Dick Morris on Romney vs Perry on Job Creation

As Dick Morris remarks on his YouTube Channel, “Whoever wins the issue, probably wins the nomination! Who will it be?”

Discuss amongst yourselves…


Comments

  1. Conservative American says

    This is an attempt to frame the debate in establishment terms. As such, it seeks to keep things from going where the establishment doesn’t want things to go. Let’s talk about what the establishment doesn’t want to talk about.

    Let’s talk about the jobs currently held by illegal aliens. Those are jobs which should be going to U. S. citizens, including U. S. citizens of Hispanic descent.

    Let’s talk about the fact that Congress continues to allow the issuance of new work permints to foreign nationals while American citizens are out of work. The last time that some new jobs were created, more new work permits were issued to foreign nationals than the number of new jobs created.

    Let’s talk about outsourcing. Jobs continue to be outsourced overseas and Congress hasn’t lifted a finger to put a stop to it.

    Let’s talk about our trade imbalance. It is extremely rare that I pick up a product in a store which is made in America. Most are made either in China or in Mexico. Our trade imbalance is killing American manufacturing jobs.

    Let’s talk about where “American” products are assembled. All but the most expensive vehicles produced by American automobile manufacturers undergo “final assembly” outside of the U. S.. A great many of them list the country of final assembly as Mexico.

    The fastest way to increase employment for U. S.citizens is to take back the jobs held by illegal aliens, stop issuing new work permits to foreign nationals, rescind existing work permits for foreign nationals, fix the trade imbalance and put an end to outsourcing. Establishment “Republicans” don’t want to talk about these things, let alone act on them, because they are “One World” people just like Obama.

    The current jobs plan being formulated by House “Republicans” amounts to “trickle down”. Trickle down is a proven failure. Nothing ever trickles down. When those at the top get their hands on money, they keep it.

    So the issue is not Romney’s job creation credentials versus Perry’s job creation credentials, as Dick Morris would have us believe. The issue is whether or not we will have a Republican presidential candidate who is willing to address the issues of jobs held by illegal aliens, work permints being issued to foreign nationals, the trade imbalance and outsourcing. Failure to address those issues means that there is not going to be any immediate unemployment relief for American citizens. There can’t be when we are “leaking” jobs so badly.

    • “The current jobs plan being formulated by House “Republicans” amounts to “trickle down”. Trickle down is a proven failure. Nothing ever trickles down. When those at the top get their hands on money, they keep it.”

      :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

      I don’t agree and I have precedent to back it up. There is a marked difference between private sector and public sector. Private enterprise uses money to create new businesses. Government officials squirrel money away in private accounts .. primarily because they don’t want people to know how much they are making above and beyond their stated salaries.

      Some years ago, the following circumstances were being openly discussed in development aid circles and in regional media discussions: Nigerian corruption is of course well known, but it is a widely held opinion in Nigeria, and in other Third World countries that traditionally, government elites would embezzle/get a cut of government revenues, but they would invest those funds in local businesses, so the money by the millions nad billions stayed inside the countiry and did provide jobs and products.

      WHen socialists/dictators came to power, the forced nationalization of entire sectors changed all that. No one, private or government, could invest their money in that country without an enormous risk it’d be confiscated. So, they sent the money outside the country. Huge, once productive factories of all sorts are still scattered all across the countryside, abandoned, weed-filled.

      Any existing businesses still functioning are stripped to the absolute minimum – an extreme ratio of the lowest level of investment possible to actually run the business against the loss if the business was suddenly, unexpectedly seized by greedy connected government officials. Factories are dingy, crumbling edifices which haven’t seen a coat of paint in twenty years, have the rudest, roughest scrap wood table and hammered together crappy chair for the CEO. Not a PENNY more is invested that could lost later.

      Result, investors are afraid to build factories, afraid to invest, jobs are few, any profits made are sent INSTANTLY out of the country to safe havens. The nation sits in muribund decay, just getting by.

      There IS a differnce and “trickle down” is a genuine and poweful effect, that can be vaporized with government socialist seizure of private investment.

      The Left made fun of it, expecting most Americans wouldn’t know anything about what other countries were experiencing to recognize the mockery criticism as political cover for their greedy intentions to take other people’s hard-built investments.

      • Conservative American says

        That’s interesting about Africa, wanumba. Have anything about how well “trickle down” has worked in The United States of America?

        I might also add that African nations were offered money by the IMF and the World Bank but it was on condition that they export raw materials and not finished goods. Dictators took the money and ran with it and the people remained in poverty and without opportunity.

        The international organizations offered money to oil producing African nations but on condition that they raise the prices for gasoline and oil to market prices for their citizens instead of essentially providing them at cost as they had been doing. At least one African nation declined the terms of the offer.

        The inroads made in Africa by China have come because the Chinese, instead of just offering liquid assets like money, have built infrastructure in Africa. They built a railroad for one African nation which was the principle source of some rare minerals used for high tech products. They made sure that that railroad, instead of just carrying mined materials, provided transportation for the people. So, the Chinese cornered the market and we didn’t. The people saw the benefits instead of the money going into the hands of the politicians.

        I might also mention that the majority of the employees of General Electric are overseas but that GE paid little or no U. S. taxes. So companies like GE may use trickle down money to create jobs but the question is, jobs where and jobs for whom?

        • I know it’s lazy cheap to yawn and say, “That’s Africa” in a bored, inntelectual haughty way, but where else do we find the very graphic real life examples of what’s keeping African nations from flourishing? What the end game LOOKS like in REAL LIFE?

          It’s the SAME in Eastern Europe, much of South America and is manifestting under the OBama administration – they nationalized GM, connected Democrat Maxine Waters is on record to “nationalize the oil companies” and “nationalize banks.”
          This is ALREADY manifesting job losses with diminishing new investment in companies and thus no new jobs to replace the lost ones.

          I am far past considering that amongst Liberal posters here a tactic appeal to a paternalistic conceit that African realities are somehow inferior to American ones and so must have no relevence as a means to dismiss my commentary, and a racism that the state of many African economies is due to the color of their skin rather than the socialist policies that EUROPEANS and the Soviets introduced into AFrica at independence in the 1960s that destroyed growing investment and markets there.

          What I stated above has been long KNOWN and discussed by the World Bank, the IMF, internaItional global economists and development experts. I didn’t make it up on my own, I am simply bringing it to this blog’s audience’s attention. Why does “Africa” dismiss it as a valid parallel to American political movements, and why is it always accompanied by a snark?

          • Conservative American says

            Wanumba, this is America and we are busy dealing with what is happening here. That doesn’t mean that events in Africa are unimportant or that we blow off Africa as not counting. Our hands are full trying to save our own country.

            The fact is that the situation in Africa is very different than the situation in the U. S.. The biggest challenge facing Africa is to unite itself politically as more or less a continent nation like the U. S. and you can rest assured that there is a lot of effort being put into seeing that that doesn’t happen.

  2. WIth all due respect, look at Massachusetts. Romney did nothiing to revitalize that Liberal Left bubble of statism. It feels practically oppressive being there, to experience how out of step it is with the rest of the nation and how little has changed in the status quo over three decades, in contrast to the rest of the country. They’ve been in an economic doldrum for twenty years and believed the rest of the country, which was booming in jobs and lower cost of living was in the same condition. It has been experiencing a net exodus for years now, as the middle class picked up and headed south for non-union, lower cost of living and less nanny state harassments.

    Massachusetts concentrates everything centrally in Boston, leaving little left to grow the rest of the state. It’s heavily government contract-oriented, not the least the universities which are fat on student loans, government grants and high on Liberal Left hubris.

    Romney could have cracked that open, but he didn’t have the vision, the balls or the political skills to do it. Scott Brown’s election was a plain sign Mass voters wanted a change out of Democrat cliques, and Liberal Left elitism and control, but Brown, while nice and personally decent, also isn’t of the poltical visionary and leadership boldness that is required to give the people of Massachusetts a chance to really get the change they want – lower taxes, more Constitutional freedom to work without unions, bear arms, get control of their local schools and overturn the Left socialistic structure that has kept Massachusetts “safe” for Left multi-millionaires like John Kerry.

    Dick Morris… sigh. He is too narrow in abilities and skills to be able to provide the big picture. Focusing on one item to the exclusion of others is not good analysis.

    • Conservative American says

      Hey, good one, wanumba!

      Then, of course, there is “Romneycare” which was the trial balloon for “Obamacare”.

      Scott Brown was encouraged to run by his good friend John McCain. Need I say more?

      • Have you missed the POINT?
        Scott Brown tapped into a HUGE restiveness in overtaxed Massachusetts. The desire amongst the population for more free market, less taxes, less nannystate is THERE. Brown hasn’t really delivered, so THAT is a seperate issue. That fact is that Massachuseets voters manifested a clear desire for CHANGE out of the Democrat status quo. Brown the PERSON brought some change, ie busted up the Kennedy lock, but the voters are plainly signalling they want MORE. Brown isn’t the one ANYWAY to deliver that – for two reasons, he is Senator not Governor and he doesn’t have the far reaching vision required.
        We take him as a baby step in the right direction, though the Mass voters were ripe for MORE than that.

        Invoking McCain is non sequiteur to the point, which is assessing what the Mass voters were conveying.

        • Conservative American says

          No, Wanumba, I haven’t missed the point. I take issue with what you are defining the point to be.

          Brown is not a Conservative any more than is his godfather, John McCain. Is the point of electing a “Republican” to have someone with an “R” after their name in office? No.

          I register as a member of a political party because that party represents my views. If they no longer represent my views at all, then I won’t be a member of that political party. This isn’t football where you choose a team to support and loyally stick with that team no matter what. The day that the Republican Party no longer represents my views at all is the day I leave the Republican Party. Right now there is a huge battle within the Republican Party to define precisely what the Party is going to stand for.

          The Massachusetts voters voted for change alright. The question is how much of that they will actually get from Brown. Failing to deliver change is not going to improve Republican prospects for the future. Disappointment doesn’t sell well.

          McCain is the point. Brown has been following McCain’s lead and guidance. Brown is a McCain puppet and McCain is not Conservative. Massachusetts voters are watching to see what that “R” after Brown’s name means for them. Thus far, it hasn’t meant much.

          • The point is: What do the Massachusetts VOTERS want? What are they expressing as their frustrations that they want FIXED?
            Brown campaigned projecting certain expectations and the voters heartily responded to him, but he has not followed through on many of those expectations and Massachusetts THUS continues to LOSE productive people to OTHER states where Massachusetts born and bred are finding better opportunities – and conveying back to their friends that it’s better ELSEWHERE.
            Massachusetts voters have epressed by their voting that many are ready for MORE change in LOW Taxation and more freedom in business, health care and schools – a decidely CONSERVATIVE leaning.

            If Brown is enthralled with McCain that’s HIS problem. It’s not surprising because it confirms Brown is less of a trailblazer than he projected. He did break the Kennedy machine strangehold on the seat, and it may be the only thing he truly accomplishes. Start there. It IS a positive, but the voters in MA are tired of the Democrat morass. Brown’s staus as US Senator means his focus is Washington -MA issues, not internal MA, as a governor would be focused, so he’s doesn’t have the mandate for that anyway.

            We agree on Brown’s Liberalness. As usual, McCain is just manuvering for the Senate swing, he could care less about Massachusetts, so he isn’t germane to this particular discussion.
            The point is a genuine Conservative in Massachusetts would be more popular ie electable in MA than conventional wisdom leads us to believe. Romney, like Brown is NOT one, and woe for Romney, the standards and expectations for Conservatives nationwide are higher than found in Massachusetts. Romney’s a nice guy, but he’s too liberal and didn’t use his time as governor to bring real political diversity when he had the chance to prove he’s actually different from the usual same old.

          • Conservative American says

            I think that McCain is relevant to the discussion because he is pulling Brown’s strings and because he managed to get yet another RINO like himself into Congress. If McCain can’t be president then he will try to build a power base in Congress from where he can be a defacto president. Brown is part of his network and the people of Massachusetts don’t come into play at all.

            Anyway, it isn’t necessary that we agree on each and every point. The main thing is that we are thinking, we are active and we are headed in the same direction.

  3. No comparison between Romney and Perry.

    One has been a successful businessman, creating jobs and contributing to the community.
    One has been a bureaucrat, and living off the people. No comparison.

  4. Dick Morris’ comparison is irrelevant. Romney is not running for CEO of a company – he is running for POTUS – a government position (or some might say he is running to become head “bureaucrat, living off the people”.) Most CEOs have almost dictatorial power in running a company – they have to if they want to make quick decisions and react to market realities. Their companies live and die by these decisions. Romney may have been good at these types of decisions in the private sector, but he can’t make these types of decisions as easily as POTUS. As a CEO, he didn’t have to worry about a massive counter balance called Congress filled with hundreds of diverse and diametrically opposed positions and views. As a CEO, you can implement “my way, or the highway” a lot easier than you can as POTUS. So I really don’t care how many jobs Romney created in the private sector – it’s irrelevant. I want to know which guy, as POTUS, will stay the hell out of the way (and do what he can to keep Congress out of the way) of CEOs in the private sector so they can grow their companies and create jobs. From what I’ve seen so far, advantage Perry. Let’s ask Massachusetts business owners how much they like Romneycare and how many jobs they were able to create as a result of Romneycare.

    • Conservative American says

      A thoughtful post, Hank!

      I don’t care for Romney at all but I have a major issue with Perry.

      While Arizona was battling for SB1070 against MALDEF, the ACLU and the Obama DOJ, Rick Perry, rather than offeirng support to another Republican governor and legislature, was critical of SB1070 and said that it wouldn’t be right for Texas.

      He also saw to it that illegal aliens would pay in-state tuition at Texas public colleges.

      In short, Perry is soft on illegal immigration and illegal aliens. If he gets the nomination, we will have another scenario like we had in 2008 with McCain where our choice is between a candidate who is soft on illegal immigration and illegal aliens and an incumbent who is soft on illegal immigration and illegal aliens. Then it would be up to congressional Republicans to hold the line both in terms of legislation and in terms of which appointments it chooses to confirm. Perry could, however, do recess appointments.

      The fact that so-called “Republicans” in the New York State legislature betrayed the Republican constituents who put them in office by voting in favor of homosexual “marriage”, after some of them had explicity promised not to do so, doesn’t bolster confidence that Republican office holders will keep their word or hold to their stated positions.

    • Totally agree. CEO is not POTUS, for all the realities stated.

  5. The first mistake is taking anything Dick Morris says seriously.

Leave a Reply