I was visiting with my father and he told me yesterday about a good friend of his who is a SEC football official. A mutual friend of his did the Florida at Auburn game on October 15, 2011. Word got back to my father about how disgraceful Florida’s coach was in the way he talked to the officials. The comment the official made was that he did not understand how an upstanding university like Florida would hire somebody without any class to try and mold these young players character.
Just this morning I was looking across the internet and ran across this story below and I wanted to share it with you along with some verses from the Bible concerning cursing.
Originally published 02:43 p.m., October 18, 2011
Updated 08:54 p.m., October 18, 2011
GAINESVILLE, Fla. (AP) — Florida coach Will Muschamp is cleaning up his act.
Well, at least his language.
Muschamp apologized Tuesday for his colorful words that were caught by television cameras during his team’s 17-6 loss at Auburn last week. But the emotional first-year coach said he has no plans to temper his sideline antics.
“Just the language,” Muschamp said.
“It’s hard when you’ve got a 6-year-old and a 10-year-old at home and you’ve got to go home and explain to them what you said. So that’s not good and that’s not how we’re going to run our program. That’s it. Again, as far as the sideline stuff’s concerned, we’re going to be who we are. I’m just apologizing for the language, nothing else.”
Muschamp lost his temper several times during the game — all season really — and at least two rants were picked up clearly by sideline microphones.
The most notable one came when running back Chris Rainey muffed a punt in the first quarter.
Replays seemed to show an Auburn player interfering with Rainey just before the catch. Muschamp screamed at officials, had to be restrained by an assistant and even called timeout to yell some more.
Cameras stayed on him throughout his salty tirade.
“That’s not something that’s going to be tolerated here at the University of Florida, first of all, by me and our program,” Muschamp said. “That’s certainly not representative of what this program and this university is about.”
Muschamp is as fiery as any coach in the country. Nicknamed “Coach Boom” while he was defensive coordinator at Auburn, Muschamp brings as much energy to the sideline as anyone in uniform.
He jumps up and down with every big play, exchanges hugs, high-fives and chest bumps, and hasn’t been shy about sharing his opinion with officials. If he were a basketball or baseball coach, he already would have been ejected this season.
His emotions are as visible as Florida’s bright orange helmets. The guys in pinstripes aren’t the only ones to feel his wrath, either.
Muschamp barks at his players and assistant coaches. He was caught on camera having words with special teams coordinator D.J. Durkin two weeks ago at LSU after the Gators allowed a first down on a fake punt.
Even though many of Florida’s players were never yelled at as high school stars, they insist they enjoy seeing Muschamp’s passionate outbursts, red-faced screams and emphatic celebrations.
Muschamp said he doesn’t believe his demeanor has any negative impact on the team.
“I don’t think it hurts anything, I can tell you that,” Muschamp said. “That’s going to be who I am. That’s what I said from the beginning.”
Let no corrupting talk come out of your mouths, but only such as is good for building up, as fits the occasion, that it may give grace to those who hear.
But no human being can tame the tongue. It is a restless evil, full of deadly poison. With it we bless our Lord and Father, and with it we curse people who are made in the likeness of God. From the same mouth come blessing and cursing. My brothers, these things ought not to be so.
The so-called War on Poverty has failed. Making government bigger and creating more federal redistribution programs has been bad news for taxpayers. But the welfare state also has been a disaster for the less fortunate, creating a flypaper effect that makes it difficult for people to lead independent and self-reliant lives. This Center for Freedom and Prosperity Foundation video shows how the poverty rate was falling after World War II — but then stagnated once the federal government got involved. www.freedomandprosperity.org
This testimony was delivered on September 20, 2011.
Baseline Projections Are Optimistic
In support of building a large “fiscal buffer,” policymakers should recognize that both short-term and long-term CBO projections are optimistic in various ways. Perhaps the future will include some positive budget surprises, but the big risk factors seem to be on the negative side.
In CBO’s baseline, federal deficits fall substantially over the coming decade, partly due to changes under the recent Budget Control Act. However, spending will be higher than projected if:
Policymakers lift caps in the Budget Control Act.
Policymakers launch new spending programs or respond to unforeseen crises or wars.
Higher interest rates push up interest costs, which is a risk that gets magnified as federal debt grows larger.
A major recession causes large cost increases in programs sensitive to economic cycles, such as unemployment insurance.
Policymakers respond to another recession with costly new “stimulus” plans. The persistence of Keynesian policy ideas in Washington is an important risk to the outlook for federal debt.
There are likely to be negative shocks in coming years that we don’t foresee. Consider that in its January 2008 budget outlook, CBO projected that U.S. economic growth would slow in 2008 but then rebound fairly strongly in subsequent years.15 CBO discussed the risk of a recession, but didn’t foresee the calamity that was already starting. The upshot is that policymakers should take a conservative approach and build a “fiscal buffer” with large spending cuts now before another recession causes the deficit to soar again.
CBO’s long-range projections — such as the “alternative fiscal scenario” (AFS) shown in Figure 1 — are also optimistic. In its basic projections, CBO does not factor in the negative effects of rising spending, debt, or taxes on GDP after 2021, but it does do that in a separate analysis.16 If spending actually followed the course shown in Figure 1, CBO estimates that GDP in 2035 would be up to 10 percent less than shown in the AFS, and GNP would be up to 18 percent less. In turn, spending-to-GDP and debt-to-GDP ratios would be worse than usually shown in long-range budget charts.
Under the AFS, rising deficit spending could reduce American incomes. The CBO finds that real GNP per capita could stop growing in the late 2020s, and then start falling after that. In a historic reversal, future generations of Americans would become successively poorer.
The way to ensure our continued prosperity is to cut federal spending and reduce debt. In a 2010 analysis, the CBO compared the high-spending AFS with Rep. Paul Ryan’s “Roadmap” plan.17 The Ryan plan would restrain federal spending to roughly current levels for the next few decades, and then start reducing it. By the late 2020s, GNP per capita under the Ryan plan would begin rising above the flat and then falling levels under the AFS. By the late 2050s, GNP per capita would be 70 percent higher under the Ryan plan than under the AFS.18
15 Congressional Budget Office, “The Budget and Economic Outlook: Fiscal Years 2008 to 2018,” January 2008, Chapter 2. 16 See Chapter 2 in Congressional Budget Office, “Long-Term Budget Outlook,” June 2011. 17 Congressional Budget Office, Douglas Elmendorf letter to Paul Ryan, January 27, 2010, http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/108xx/doc10851/01-27-Ryan-Roadmap-Letter.pdf. 18 Congressional Budget Office, Douglas Elmendorf letter to Paul Ryan, January 27, 2010, p. 16.
Republicans Get heated during CNN WRLC Debate (Media Credit: CNN)
ANDERSON COOPER, CNN ANCHOR AND DEBATE MODERATOR: I’m Anderson Cooper in Las Vegas.
Tonight, the presidential candidates come here to win the West.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
NARRATOR: The west. From the mountain majesty of the Rockies, to the desert sands of the Mojave, the American frontier is a historic land of opportunity for Republicans.
GOV. RICK PERRY (R-TX), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Believe in America.
NARRATOR: Tonight, the fight for the GOP presidential nomination comes here, to a region where Barack Obama made inroads four years ago, to a state that could be decisive in the primary season and the general election, to a city where dreams are made and crushed.
Stand by for a Las Vegas event, the Republican presidential contenders on stage and in depth after a dramatic reshuffling of the pack.
Herman Cain, now among the leaders surging in recent weeks.
PERRY: We put more boots on the ground.
NARRATOR: Rick Perry, trying to get back on track after a meteoric rise.
FORMER GOV. MITT ROMNEY (R-MA), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Thanks for being here today.
NARRATOR: And Mitt Romney, steady, holding his place in the top tier.
They could have the most to win or lose. But Newt Gingrich, Michele Bachmann and Ron Paul could be wildcards. And Rick Santorum, eager to beat the odds.
The candidates facing tough questions about jobs and the economy, the immigration wars, and other issues that matter to westerners and voters across the nation.
Now, with nothing less than America’s future at stake, the presidential campaign goes West.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
(APPLAUSE)
COOPER: And welcome to the Sands Convention Center at the Venetian in Las Vegas, our host of the Western Republican Presidential Debate.
Tonight, seven contenders will be on this stage to convince you he or she should be the Republican nominee for the president of the United States.
I’m Anderson Cooper.
Welcome to our viewers in the U.S. and around the world.
Tonight’s debate is airing on CNN, CNN International, CNN en Espanol, and the American Forces Network.
We want to thank our cosponsors, the Western Republican Leadership Conference, representing 16 western states and territories. Western voters will play an active role in tonight’s debate. Voters here in our audience will have a chance to put questions directly to the candidates on this stage.
Let’s meet the 2012 Republican presidential contenders.
Joining us on stage, Minnesota Congresswoman Michele Bachmann.
(APPLAUSE)
COOPER: The former Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich.
(APPLAUSE)
COOPER: Texas Governor Rick Perry.
(APPLAUSE)
COOPER: Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney.
(APPLAUSE)
COOPER: The former president and CEO of Godfather’s Pizza, Herman Cain.
(APPLAUSE)
COOPER: Texas Congressman Ron Paul.
(APPLAUSE)
COOPER: And the former U.S. senator from Pennsylvania, Rick Santorum.
(APPLAUSE)
COOPER: Ladies and Gentlemen, the Republican candidates for president of the United States.
(APPLAUSE)
COOPER: Well, the crowd is on its feet. Everyone, please remain standing. It’s time now for our national anthem performed tonight by Tony award-winner Anthony Crivello, starring as the Phantom in “Phantom Las Vegas,” the Las Vegas spectacular. Please stand for the national anthem.
(APPLAUSE)
CRIVELLO: (SINGING NATIONAL ANTHEM)
(APPLAUSE)
COOPER: I want to ask the candidates to please take your podiums. While the candidates are taking their podiums, I just want to tell you a little bit more about how tonight’s debate is going to work. I’ll be the moderator. I’ll ask questions on a wide range of issues. And I’ll work to make sure that each candidate is getting his or her fair share of questions.
Also, Western voters right here in the hall will be asking questions, as well, and viewers watching at home can participate, also. We’re accepting questions for the candidates on Twitter. If you send a question for the candidates on Twitter, make sure to include the hash tag #cnndebate, on Facebook at facebook.com/cnnpolitics, and on cnnpolitics.com.
Now, each candidate will have about one minute to answer the questions and 30 seconds for follow-ups and rebuttals. I’ll make sure candidates get time to respond if they’re singled out for criticism. There are no buzzers. There’s no bells. I’ll just politely inform the candidates when they need to wrap things up.
We want everyone watching to emerge from this debate more informed about the candidates, more able to judge who should be the next president of the United States.
Now that everyone is in place, it’s time for the candidates to introduce themselves to our audience. All the candidates are going to keep it short. Here’s an example. I’m Anderson Cooper. I’m usually anchoring “AC 360″ on CNN, but I’m honored to be here in Las Vegas at the Western Republican Presidential Debate. That will be my introduction.
(APPLAUSE)
So, Senator Santorum, you’re first. Let’s start with you.
FORMER SEN. RICK SANTORUM (R-PA), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Thank you, Anderson. I’m Rick Santorum. My wife, Karen, and I are the parents of seven children. And my little girl, Isabella, 3 years old, had some surgery today. She’s doing fine. But I just wanted to send to her a little “I love you” and I will take the red eye home to be with you tomorrow and make sure that you’re feeling fine.
(APPLAUSE)
REP. RON PAUL (R-TX), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I’m Congressman Ron Paul from Texas. I’m the champion of liberty. I am the only one that has offered a balanced budget in — in a sincere method. And also, I present the case for a free society as being the best defense for peace and prosperity.
(APPLAUSE)
HERMAN CAIN, PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I am businessman Herman Cain. I’ve been married to my wife, Gloria, for 43 years. And I’m a 42-year businessman, which means I solve problems for a living.
(APPLAUSE)
ROMNEY: I’m Mitt Romney. I was a businessman for 25 years. Then I had the fun of getting the chance to help run the Olympic Winter Games in Salt Lake City next door. And then I had the fun also of being governor of Massachusetts. I also solve problems, sometimes for a living, sometimes for other people to make things better. And I hope to be your president. Thank you.
(APPLAUSE)
PERRY: Good evening. I’m Texas Governor Rick Perry, a proven job-creator and a man who is about economic growth, an authentic conservative, not a conservative of convenience.
(APPLAUSE)
FORMER REP. NEWT GINGRICH (R-GA), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I’m Newt Gingrich. And unlike President Obama, I’m glad to be in Las Vegas. I think it’s a great place to have a convention.
(APPLAUSE)
And — and when I am president, we’re going to replace class warfare with cooperation so all Americans can get off food stamps and onto paychecks.
(APPLAUSE)
REP. MICHELE BACHMANN (R-MN), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Hi, my name is Michele Bachmann. I am thrilled to be able to be with you tonight in Las Vegas. And this is one night when I hope what happens in Vegas doesn’t stay in Vegas.
(APPLAUSE)
COOPER: All right. Let’s — time to begin. We’ll begin with actually a question in the hall.
QUESTION: This is for all candidates. What’s your position on replacing the federal income tax with a federal sales tax?
COOPER: I’ll direct that to Congresswoman Bachmann. You’ve been very critical of Herman Cain’s 9-9-9 plan, which calls for a 9 percent sales tax, a 9 percent income tax, and 9 percent corporate tax. In fact, you’ve said it would destroy the economy. Why?
BACHMANN: Well, I am a former federal tax litigation attorney. And also, my husband and I are job-creators.
One thing I know about Congress, being a member of Congress for five years, is that any time you give the Congress a brand-new tax, it doesn’t go away. When we got the income tax in 1913, the top rate was 7 percent. By 1980, the top rate was 70 percent. If we give Congress a 9 percent sales tax, how long will it take a liberal president and a liberal Congress to run that up to maybe 90 percent? Who knows?
What I do know is that we also have to be concerned about the hidden tax of the value-added tax, because at every step and stage of production, you’d be taxing that item 9 percent on the profit. That’s the worry.
In my plan — again, that’s a tax plan, it’s not a jobs plan — my plan for economic recovery is real jobs right now. I have a tax plan. I have a jobs plan. I have an energy plan and a plan to really turn this country around and create millions of high-paying jobs.
COOPER: Mr. Cain, a lot of prominent conservatives now are coming forward saying that your 9-9-9 plan would actually raise taxes on middle-class voters, on lower-income voters.
CAIN: The thing that I would encourage people to do before they engage in this knee-jerk reaction is read our analysis. It is available at hermancain.com. It was performed by Fiscal Associates. And all of the claims that are made against it, it is a jobs plan, it is revenue-neutral, it does not raise taxes on those that are making the least. All of those are simply not true.
The reason that my plan — the reason that our plan is being attacked so much is because lobbyists, accountants, politicians, they don’t want to throw out the current tax code and put in something that’s simple and fair. They want to continue to be able to manipulate the American people with a 10-million-word mess.
Let’s throw out the 10-million-word mess and put in our plan, which will liberate the American workers and liberate American businesses.
(APPLAUSE)
COOPER: Senator Santorum, will his plan raise taxes?
SANTORUM: Herman’s well-meaning, and I love his boldness, and it’s great. But the fact of the matter is, I mean, reports are now out that 84 percent of Americans would pay more taxes under his plan. That’s the analysis. And it makes sense, because when — when you don’t provide a standard deduction, when you don’t provide anything for low-income individuals, and you have a sales tax and an income tax and, as Michele said, a value-added tax, which is really what his corporate tax is, we’re talking about major increases in taxes on people.
He also doesn’t have anything that takes care of the families. I mean, you have — you have a situation where, under Herman’s plan, a single person pays as much in taxes as a — as a man and a woman raising three children. Ever since we’ve had the income tax in America, we’ve always taken advantage of the fact that we want to encourage people to — to have children and not have to pay more already to raise children, but also pay that additional taxes — we gave some breaks for families. He doesn’t do that in this bill.
And we’re going to — we’ve seen that happen in Europe. And what happened? Boom, birth rates went into — into the basement. It’s a bad tax for — again, it’s bold. I give him credit for — for starting a debate, but it’s not good for families, and it’s not good for low-income…
(CROSSTALK)
COOPER: I’m going to give you 30 seconds to respond. That 84 percent figure comes from the Tax Policy Center.
CAIN: That simply is not true. I invite people to look at our analysis, which we make available.
Secondly, the — the point that he makes about is a value-added tax — I’m sorry, Representative Bachmann — it’s not a value-added tax. It’s a single tax.
And I invite every American to do their own math, because most of these are knee-jerk reactions. And we do provide a provision, if you read the analysis, something we call opportunity zones that will, in fact, address the issue of those making the least.
The so-called War on Poverty has failed. Making government bigger and creating more federal redistribution programs has been bad news for taxpayers. But the welfare state also has been a disaster for the less fortunate, creating a flypaper effect that makes it difficult for people to lead independent and self-reliant lives. This Center for Freedom and Prosperity Foundation video shows how the poverty rate was falling after World War II — but then stagnated once the federal government got involved. www.freedomandprosperity.org
This testimony was delivered on September 20, 2011.
Baseline Projections Are Optimistic
In support of building a large “fiscal buffer,” policymakers should recognize that both short-term and long-term CBO projections are optimistic in various ways. Perhaps the future will include some positive budget surprises, but the big risk factors seem to be on the negative side.
In CBO’s baseline, federal deficits fall substantially over the coming decade, partly due to changes under the recent Budget Control Act. However, spending will be higher than projected if:
Policymakers lift caps in the Budget Control Act.
Policymakers launch new spending programs or respond to unforeseen crises or wars.
Higher interest rates push up interest costs, which is a risk that gets magnified as federal debt grows larger.
A major recession causes large cost increases in programs sensitive to economic cycles, such as unemployment insurance.
Policymakers respond to another recession with costly new “stimulus” plans. The persistence of Keynesian policy ideas in Washington is an important risk to the outlook for federal debt.
There are likely to be negative shocks in coming years that we don’t foresee. Consider that in its January 2008 budget outlook, CBO projected that U.S. economic growth would slow in 2008 but then rebound fairly strongly in subsequent years.15 CBO discussed the risk of a recession, but didn’t foresee the calamity that was already starting. The upshot is that policymakers should take a conservative approach and build a “fiscal buffer” with large spending cuts now before another recession causes the deficit to soar again.
CBO’s long-range projections — such as the “alternative fiscal scenario” (AFS) shown in Figure 1 — are also optimistic. In its basic projections, CBO does not factor in the negative effects of rising spending, debt, or taxes on GDP after 2021, but it does do that in a separate analysis.16 If spending actually followed the course shown in Figure 1, CBO estimates that GDP in 2035 would be up to 10 percent less than shown in the AFS, and GNP would be up to 18 percent less. In turn, spending-to-GDP and debt-to-GDP ratios would be worse than usually shown in long-range budget charts.
Under the AFS, rising deficit spending could reduce American incomes. The CBO finds that real GNP per capita could stop growing in the late 2020s, and then start falling after that. In a historic reversal, future generations of Americans would become successively poorer.
The way to ensure our continued prosperity is to cut federal spending and reduce debt. In a 2010 analysis, the CBO compared the high-spending AFS with Rep. Paul Ryan’s “Roadmap” plan.17 The Ryan plan would restrain federal spending to roughly current levels for the next few decades, and then start reducing it. By the late 2020s, GNP per capita under the Ryan plan would begin rising above the flat and then falling levels under the AFS. By the late 2050s, GNP per capita would be 70 percent higher under the Ryan plan than under the AFS.18
15 Congressional Budget Office, “The Budget and Economic Outlook: Fiscal Years 2008 to 2018,” January 2008, Chapter 2. 16 See Chapter 2 in Congressional Budget Office, “Long-Term Budget Outlook,” June 2011. 17 Congressional Budget Office, Douglas Elmendorf letter to Paul Ryan, January 27, 2010, http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/108xx/doc10851/01-27-Ryan-Roadmap-Letter.pdf. 18 Congressional Budget Office, Douglas Elmendorf letter to Paul Ryan, January 27, 2010, p. 16.
I confess I am a huge film buff. But I’ve never really been a Woody Allen fan, even though most film critics consider him to be one of the most gifted and influential filmmakers of our time. Of course, some of my film savvy friends who are aficionados of Allen’s work have been recommending some of his more interesting films. Although often very dark, many of him movies have some interesting worldview themes.
Woody Allen’s personal life has certainly been checkered with controversy. Last week Chuck Colson discussed Allen’s life and work and recent interview in the Washington Post:
“The heart wants what it wants.”
You may remember those words. They’re the excuse Woody Allen offered in 1992 for leaving his longtime lover to run off with her daughter. Even many of Allen’s fans were repulsed by the affair and by Allen’s cavalier attitude…
So Allen’s heart got what it wanted. According to the unwritten laws of our culture–and according to the philosophy he expressed in that infamous sentence–he ought to be happy.
Only he’s not, according to a new interview in the Washington Post. Interviewer David Segal quips that Allen’s worldview “is so bereft of meaning, so godless and absurd, that the only proper response is to curl up on a sofa and howl for your mommy.”
Not the kind of talk you would expect from one of the most successful men in film. By any secular standard Allen should be on top of the world. Apparently this is not the case. According to Colson:
As Allen confesses, movies were only a “means” for him to live the kind of lifestyle he wanted, but now that he has it, he has to keep making movies to distract himself from it. Like the writer of Ecclesiastes, who “withheld not [his] heart from any joy,” Woody Allen apparently has concluded that “all is vanity…”
Several members of the 70′s band Kansas became committed Christians after they realized that the world had nothing but meaningless to offer. It seems through the writings of both Woody Allen and Chris Martin of Coldplay that they both are wrestling with the issue of death and what meaning does life bring. Kansas went through […]
Francis Schaeffer and C. Everett Koop were prophetic (jh29) What Ever Happened to the Human Race? I recently heard this Breakpoint Commentary by Chuck Colson and it just reminded me of how prophetic Francis Schaeffer and C. Everett Koop were in the late 1970′s with their book and film series “Whatever happened to the human […]
Coldplay – 42 Live Coldplay perform on the french television channel W9. In 1992 Woody Allen took up with one of his adopted kids and lived in with her. He was given over to the pursuit of pleasure. Actually he has made that a major focus of his life. In the latter part of his […]
The Bible and Archaeology (1/5) The Bible maintains several characteristics that prove it is from God. One of those is the fact that the Bible is accurate in every one of its details. The field of archaeology brings to light this amazing accuracy. _________________________- I want to make two points today. 1. There is no […]
Crimes and Misdemeanors: A Discussion: Part 1 Adrian Rogers – Crossing God’s Deadline Part 2 Jason Tolbert provided this recent video from Mike Huckabee: John Brummett in his article “Huckabee speaks for bad guy below,” Arkansas News Bureau, May 5, 2011 had to say: Are we supposed to understand and accept that Mike Huckabee is […]
Woody Allen interviews Billy Graham on Religion This article below makes we think of the lady tied to the Railroad in the Schaeffer video. Dr. Francis schaeffer – The flow of Materialism (Modern man sees no hope for the future and has deluded himself by appealing to nonreason to stay sane. Look at the example […]
Midnight in Paris Not Dove Family Approved Theatrical Release: 6/10/2011 Reviewer: Edwin L. Carpenter Source: Theater Writer: Woody Allen Producer: Letty Aronson Director: Woody Allen Genre: Comedy Runtime: 100 min. MPAA Rating: PG-13 Starring: Owen Wilson, Rachel McAdams, Kurt Fuller, Kathy Bates Synopsis: Midnight in Paris is a romantic comedy that follows a family travelling […]
Woody Allen and the Abandonment of Guilt Dr. Marc T. Newman : AgapePress Print In considering filmmaking as a pure visual art form, Woody Allen would have to be considered a master of the medium. From his humble beginnings as a comedy writer and filmmaker, he has emerged as a major influential force in Hollywood. […]
Woody Allen, the film writer, director, and actor, has consistently populated his scripts with characters who exchange dialogue concerning meaning and purpose. In Hannah and Her Sisters a character named Mickey says, “Do you realize what a thread were all hanging by? Can you understand how meaningless everything is? Everything. I gotta get some answers.”{7} […]
I have gone to see Woody Allen’s latest movie “Midnight in Paris” three times and taken lots of notes during the films. I have attempted since June 12th when I first started posting to give a historical rundown on every person mentioned in the film. Below are the results of my study. I welcome any […]
This is the text of the Continental Congress November 1, 1777 national Thanksgiving Day Proclamation; as printed in the Journals of Congress.
Saturday, November 1, 1777
The committee appointed to prepare a recommendation to the several states, to set apart a day of public thanksgiving, brought in a report; which was taken into consideration, and agreed to as follows:
Forasmuch as it is the indispensable duty of all men to adore the superintending providence of Almighty God; to acknowledge with gratitude their obligation to him for benefits received, and to implore such farther blessings as they stand in need of; and it having pleased him in his abundant mercy not only to continue to us the innumerable bounties of his common providence, but also smile upon us in the prosecution of a just and necessary war, for the defense and establishment of our unalienable rights and liberties; particularly in that he hath been pleased in so great a measure to prosper the means used for the support of our troops and to crown our arms with most signal success:
It is therefore recommended to the legislative or executive powers of these United States, to set apart Thursday, the 18th day of December next, for solemn thanksgiving and praise; that with one heart and one voice the good people may express the grateful feelings of their hearts, and consecrate themselves to the service of their divine benefactor; and that together with their sincere acknowledgments and offerings, they may join the penitent confession of their manifold sins, whereby they had forfeited every favor, and their humble and earnest supplication that it may please God, through the merits of Jesus Christ, mercifully to forgive and blot them out of remembrance; that it may please him graciously to afford his blessings on the governments of these states respectively, and prosper the public council of the whole; to inspire our commanders both by land and sea, and all under them, with that wisdom and fortitude which may render them fit instruments, under the providence of Almighty God, to secure for these United States the greatest of all blessings, independence and peace; that it may please him to prosper the trade and manufactures of the people and the labor of the husbandman, that our land may yield its increase; to take schools and seminaries of education, so necessary for cultivating the principles of true liberty, virtue and piety, under his nurturing hand, and to prosper the means of religion for the promotion and enlargement of that kingdom which consisteth in righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Ghost.
And it is further recommended, that servile labor, and such recreation as, though at other times innocent, may be unbecoming the purpose of this appointment, be omitted on so solemn an occasion.
David Barton on Glenn Beck – Part 1 of 5 Uploaded by ToRenewAmerica on Apr 9, 2010 Wallbuilders’ Founder and President David Barton joins Glenn Beck on the Fox News Channel for the full hour to discuss our Godly heritage and how faith was the foundational principle upon which America was built. ___________ David Barton did […]
John Brummett in his article, “Praying for Bachmann’s America,” Arkansas News Bureau, July 18, 2011 notes: Speaking of incredibly ridiculous things, she said in another television interview that she had been right to assert that our founding fathers fought tirelessly against slavery. She cited John Quincy Adams, a little boy and teen in revolutionary days. […]
On June 9th Max Brantley on the Arkansas Times Blog referred to a Mother Jones Article that noted: On Wednesday, Right Wing Watch flagged a recent interview Barton gave with an evangelcial talk show, in which he argues that the Founding Fathers had explicitly rejected Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution. Yes, that Darwin. The one whose seminal work, On the Origin of Species, wasn’t even published […]
On June 9th Max Brantley on the Arkansas Times Blog referred to a Mother Jones Article that noted: On Wednesday, Right Wing Watch flagged a recent interview Barton gave with an evangelcial talk show, in which he argues that the Founding Fathers had explicitly rejected Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution. Yes, that Darwin. The one whose seminal work, On the Origin of Species, wasn’t even published […]
n pictures: Japan earthquake and tsunami In association with // // In the Miyagi port city of Kesennuma, which has a population of 74,000, the waves smashed cars up against houses. Steeling the Mind Bible Conference Pt 5 of 6 David Barton In Washington’s own words: In offering to you, my countrymen, these counsels of […]
On June 9th Max Brantley on the Arkansas Times Blog referred to a Mother Jones Article that noted: On Wednesday, Right Wing Watch flagged a recent interview Barton gave with an evangelcial talk show, in which he argues that the Founding Fathers had explicitly rejected Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution. Yes, that Darwin. The one whose seminal work, On the Origin of Species, wasn’t even published […]
I do not think that John Quincy Adams was a founding father in the same sense that his father was. However, I do think he was involved in the early days of our government working with many of the founding fathers. Michele Bachmann got into another history-related tussle on ABC’s “Good Morning America” today, standing […]
On June 9th Max Brantley on the Arkansas Times Blog referred to a Mother Jones Article that noted: On Wednesday, Right Wing Watch flagged a recent interview Barton gave with an evangelcial talk show, in which he argues that the Founding Fathers had explicitly rejected Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution. Yes, that Darwin. The one whose seminal work, On the Origin of Species, wasn’t even published […]
The gang loves Grandma, but her slimy son-in-law loves her money.When Dirty Dan tries to take away her retirement fortune, it’s the kids (and Pete the Pup) to the resue! Soon, the chase is on and Dan is caught faster than you can say “Granny get your gun”!
__________________________________
I enjoyed seeing that “Dirty Dan” got what was coming to him at the end of the episode below. If you listen to President Obama, and other liberals like John Brummett and Max Brantley then would get the impression that the mean rich folks don’t need to be so selfish and hand over the money to run the government for the rest of us.
Liberals just don’t get it. They should listen to Milton Friedman (who is quoted in this video below concerning the best way to limit poverty). New Video Shows the War on Poverty Is a Failure Posted by Daniel J. Mitchell The Center for Freedom and Prosperity has released another “Economics 101″ video, and this one […]
It is truly said how far to the left our country has gone. Happy Fiscal New Year (with an Unhappy Obama Hangover) Posted by Daniel J. Mitchell Today, October 1, is the first day of the 2012 fiscal year. And if you’re wondering why America’s economy seems to have a hangover (this cartoon is a perfect illustration), it’s because […]
Is soaking the rich fair? Five Key Reasons to Reject Class-Warfare Tax Policy Uploaded by afq2007 on Jun 15, 2009 President Obama and other politicians are advocating higher taxes, with a particular emphasis on class-warfare taxes targeting the so-called rich. This Center for Freedom and Prosperity Foundation video explains why fiscal policy based on hate […]
Do you think protectionism would help, in the long run, if we don’t implement pro-growth reforms? Sometimes I wonder what are the motives of those who oppose free trade. Eight Questions for Protectionists Posted by Daniel J. Mitchell When asked to pick my most frustrating issue, I could list things from my policy field such as […]
Five Key Reasons to Reject Class-Warfare Tax Policy Uploaded by afq2007 on Jun 15, 2009 President Obama and other politicians are advocating higher taxes, with a particular emphasis on class-warfare taxes targeting the so-called rich. This Center for Freedom and Prosperity Foundation video explains why fiscal policy based on hate and envy is fundamentally misguided. […]
Uploaded by TheYoungTurks on Aug 6, 2010 Cenk Uygur (host of The Young Turks) filling in for Chris Jansing on MSNBC talks to Dan Mitchell of the Cato institute to compare Reaganomics to Obamanomics. __________________________ What should we do when we are caught in a slow economy? What did Reagan do in 1981? He lowered […]
Maybe the tide is turning. Americans do not hate the rich like liberals would have us believe. Take a look at this article: Soaking the Rich Is Not Fair by Jeffrey A. Miron This article appeared on The Huffington Post on September 2, 2011. What is the “fair” amount of taxation on high-income taxpayers? To liberals, the […]
Here is the video clip and transcript of the film series FREE TO CHOOSE episode “What is wrong with our schools?” Part 5 of 6.
Volume 6 – What’s Wrong with our Schools
Transcript:
Are your voucher schools going to accept these tough children?
COONS: You bet they are. (Several talking at once.)
COONS: May I answer the question?
SHANKER: If they accept those children, I’ll tell you what’s gonna happen.
COONS: Okay, you tell me and then I’ll tell you.
SHANKER: What’s gonna happen is that the parents of all the other children are gonna move right out and go to another school, because ultimately you’re going to have to deal with hardcore problems__
McKENZIE: John Coons.
SHANKER: __ whether it’s in a private school or whether it’s in a public school.
COONS: In other words, that kid isn’t tough in the school that he’s in because he’s stuck there, he’s just a rotten, tough kid.
SHANKER: He may be a kid with a lot of problems, not rotten, a kid with a lot of problems.
COONS: And it will never __ you can’t imagine a situation where if he were given choice, and allowed to go to a school that he liked, and to which he would connect emotionally that he would no longer be a troublemaker, but that he would like to stay in a place where he has chosen and would therefore do what is necessary to stay there and to learn.
SHANKER: You know, I don’t think you’ve been near schools or classrooms for a heck of a long time.
COONS: Thanks a lot.
(Laughter and applause.)
COONS: I happen to have five kids who’ve done a lot of time in public and private schools both.
SHANKER: We’re not talking about the problems of your children, though.
McKENZIE: Let’s get around the table, I want to __
FRIEDMAN: No, no. I have to get to this point, because I think it’s a very crucial one. I don’t think Mr. Shanker is saying that you should never use a doctor if you have cancer who hasn’t himself had cancer.
SHANKER Oh, I didn’t say that.
FRIEDMAN: Let’s get rid of the idea that the only people who are competent to judge about whether a school is good or bad is a parent who at the moment has children in that school. The plain fact is that children are not born troublemakers. They do not emerge from the womb __ some of them do, of course, but most of them do not. Most of the cases of the tough kids in the schools you’re talking about are tough kids because they’re lousy schools. Because the schools do not evoke their interest. Because the school does not __
SHANKER: You’re dead wrong. You’re dead __
(Several talking at once.)
McKENZIE: Now wait a minute now, Greg Anrig on this one. Milton, let __
ANRIG: It’s not often I have a chance to tell a professor he’s wrong. With all respect, Professor, the problems that you see in the urban schools of this country are not problems of the schools, they are problems of poverty. And they are problems of what do you do when for demographic and sociological and economic reasons, in a country like ours, you begin to concentrate those people who are poor in the inner and older parts of the cities of our country. That’s when the problem comes, and it’s not just a problem with schools. It’s a problem of housing, of jobs, of medical care, of social services, and the same problems crop up, and to say that the answer to that is take one part of that element and say, just set up a competitive marketplace, is not dealing with the problem. The problem is the problem of poverty.
FRIEDMAN: We’ve dealt with the problem __
SHANNON: I am struck the anomaly. The anomaly that rises out of this discussion of the voucher system. The facts are that government support __ call it subventions, call it direct aid, call it grants in aid, call it vouchers, call it anything, will lead ultimately to government control of the private schools, thus undercutting the alternative nature of private schooling and hurting it at its very source.
VOICE OFF SCREEN: Well, then you ought to look at our initiative.
FRIEDMAN: We’ve had long experience with that on the higher education level. You have the whole GI Bill. Did the GI Bill really lead, fundamentally, to control of all the schools. There’s a fundamental difference between government giving money to an institution, to a school, that does lead to control directly, and government giving money to people to use, the food stamps don’t determine what people buy with their food stamps. They may be a good or a bad program, that’s not my point. My point is that don’t underestimate the crucial difference between making money available to parents to spend as they choose to exercise their judgment, and making money available to institutions like schools, which they spend subject to all the conflicts which they have with school teachers and others.
ANRIG: You use Dartmouth as an example, and I think the concerns that I have about the voucher systems, the various ones proposed, is not with the one applicant that can get accepted to Dartmouth, but with the eight applicants that don’t get accepted to Dartmouth. What’s going to happen to those __ or that group of youngsters. You can have a situation in the free marketplace where everybody takes the cream, but what about the youngster that doesn’t measure up? What about the youngster that’s a risk? It seems to me that some of the greatest leaders of this country were people that would have been rejected by Dartmouth, and most of the Ivy League schools.
McKENZIE: Let’s get other views on this, then we’ll come back to you, Milton.
FRIEDMAN: No, no. I just want to comment, because I have to comment on two points, the one he made earlier about poverty and this one. But on this one. Dartmouth is one of the best examples of the private schools. UCLA is one of the best examples of the state schools. That’s why we chose it. There are many other private schools which are not as selective and do not __ are not available to people who can’t make the Dartmouth cut. There are many other public schools, state schools, that are less advanced than UCLA and the California system. There are all sorts of grades of schools. But the difference between the two is the same at lower levels. Now I do want to make one comment going back to your poverty thing; and that is that, first of all, other programs in this series deal with the issues you’ve raised. But, second, do not underestimate the role which bad schooling, provided by our present governmental mechanism has played in creating poverty. It’s been a major source, particularly among black and white teenagers coming up in the slums, it’s been a major source of their difficulties of getting out of the trap of poverty. So it’s not a one-way relation between poverty and the schools, the schools themselves bear a great deal of responsibility.
SHANKER: Well, the reason the schools bear it, and it isn’t the schools directly, it’s that we don’t put enough resources in for children who need special and additional help because they are not getting it in their homes or they’re not getting the same sort of support in home and community as middle class kids do, and then we wait until the child is 16 or 17 and drops out, and then we provide a youth employment program for them where we spend between five and ten thousand dollars to try to undo what could have been undone in the first, second and third grade if we had a decent investment in the public schools.
FRIEDMAN: I have never yet known anybody who was trying to defend a government program who didn’t say all it’s evils came from the fact that it wasn’t big enough. Now the facts are __
SHANKER: Would you think the children with problems need the same amount of education __
FRIEDMAN: No, no.
SHANKER: __ the same amount as children who don’t have special problems?
FRIEDMAN: No, but I just want to tell you some facts. The number of students in schools has been going down. The total expenditures on schools, allowance being made for inflation, after allowing for inflation has been going up. The number of pupils has been going down, the number of teachers have been going up, and by all accounts the quality has been going down.
SHANKER: But I have to explain __
(Several talking at once)
McKENZIE: Milton, just a minute. I want to hold you __ Mr. Shanker, Mr. Shanker. We got onto higher education and I don’t want to leave it without getting the rest of Milton’s thoughts on it. In particular, you seem to be coming to say at the end of the film that the right answer is a system of realistic loans where people, therefore, know what it’s costing, rather than trying to hold down college fees and that kind of thing.
FRIEDMAN: Absolutely.
McKENZIE: Yeah. And__
FRIEDMAN: I think that the higher education is the most disgraceful example on the record. I know of no governmental program that seem to me is so unfair and disgraceful in imposing costs on low income people to benefit high-income people. We in the upper and middle income classes have conned the poor in this country to supporting our children in going through college and university and we don’t __ and we scream to the treetops about how disinterested and how public-spirited we are. We ought to have a system under which everybody who wants to go to college can go there. He has to pay his own way, either now or later on, and the schemes I have in mind, if we developed them more fully, and as I have in other contexts in other areas, are along the line of the educational opportunity bank, that Professor Zacharias of MIT and a commission appointed by President Johnson came up with as a way of enabling students to finance their own higher education without facing the problem you raised of ending up with a large dollar debt.
ANRIG: I do think __
McKENZIE: Dr. Anrig.
ANRIG: With some trepidation, Professor, I raise a question of taxation. That is that I agree that we need better loan systems than we have, but as I understand the American tax system in general, as a generality, it is a graduated system.
FRIEDMAN: Absolutely.
ANRIG: It is an equalizing system.
FRIEDMAN: Absolutely.
ANRIG: And to reach the conclusion that the __
FRIEDMAN: No, no, it is not. It’s on paper, but you’ve got to look at the facts.
McKENZIE: Let him make his point, yes.
ANRIG: Well, I’m trying to __ it is a system which the wealthier get __ or the middle class get taxed more than somebody who’s making a lesser salary. To say then that the poor are funding __
FRIEDMAN: That’s true.
ANRIG: __ public higher education, where middle class youngsters and by the way a lot of poor youngsters go as well, it doesn’t fit with my understanding at least of the tax system. Now I’m not an economist, I admit it.
FRIEDMAN: Well, it turns out that there have been some very careful studies made of exactly what you’re describing. There’s one particularly careful one for California. There’s one for Florida. These show __ it’s not a minor item, that if you take the total receipts from expenditures on higher education going to the lower classes, and the total taxes they pay that are used for higher education, the lower classes are paying more than they’re getting, and the higher classes are getting more than they are paying for.
(Several talking at once.)
FRIEDMAN: Now I myself am a beneficiary of this subsidy. I’m one of the worst cases on record. I went to a state school, Rutgers University. I went on a state scholarship. The poor suckers in the State of New Jersey paid for my going to college. I personally think that was a good thing, there are many people who have different opinions about that. (Laughing)
COOPER: I want to bring in Congresswoman Bachmann since she was referenced by you.
BACHMANN: But Anderson, how do you not have a value-added tax? Because at every level of production you have a profit, and that profit gets taxed, because you produce one portion at one level, and then you take it to the next supplier or vendor at the next level, and you have an exchange. That is a taxable event.
And ultimately, that becomes a value-added tax. It’s a hidden tax. And any time the federal government needs revenue, they dial up the rate and the American people think that it’s — that it is the vendor that creates the tax, but it’s the government that creates the tax.
(APPLAUSE)
COOPER: Governor Perry, in your state, you have a 6.25 percent sales tax. Would taxpayers pay more under the 9-9-9 plan?
PERRY: No.
Herman, I love you, brother, but let me tell you something, you don’t need to have a big analysis to figure this thing out. Go to New Hampshire, where they don’t have a sales tax, and you’re fixing to give them one.
They’re not interested in 9-9-9. What they’re interested in is flatter and fairer. At the end of the week, I’m going to be laying out a plan that clearly — I’ll bump plans with you, brother, and we’ll see who has the best idea about how you get this country working again.
And one of the ways, right here in Nevada you’ve got 8-plus percent. You want nine cents on top of that, and nine cents on a new home — or 9 percent on a new home, 9 percent on your Social Security, 9 percent more?
I don’t think so, Herman. It’s not going to fly.
COOPER: Mr. Cain, 30 seconds.
(APPLAUSE)
CAIN: This is an example of mixing apples and oranges. The state tax is an apple. We are replacing the current tax code with oranges. So it’s not correct to mix apples and oranges.
Secondly, it is not a value-added tax. If you take most of the products — take a loaf of bread. It does have five taxes in it right now. What the 9 percent does is that we take out those five invisible taxes and replace it with one visible 9 percent.
So you’re absolutely wrong. It’s not a value-added tax.
Now one other quick thing.
COOPER: Your time’s up, I’m sorry.
CAIN: This whole thing about –
COOPER: You’ll have another 30 seconds. Trust me, they’re going to go –
CAIN: Tonight?
COOPER: Yes, I guarantee it. In about a minute.
Congressman Paul, you called his plan dangerous today.
PAUL: Oh, it is, because it raises revenues, and the worst part about it, it’s regressive. A lot of people aren’t paying any taxes, and I like that. I don’t think that we should even things up by raising taxes.
So it is a regressive tax. So it’s very, very dangerous. And it will raise more revenues.
But the gentlemen asked the question — he didn’t even ask what we’re talking about. He asked the question, what are you going to replace the income tax with? And I say nothing. That’s what we should replace it with.
(APPLAUSE)
PAUL: But I do want to make a point that spending is a tax. As soon as the governments spend money, eventually it’s a tax. Sometimes we put a direct tax on the people. Sometimes we borrow the money. And sometimes we print the money.
And then when prices go up, like today, the wholesale price index went up 7 percent rate, and if you look at the free market, prices are going up 9 and 10 percent. So that is the tax.
So, spending is the tax. That is the reason I offered the program, to cut $1 trillion out of the first year budget that I offer.
(APPLAUSE)
COOPER: Mr. Cain, in 30 seconds?
CAIN: Once again, unfortunately, none of my distinguished colleagues who have attacked me up here tonight understand the plan. They’re wrong about it being a value-added tax.
We simply remove the hidden taxes that are in goods and services with our plan and replace it with a single rate 9 percent. I invite every family to do your own calculations with that arithmetic.
COOPER: Governor Romney, you have your only 59-point plan. In the last debate, Mr. Cain suggested it was too complicated. Is simpler better?
ROMNEY: Oftentimes simpler is better. And I know we’re not supposed the ask each other questions, but if you permit.
Herman, are you saying that the state sales tax will also go away?
CAIN: No, that’s an apple.
ROMNEY: OK.
CAIN: We’re replacing a bunch of oranges.
ROMNEY: OK.
So, then Governor Perry was right that –
CAIN: No, he wasn’t. He was mixing apples and oranges.
ROMNEY: Well, but will the people in Nevada not have to pay Nevada sales tax and in addition pay the 9 percent tax? CAIN: Governor Romney, you’re doing the same thing that they’re doing. You’re mixing apples and oranges. You’re going to pay –
ROMNEY: I’m –
CAIN: No, no, no, no. You’re going to pay the state sales tax, no matter what.
ROMNEY: Right.
CAIN: Whether you throw out the existing code and you put in our plan, you’re still going to pay that. That’s apples and oranges.
ROMNEY: Fine. And I’m going to be getting a bushel basket that has apples and oranges in it because I’ve got to pay both taxes, and the people in Nevada don’t want to pay both taxes.
(CHEERING AND APPLAUSE)
ROMNEY: Now let me make this comment. Let’s just step back here. We’ve got a lot of people in America that are out of work. We’ve got a lot of people in this state, 13.4 percent of the people in this state out of work. We’ve got home prices going down. We’ve got to talk about how to get America growing again, how to start adding jobs, raising incomes, and tax is part of it.
I want to reduce taxes on our employers to make it easier to invest in America. I want to reduce taxes on middle income families. I like your chutzpah on this, Herman, but I have to tell you, the analysis I did, person by person, return by return, is that middle income people see higher taxes under your plan.
If it’s lower for the middle class, that’s great. But that’s not what I saw. I have to tell you, I want to get our burden down on our employers, on our people. I want to make sure our regulations work to encourage the private sector as opposed to putting a damper on it.
I want to get trade, opening up new markets for America. I want to also find a way to get our energy resources — and they’re all over the world, are all over this country, used for us. This is time to get America growing again. And that’s what this campaign ought to be about.
COOPER: Thank you, Governor.
Mr. Speaker…
(CHEERING AND APPLAUSE)
COOPER: Speaker Gingrich, you have said in recent days that Mr. Cain’s 999 plan would be a harder sell than he lets on. How so?
GINGRICH: Well, you just watched it.
(LAUGHTER) GINGRICH: I mean, look, there are — first of all, I think that Herman Cain deserves a lot of credit. He has had the courage to go out and take a specific very big idea at the right level.
(APPLAUSE)
GINGRICH: And he has us at least talking about something that matters as opposed to the junk that all too often is masquerading as politics in this country. So I think that’s important.
There are two parts to this. The first is, if you take his plan, and I think it’s in the interest of the whole country to have serious people take his plan and go through it step by step. There are much more complexities than Herman lets on. OK. I mean, 999, when you get into details like you pay it on a new product, you don’t pay it on an old product, et cetera, there’s a lot more detail here than he lets on.
Second, I favor very narrow, focused tax cuts such as zero capital gains, 100 percent expensing, because I think, as Governor Romney said, jobs are the number one challenge of the next two or three years. Get something you can do very fast. Change on this scale takes years to think through if you’re going to do it right.
COOPER: Congresswoman Bachmann, you said in the last debate that everyone should pay something. Does that mean that you would raise taxes on the 47 percent of Americans who currently don’t pay taxes?
BACHMANN: I believe absolutely every American benefits by this magnificent country. Absolutely every American should pay something, even if it’s a dollar.
(CHEERING AND APPLAUSE)
BACHMANN: Everyone needs to pay something in this country. That’s why with my tax plan, I take a page out of not theory but what’s provable and what works. What is provable and what works was the economic miracle that was wrought by Ronald Reagan in the 1980s. That’s the plan that I look at.
I also want to completely abolish the tax code. I want to flatten the tax for all of Americans, simplify that tax for all of Americans. And that creates job growth, which is exactly what we need to have.
Because to be able to fuel the fire for this economy, again, it is the tax code, but it doesn’t end with the tax code. It’s the regulatory burden that costs us $1.8 trillion every year, but it’s more than that cost. It’s jobs that are lost.
So we need to repeal “Obama-care,” repeal the jobs and housing destruction act known as Dodd-Frank. President Obama’s plan has been a plan for destruction of this economy and failure.
COOPER: Thank you.
BACHMANN: I plan to change that with real jobs right now at michelebachmann.com.
(APPLAUSE)
COOPER: We’ve been talking about Herman Cain’s plan. Let’s talk about Governor Romney’s plan.
Governor Perry, you have said that Governor Romney was an abject failure at creating jobs when he was governor of Massachusetts. If you’ve read his 59-point plan, has it changed your mind?
PERRY: Well, here’s the nine that we need to get focused on. And it’s not 999, it’s not 59. It’s that 9 percent unemployment in this country. And that’s where we’ve got to get focused in America, is how to create an environment where the men and women get back to work.
It’s the reason I laid out a plan, Newt, this last week to get this energy that’s under our feet. We’ve got 300 years of resources right under our feet in this country. Yet we’ve got an administration that is blockading our ability to bring that to the surface, whether it’s our petroleum, our natural gas, or our coal. And 1.2 million jobs could be put to work.
Americans who are sitting out there listening to this conversation tonight, somebody wants someone on this stage to say: Listen, we got an idea here how to get you to work and take care of your family and have the dignity of a job. And that’s exactly what I did with my plan, laid it out where Americans understand we don’t have to wait on OPEC anymore. We don’t have to let them hold us hostage. America’s got the energy. Let’s have American energy independence.
(APPLAUSE)
COOPER: Governor Romney, does Governor Perry have the answer?
ROMNEY: Well, he’s absolutely right about — about getting energy independence and taking advantage of our natural resources here. We’re an energy-rich nation that’s acting like an energy-poor nation. And that’s something I’ve been talking about for some time, as the governor has. He’s absolutely right.
But there are also a lot of good jobs we need in manufacturing, and high-tech jobs, and good service jobs, technology of all kinds. America produces an economy that’s very, very broad. And that’s why our policy to get America the most attractive place in the world for investment and — and job growth encompasses more than just energy. It includes that, but also tax policy, regulatory policy, trade policy, education, training and balancing the federal budget, and that starts with repealing Obamacare, which is a huge burden on this economy.
(APPLAUSE)
COOPER: Senator Santorum, does Mitt Romney have the answers for jobs? SANTORUM: I agree with — with all of what Governor Romney and both — and Governor Perry said. I would add the fact that — that I’ve put forward the plan that’s going to allow for income mobility. That’s a new term, but I’ve been using it for a long time, which is people at the bottom part of the income scale being able to rise in society.
Believe it or not, studies have been done that show that in Western Europe, people at the lower parts of the income scale actually have a better mobility going up the ladder now than in America. And I believe that’s because we’ve lost our manufacturing base. No more stamp “Made in America” is really hurting people in the middle.
And that’s why I focus all of the real big changes in the tax code at manufacturing. I cut the corporate rate for manufacturing to zero, repeal all regulations affecting manufacturers that cost over $100 million and replace them with something that’s friendlier, they can work with. We repatriate $1.2 trillion that manufacturers made overseas and allow them to bring it back here, if they invest in plants and equipment. They can do it without having to pay any — any excise tax.
The final point I would make to Governor Romney, you just don’t have credibility, Mitt, when it comes to repealing Obamacare. You are — you are — your plan was the basis for Obamacare. Your consultants helped Obama craft Obamacare. And to say that you’re going to repeal it, you just — you have no track record on that that — that we can trust you that you’re going to do that.
COOPER: Governor Romney, 30 seconds.
(APPLAUSE)
SANTORUM: You don’t.
ROMNEY: You know, this I think is either our eighth or ninth debate. And each chance I’ve — I’ve had to talk about Obamacare, I’ve made it very clear, and also in my book. And at the time, by the way, I crafted the plan, in the last campaign, I was asked, is this something that you would have the whole nation do? And I said, no, this is something that was crafted for Massachusetts. It would be wrong to adopt this as a nation.
SANTORUM: That’s not what you said.
ROMNEY: You’re — you’re shaking — you’re shaking your head.
SANTORUM: Governor, no, that’s not what you said.
ROMNEY: That happens — to happens to be…
(CROSSTALK)
SANTORUM: It was in your book that it should be for everybody.
ROMNEY: Guys… PERRY: You took it out of your book.
SANTORUM: You took it out of your book.
ROMNEY: Hey, his turn. His turn, OK, and mine.
(CROSSTALK)
ROMNEY: I’ll tell you what? Why don’t you let me speak?
(CROSSTALK)
SANTORUM: You’re allowed — you’re allowed to change — you’re allowed to change…
ROMNEY: Rick, you had your chance. Let me speak.
SANTORUM: You can’t change the facts.
ROMNEY: Rick, you had your chance. Let me speak.
SANTORUM: You’re out of time. You’re out of time.
COOPER: He ate into your time.
(BOOING)
Rick…
(CROSSTALK)
ROMNEY: I haven’t had a chance to respond yet, because you were interrupting the entire time I was trying to speak.
(CROSSTALK)
ROMNEY: Let me make it very clear.
COOPER: I’ll give another 20 seconds.
ROMNEY: And — look — look, we’ll let everybody take a look at the fact checks. I was interviewed by Dan Balz. I was in interviews in this debate stage with you four years ago. I was asked about the Massachusetts plan, was it something I’d impose on the nation? And the answer is absolutely not.
It was something crafted for a state. And I’ve said time and again, Obamacare is bad news. It’s unconstitutional. It costs way too much money, a trillion dollars. And if I’m president of the United States, I will repeal it for the American people.
(APPLAUSE)
COOPER: All right. Senator Santorum?
SANTORUM: Mitt, the governor of Massachusetts just is coming forward saying we have to pick up the job left undone by Romneycare, which is doing something about cutting health care costs.
What you did is exactly what Barack Obama did: focused on the wrong problem. Herman always says you’ve got to find the right problem. Well, the right problem is health care costs. What you did with a top-down, government-run program was focus on the problem of health care access. You expanded the pool of insurance…
Everyone wants to know more about the budget and here is some key information with a chart from the Heritage Foundation and a video from the Cato Institute.
The federal government is spending more per household than ever before. Since 1965, spending per household has grown by nearly 162 percent, from $11,431 in 1965 to $29,401 in 2010. From 2010 to 2021, it is projected to rise to $35,773, a 22 percent increase.
INFLATION-ADJUSTED DOLLARS (2010)
Download
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, White House Office of Management and Budget, and Congressional Budget Office.
The charts in this book are based primarily on data available as of March 2011 from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). The charts using OMB data display the historical growth of the federal government to 2010 while the charts using CBO data display both historical and projected growth from as early as 1940 to 2084. Projections based on OMB data are taken from the White House Fiscal Year 2012 budget. The charts provide data on an annual basis except… Read More
Authors
Emily GoffResearch Assistant
Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy StudiesKathryn NixPolicy Analyst
Center for Health Policy StudiesJohn FlemingSenior Data Graphics Editor
Federal Spending Is Growing Faster Than Federal Revenue
