.

American energy costs are lower than almost anywhere in the world and only environmental regulation and corporate tax rates keep business out of the US. We could have a massive manufacturing resurgance with these policies.


14 posted on 04/14/2014 7:36:15 PM PDT by lonestar67 (I remember when unemployment was 4.7 percent / Cruz 2016)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SunkenCiv

Don’t mention that f888!

Our tax bill to the Feds is a bone crushing outrage this year!

Start talking to your neighbors..”Did you get your “refund” back yet?

What a Redistribushhoon joke!


15 posted on 04/14/2014 7:57:44 PM PDT by acapesket
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Extremely Extreme Extremist

The government doesn’t need to be so gosh-durn big either.

Some folks don’t cotton to libertarians very much because they seem to be so blase about a lot of moral issues. But it seems they are about the only ones you hear about actually axing the bloat. And after all, stealing is a moral issue isn’t it? There’s a biblical role for government but it sure isn’t found in trying to be everything to everybody.


16 posted on 04/14/2014 8:35:03 PM PDT by HiTech RedNeck (Embrace the Lion of Judah and He will roar for you and teach you to roar too. See my page.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: lonestar67

“Remove export bans on fossil fuels. Natural gas, oil and coal could all crush the petro tyrants and reduce US defense costs.”

Can’t happen at the same time as —

“American energy costs are lower than almost anywhere in the world and only environmental regulation and corporate tax rates keep business out of the US. We could have a massive manufacturing resurgance with these policies.”


17 posted on 04/14/2014 8:37:23 PM PDT by Monmouth78
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Monmouth78

I don’t think the public fathoms how much we have. It is an illusion of scarcity.

Environmentalists and energy companies share one opinion: energy is scarce.

Believing this keeps prices up.

The amount of natural gas the US has is nearly incalculable. When you add in the other items I note about Federal land holdings, it becomes even more staggering. Somehow, Canada and Mexico have huge productive fossil fuel export economies but the US has hardly anything?

Untrue.

My list did not include lifting bans on offshore drilling. That would also jack up production. The massive fights over anwr obscure the massive federal control of land resources that serves no other purpose but to crush and prevent economic booms in the US that would bring staggering levels of wealth to the US.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/govbeat/wp/2013/10/15/almost-half-the-west-is-federally-owned-now-some-states-want-their-land-back/

If you look at this map, it is pure madness. We could easily increase energy production— especially when oil is at 95$ a barrel.

Soon trains and major transportation elements will run on CNG and we will be well situated to help ourselves on that front.

The public is barely aware that our initial transitions toward natural gas are already making the US kyoto compliant without even trying or reducing the size of our economy.


18 posted on 04/14/2014 8:50:10 PM PDT by lonestar67 (I remember when unemployment was 4.7 percent / Cruz 2016)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Monmouth78

Here is another way of seeing the problem.

North Dakota alone wastes enough natural gas everyday to run a major CNG export port globally:

http://www.climatecentral.org/news/north-dakota-gas-flaring-doubles-pumping-co2-into-air-17212

An american initiative to capture and sell such gas would crush Russia, Iran, and Saudi Arabia. It changes geopolitics at a fundamental level.

And that is just one state!


19 posted on 04/14/2014 8:55:30 PM PDT by lonestar67 (I remember when unemployment was 4.7 percent / Cruz 2016)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: neverdem; Jim Robinson; kristinn; WashingtonSource; SeekAndFind; blam; GOPJ; SunkenCiv; Diogenes; ..

Thanks for this thread, as it is important to understand how the enemy thinks, IMHO, of course.

____________________

I read this article twice and this is all that I am agreement with: “ - - - Republicans must stop putting moneyed interests ahead of the American family. - - - - “ but not for the reasons that the author vaguely tries to provide.

Conservatives view “moneyed interests” as Federal politicians in “both” political parties spending 40 % more than the tax dollars we send them.

Conservatives view “the American family” as those who pay taxes.

All who pay taxes understand what Radio Announcer Paul Harvey meant when he said:
“WHEN YOUR OUTGO EXCEEDS YOUR INCOME, YOUR UPKEEP WILL BE YOUR DOWNFALL.”

The Federal politicians in “both” political parties who have demonstrated that they understand the above quote can be counted on the fingers of one hand.

The ones who do NOT understand the above quote are the enemies of: Conservatives; those who pay taxes; and yes, all who collectively are the American Family.

The greed to buy votes with money borrowed by selling our Grandchild’s descendants into bondage of Permanent National Welfare Debt was not mentioned by the author of this article.

What does the author propose to conserve? Certainly not money or core American values.

This is an enemy article that could be written by many Federal politicians in either of “both” of our sorry political parties.


20 posted on 04/14/2014 9:02:30 PM PDT by Graewoulf (Democrats' Obamacare Socialist Health Insur. Tax violates U.S. Constitution AND Anti-Trust Law.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HiTech RedNeck

“How did those moneyed interests get their money?”

Fairfax, Va. #1 in per capita income.

Extortion-Care is the Government=Lobbyists Work-Camp: Arbeitsziehungslager


21 posted on 04/14/2014 9:09:39 PM PDT by Varsity Flight (Extortion-Care is the Government Work-Camp: Arbeitsziehungslager)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: SunkenCiv
Please, "bourgeois"?!?

Yes, I noticed the same thing there. That word smacks of Marx, Karl Marx!

22 posted on 04/14/2014 9:15:33 PM PDT by justiceseeker93
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Varsity Flight

ArbeitsERziehungslager


23 posted on 04/14/2014 9:18:48 PM PDT by HiTech RedNeck (Embrace the Lion of Judah and He will roar for you and teach you to roar too. See my page.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: justiceseeker93

In C. S. Lewis’s “The Screwtape Letters” the demon “accuses” God of having a bourgeois mind.


24 posted on 04/14/2014 9:20:20 PM PDT by HiTech RedNeck (Embrace the Lion of Judah and He will roar for you and teach you to roar too. See my page.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: HiTech RedNeck
How did those moneyed interests get their money? Generally it would have been by producing something good.

The trouble is that we have two tax codes based on how that good was produced.

One tax code brutalizes those that give up huge amounts of their time to produce by labor and skill. The other tax code gives all sorts of breaks to those that produce goods indirectly through investment.

I'm not saying one is better than the other.

And time spent working for that income should be a consideration, too. There's a huge difference between working 60 hours/week and earning $60,000/year and making $60,000 from dividend income.

Free time is worth a great deal. Some people lose their free time to earn a living and get hit with huge tax bill while others work little and actually have a smaller tax burden for the same income.

25 posted on 04/14/2014 9:57:24 PM PDT by freerepublicchat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

bttt


26 posted on 04/14/2014 11:25:48 PM PDT by Pelham (If you do not deport it is amnesty by default.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Besides Germany, I can’t think of any large country that has retained significant numbers of high paying blue collar jobs.

And Germany is not perfect.

Government spending there is around 45% of GDP which is more than the USA spends.

And German industrial workers actually produce less - in dollar terms - than USA workers produce.

The future for low skill and many high skill blue collar jobs is not good.

Machines, robots, sophisticated software, and massive immigration are a threat to wages and employment at home, a threat that grows every year.

And, consumer wise, USA companies and individuals can use the Internet to purchase almost any product they like from a foreign country.

Can “Protectionist” policies really close the door on those cheaper products?

Can labor unions really take a larger share of profits without demoralizing investors or bankrupting the company?

To my eye, this glass is half empty, and it has a slow leak.


27 posted on 04/15/2014 12:53:16 AM PDT by zeestephen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Graewoulf

Thanks for that, and that Paul Harvey bon mot.


28 posted on 04/15/2014 4:17:17 AM PDT by SunkenCiv (https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
Regaining Middle America - Republicans must stop putting moneyed interests ahead of the American...

Regaining Middle America - Republicans must stop putting FOREIGN moneyed interests ahead of the American ONES...

29 posted on 04/15/2014 5:48:46 AM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: redgolum
They seem to be set on abandoning Christians.

Seem???What'll it take to convince you?

Running a Deceived MORMON for President???

30 posted on 04/15/2014 5:49:59 AM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek
I’d eliminate the tax on manufacturing. Its seldom talked about but its a big one.

There ARE no taxes on business!

EVERY cost (And believe me TAXES are mere costs) are PASSED on to the consumers.

THEY are the ones who "Pay businesses taxes"!

31 posted on 04/15/2014 5:52:27 AM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: lonestar67
2. Ban sex selection abortions in the United States

No...

ALL!

Isn't the loss of

55,000,000

American citizens enough already???

32 posted on 04/15/2014 5:54:07 AM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: acapesket
Start talking to your neighbors..”Did you get your “refund” back yet?

Nope...

Has the Government returned YOUR money that you let them use - interest free - last year?

33 posted on 04/15/2014 5:55:48 AM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: zeestephen
Machines, robots, sophisticated software, and massive immigration are a threat to wages and employment at home, a threat that grows every year.

The first three allow you to have some of the CHEAPEST stuff on the planet.

Wanna give THAT up?

The fourth BUILT this country.

(I'll assume you were talking about BOARDER INVADERS instead of LEGAL immigrants) MASSIVE giveaways by OUR 'representatives' are the problem - NOT the ones that USE (and abuse) them.



More 'foreigners' are in Dubai than natives; but I can guarantee you that they will NOT end up being able to multiply and takeover THAT country!

34 posted on 04/15/2014 6:05:27 AM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: lonestar67

The problem is that no one has an economical way to use that gas because it is too diluted. If it were easy to solve that problem, it would have been solved a long time ago.

You don’t understand how markets work. If the US increases supply massively, prices would drop and much of the gas we produce would be losing money for the producer. What gas comes to market is based on where the gas can be produced cheapest.

We cannot simply throw all of our gas and oil onto the market the way you seem to think without losing money.


35 posted on 04/15/2014 6:20:00 AM PDT by Monmouth78
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Elsie

That’s the easy excuse but it doesn’t explain why factories are constantly trying to balance their costs and ditch inventory for the quarterly audits.

Of course companies pass costs on to consumers. Only the Occutards expect them to eat those costs.

Reducing production costs results in greater production which means jobs which means consumers.


36 posted on 04/15/2014 7:01:20 AM PDT by cripplecreek (REMEMBER THE RIVER RAISIN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Elsie

Banning sex selection abortion would lead to a complete ban.

Starting with sex selection abortion ban would destroy the war on women argument that comes with an initial ban on all abortion.

I agree with you but I will make any political argument to get it done.


37 posted on 04/15/2014 8:26:29 AM PDT by lonestar67 (I remember when unemployment was 4.7 percent / Cruz 2016)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Monmouth78

Dilution is not the problem.

The problem is a lack of pipelines and laws against export is the problem.

Understand that gas prices have already fallen massively in the US. They are exacerbated by the failure to allow export of LNG.

Again, this is something that genuinely does merit federal intervention. If building this infrastructure was what was necessary, it would produce:

1. energy independence
2. the decline of petroradicalism exported by Russia and Saudi Arabia
3. Net reductions in the need for US military force projection to protect energy source routes

Also keep in mind that what I am describing is going to happen whether democrats win or not. Republicans can accelerate the process. Unless the government seizes all private property, they cannot stop what I am describing.

America is doomed to repeat as the Global exceptional. We have vastly more fossil fuels resources than other nations. The hoax is up.

Maintaining artificially high corporate tax rates can also slow the process but not prevent it.


38 posted on 04/15/2014 8:31:51 AM PDT by lonestar67 (I remember when unemployment was 4.7 percent / Cruz 2016)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek
That’s the easy excuse but it doesn’t explain why factories are constantly trying to balance their costs and ditch inventory for the quarterly audits.

EXCUSE?

Again, the inventory game is played because of variable TAX COSTS that the gummint applies to business.

Those "costs" can be controlled a little.

Why pass them on to your customers if you can AVOID it?

39 posted on 04/15/2014 11:24:41 AM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: lonestar67
Banning sex selection abortion would lead to a complete ban.

I understand this, and wondered at your statement.

I can see that you realize the Liberal tactic/trickery of getting just a LITTLE bit of what your want now; and then a LITTLE bit more later, and then a bit MORE after that, and then...

Your frog is boiled.

Think we Conservatives can learn to do the incremental thing?

40 posted on 04/15/2014 11:27:35 AM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: lonestar67

You have no idea what you are talking about. When oil comes up from a well, it is often mixed with natural gas. That gas is usually too dilute to be used effectively. That’s the excess gas in ND that you are talking about. There is no known way to make this gas economically feasible to use or sell, and you best believe that a lot of time, money and brains has worked on the problem.

Gas prices are low in the US because of the export ban. If the ban is lifted, prices will trend upwards towards global norms, which will hurt energy intensive industries and increase heating and electrical bills for American homes and businesses.

America does not have vastly more fossil fuels than Saudi Arabia or Russia. Persian Gulf oil in particular is low cost to produce and high quality, whereas the recently obtained oil in the US is higher cost and lower quality on average.

Please, learn something about the energy industry and markets before you make absurd statements.


41 posted on 04/15/2014 12:24:06 PM PDT by Monmouth78
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Elsie

I think you misunderstood my comment.

The article claimed that Republicans need to create more high paying blue collar jobs in order to “regain” the voters from “Middle America.”

That sounds like a futile strategy to me.

Well paid blue collar jobs are disappearing all over the world, not just in the USA.

And it’s not clear to me how we can stop that from happening.

As to massive LEGAL immigration - I was pointing out that low skill, lower paid jobs cannot be created fast enough in America to keep up with the 1.5 million new LEGAL immigrants who arrive here each year.

Massive LEGAL immigration harms low skill native born Americans.

It pushes down wages, reduces the number of open jobs, and limits upward mobility for low skill Americans.


42 posted on 04/15/2014 1:05:48 PM PDT by zeestephen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: zeestephen
And it’s not clear to me how we can stop that from happening.

The opposite of how it stated: tariffs.

When a BUYER with FREEDOM can choose between similar products, based upon pain to his wallet; he will usually by the cheaper one.

Thus, the American product WILL lose out because it costs more to produce; thus to buy.

Tariffs 'leveled' the playing field; costwise.

43 posted on 04/15/2014 2:10:33 PM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: zeestephen
Well paid blue collar jobs are disappearing all over the world, not just in the USA.

Only in some fields...

Things that cannot be automated too much as still a good choice.

44 posted on 04/15/2014 2:11:44 PM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: zeestephen
Massive LEGAL immigration harms low skill native born Americans.

I think that 'low skill native born Americans' harm themselves!

Gumminit makes it WAY too easy to STAY 'low skilled'.

45 posted on 04/15/2014 2:13:13 PM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: zeestephen
Gumminit makes it WAY too easy to STAY 'low skilled'.

But; if these folks were to somehow be high skilled; what jobs would they then get?

46 posted on 04/15/2014 2:14:05 PM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: zeestephen

Only 9 percent of the manufacturing labor force is unionized in the USA.


47 posted on 04/15/2014 2:19:46 PM PDT by central_va (I won't be reconstructed and I do not give a damn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Monmouth78

This is one of those moments where the anonymity of the internet is just hilarious.


48 posted on 04/15/2014 4:13:27 PM PDT by lonestar67 (I remember when unemployment was 4.7 percent / Cruz 2016)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: lonestar67

bttt


49 posted on 04/16/2014 5:21:48 AM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: stocksthatgoup

Worldwide, it is becoming globalist/banking interests fighting the rights of an over-abundance of people. It is both the dems and the ‘pubs, of course; in the US the ptb use the political theater to keep us entertained and believing voting matters.


50 posted on 04/16/2014 5:27:11 AM PDT by grania
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson