We think "we're all in this together" is a better philosophy than "you're on your own."Clinton describes a false and simplistic alternative from which to choose. Clinton gives no specifics, so it is hard to respond to the charge, but it is safe to say that Republicans do not oppose social programs created and run by the individual states, as it is in their constitutional purview to do so. We do oppose the federal fovernment from exceeding its Constitutional authority, imposing its will on the states in such matters as medical care.
Who's right? Well since 1961, the Republicans have held the White House 28 years, the Democrats 24. In those 52 years, our economy produced 66 million private sector jobs. What's the jobs score? Republicans 24 million, Democrats 42 million!
It is a fallacy to say that jobs are created by the federal government. The government can, however, enhance the conditions under which business can flourish, where jobs are created through increased prosperity. If the above statistics are correct, how many of those 28 Republican years were presided over by a Democrat run congress? How many of the 24 Democrat years had a Republican majority in Congress? Clinton doesn't say. What other economic factors were in play during the 52 years, which are even more important than who was president. The president's ability to effect prosperity is limited by the amount of congressional support that he enjoys. Clinton's statistics (if true) prove little or nothing.
Clinton may accurately describe his own attitude, but not of Democrats in general. During the Bush years (and even now), the Democrat rank and file expressed deep hatred for Republicans, expressing a desire for their assassination or death by other means. Just this week various Democrats have compared Republicans to Nazis. When it comes to partisan hatred, the Democrats exceed all comers.
Not true. In deliberating laws governing health care, Obama did not consider or allow a single Republican proposal on the problem. He has sought to use administrative procedures to bypass the will of Congress. Obama is the prisoner of a rigid leftist ideology that makes him uncooperative in discussing alternatives to his vision.
Putting Obama out of work is synonymous with "putting Americans back to work." A president who believes the American founding was badly flawed, believes in keeping energy costs as high as possible, and in crippling business with high taxes and regulation, is himself a major detriment to greater employment.
Obama contributed to damaging the economy by supporting the subprime mortgage fiasco that caused the meltdown in the first place. He did not put a floor under the crash, and his incurring substantial new debt will inhibit, not advance, the recovery. What foundation did Obama lay for a "modern, well-balanced economy"? Clinton doesn't say, because his statement is nothing but a glittering generality, pie-in-the-sky, big promises like those Obama made when he ran for office in 2008 -- and subsequently failed to keep.
Now there are 250,000 more people working in the auto industry than the day the companies were restructured. Governor Romney opposed the plan to save GM and Chrysler. So here's another jobs score: Obama two hundred and fifty thousand, Romney, zero.
The auto industry has suffered severe economic disadvantage due to the high pay and benefits extorted by the Democrat-supported auto workers union. GM finally became insolvent due to Democrat policies and the aftermath of the Democrat constructed meltdown. Now that the federal government owns General Motors, how many of those new jobs are really government jobs in disguise, i.e. paid for by taxpayers? Mitt Romney, on the other hand, created thousands of real jobs in the private sector through his activities in Bain Capital.
Barack Obama has publicly stated that he favors an increase in gas prices, and his now abandoned plan to create a carbon swapping scheme would, by his own words, "cause energy prices to skyrocket." He has opposed new oil exploration in ANWR, vetoed the Keystone pipeline that would have added thousands of real jobs to the economy and helped to lower energy costs. If oil imports are at a 20 year low, no doubt the decreased economic activity is a factor in that. When it comes to energy independence, the Democratic Party is a hindrance, not a help, in achieving that goal.
No cuts in benefits only means that the program will continue operating in the red, thus hastening the day when it becomes insolvent. Obama took the 716 billion "savings" to fund Obamacare, not Medicare. To say that this makes Medicare more solvent and stronger is a bald-faced lie.
Space and patience prohibits me from dissecting more of Clinton's long-winded speech, but it is safe to say that it was spin and propaganda, and not to be taken seriously as an objective description of the economy and the issues.