Rubio: More government breeds more problems
Responding to President Obama's State of the Union address on behalf of the Republican Party, Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., tonight made the case that the president's calls for government investments are misguided and potentially destructive.
While agreeing with the president on some issues and taking an optimistic tone for the future, Rubio sought to offer a conservative alternative to the president's agenda, one which takes decision-making out of Washington.
Opportunity, Rubio said, "it isn't bestowed on us from Washington. It comes from a vibrant free economy where people can risk their own money to open a business."
- Obama: "Thriving middle class" key to finishing economic recovery
- Marco Rubio's "water bottle-gate" moment
- Complete coverage: The State of the Union 2013
In his address before a joint session of Congress, Mr. Obama told lawmakers, "We need to build new ladders of opportunity into the middle class for all who are willing to climb them." The president laid out a series of actions Washington can take to revive the economy, including investments in the private sector.
Rubio, however, charged tonight that Mr. Obama considers a free enterprise economy as "the cause of our problems."
"His solution to virtually every problem we face is for Washington to tax more, borrow more and spend more," Rubio said of the president. "And the idea that more taxes and more government spending is the best way to help hardworking middle class taxpayers - that's an old idea that's failed every time it's been tried. More government isn't going to help you get ahead. It's going to hold you back. More government isn't going to create more opportunities. It's going to limit them."
The president did reiterate his insistence that economic growth requires "everybody doing their fair share," alluding to tax reforms. Mr. Obama also insisted, "It's not a bigger government we need, but a smarter government that sets priorities and invests in broad-based growth." He said none of his proposals would increase the deficit.
The president did, however, suggest specific government investments, such as a "Fix-It-First" program to put people back to work repairing infrastructure across the country. He also suggested initiatives such as working with states to make high-quality preschool available to every child in America. Such investments would pay off financially in the future, he said.
Rubio addressed areas in which Republicans believe government should act, such as energy policy: "Of course solar and wind energy should be a part of our energy portfolio," he said. "But God also blessed America with abundant coal, oil and natural gas. Instead of wasting more taxpayer money on so-called 'clean energy' companies like Solyndra, let's open up more federal lands for safe and responsible exploration."
- no previous page
- next
1/2
Popular in Politics
- IRS' Lerner: "I have not done anything wrong" 491 Comments
- Officials on Benghazi: "We made mistakes, but without malice"
- Obama to view Oklahoma tornado damage Sunday
- Christie: Keep politics out of Oklahoma disaster relief
- Anthony Weiner comeback try begins: Running for NYC mayor 118 Comments
- Major immigration overhaul passes first big test 68 Comments
- Will tornado relief funding escape politics?
- Va. GOP candidate won't apologize for comments on abortion, gays
Dying to have CBS do your dirty work of censor the truth like all good leftists do?
OUTBACK_JACKSON says:
"I'm surprised that CBS allows you to keep posting such vile and vitriolic personal attacks on other posters, while adding nothing to the discussion"!
INDVFREEDOMLIBERAL replies: "Every time someone questions Obama you call them a racist so what goes around come around, loser".
I will repeat myself, since all you have is personal attacks and made-up posts putting words into other poster's mouths:
"I'm surprised that CBS allows you to keep posting such vile and vitriolic personal attacks on other posters, while adding nothing to the discussion"!
If anyone should go you would/should be the first.
Is that the America YOU want? I'll bet you do you love "special rights" not equality.
............
WHUDYBU replies: linkiconreporticonemailiconOuthousejackson...You liberlas would've had one on the republicans with Bush had you not elected Obama who is just as inept as Bush was. now you're all to blame. we've had 12 years going on 16 years of two of the worst presidents in American history back to back.
Though largely supporting the Violence Against Women Act, Rubio voted against the 2013 extension of the act along with 22 other republican MEN, continuing the GOP's WAR on Women!
---------------------------------------
Good for him we should not have any law that give one group special elivated rights. Man he get's my vote since he's against all those sexist facist women.
You're a piece of work, and should be banned forever from CBS!
—The Obama administration's electric car efforts took another hit on Wednesday after a federal inspection found a South Korean advanced battery maker never scaled up U.S. production despite receiving $142 million in federal grants.
A Holland, Mich., factory owned by LG Chem Ltd.,part of LG Corp.,was half-funded by a government grant and estimated to add some 440 jobs building battery cells for General Motors Co.'s GM Chevrolet Volt and other vehicles.
LG Chem never scaled up a Michigan plant's output. Above, the groundbreaking ceremony in 2010.
When demand for the plant's batteries didn't meet expectations, the company filled orders with cells made at a factory in South Korea, leaving the Michigan plant largely idle, according to the report by the Department of Energy's Inspector General, Gregory Friedman.
LG Chem said in a statement that production delays at the Michigan facility were "market-driven," adding that it is "developing specific plans for the start of production." The company said it regretted that it applied for reimbursement for "employment costs that were not allowed" under its U.S. grant.
The inspector general said that to avoid layoffs at the factory LG Chem paid idle workers $1.6 million in the third quarter of last year, about half of which was covered by its U.S. grant, even though there was nothing for them to do. The workers played board games, watched movies, and volunteered at local animal shelters during regular work hours, Mr. Friedman said.
"Until the shift in production takes place or some alternative use for the plant is developed, U.S. taxpayers will receive little direct benefit from a plant for which they provided up to half of the funding," Mr. Friedman said in his report.
In 2010, Mr. Obama attended the plant's groundbreaking and said such grants would "unleash private sector growth" and called the factory "a symbol of where America is going." The facility today has about 150 workers, some of whom are hourly employees and are furloughed one week a month.
LG Chem is the latest of several recipients of federal funds, including solar panel maker Solyndra LLC, that haven't panned out. Solyndra filed for bankruptcy in 2011. The inspection report on the Electric Drive Vehicle Battery and Component Manufacturing Initiative grant came a day after President Barack Obama lauded U.S. efforts to invest in alternative energy.
"Four years ago, other countries dominated the clean energy market and the jobs that came with it. And we've begun to change that," Mr. Obama said in Tuesday's State of the Union address.
The DOE initiative that funded LG Chem's factory in total provided about $2 billion in grants to more than two dozen companies building advanced batters and other components for hybrid and electric cars.
Another recipient, A123 Systems Inc.,got about $250 million in federal funds for plants in Michigan. It filed for bankruptcy in October and its automotive assets have been sold to a Chinese auto-parts firm
Still don't believe that obo can't pick em??
You sure do need some new info, neoCON, and sources other than rabid conservative stink tanks like heritage, cato and pacific research!
About That Time The Heritage Foundation Said The Bush Tax Cuts Would Pay Off The National Debt By 2010
Did you hear the one about the Heritage Foundation predicting the Bush tax cuts paying off the national debt?
It happened, in 2001.
Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/about-that-time-the-heritage-foundation-said-the-bush-tax-cuts-would-pay-off-the-natioanl-debt-by-2010-2012-11#ixzz2KuU2pPuL
-------------------------------------------------
First is that the same CBO that said in 2008 we would have a surplus by 2012 no matter who won?
Not only that but they don't say that anymore, you need new info.
But, your heritage foundation conservative stink tank, predicted that the bush tax cuts would pay down the debt completely by 2012!
They LIED TOO!
"As the nation's federal budget problem comes back into the spotlight, it has unfortunately been forgotten that as recently as 2008, the White House Office of Management and Budget and the Congressional Budget Office both issued spending forecasts that determined that the federal government would have a budget surplus in 2012 and continuing thereafter. Although OMB and CBO used quite different policy assumptions, both foresaw surpluses starting in 2012 — CBO projected a surplus of $87 billion for 2012; OMB projected a surplus of $48 billion for 2012.
Instead, while a recession and some temporary tax relief reduced the government's revenues, federal spending soared, the surplus disappeared, and the federal debt increased by trillions of dollars.
During the Obama administration, instead of moving towards the projected surpluses, the federal deficit exploded to a record $1.4 trillion in 2009, $1.3 trillion in 2010, and $1.3 trillion in 2011 — a level nearly triple the highest deficit ever recorded previously. The key role of the Obama administration's ongoing spending increases demands more attention, even though the economic assumptions of the 2008 forecasts proved mistaken and tax revenues declined. Tax revenues will increase when economic growth is restored — indeed, CBO currently projects that revenues for 2012 will rebound to 2008 levels even with no change to the Bush tax rates. But the level of spending that has generated record deficits can only be fixed by a president and Congress. So, in light of both the OMB and CBO 2008 forecasts of a surplus in 2012, it is reasonable to ask how close spending is to the 2008 path to a balanced budget.
" 2011
-----------------------------------
APUFAN_SHOULD_BE_CENSORED replies: "Premiums have increased by an average of $3,065".
-----------------------------------
Nothing like an OPINION piece in Forbes, by sally pipes, the president of the Pacific Research Institute, a free-market think tank founded in 1979 to promote "the principles of individual freedom and personal responsibility" through policies that emphasize a free economy, private initiative, and limited government -- in other words, a conservative stink tank, that has been associated with other politically conservative stink tanks, including the American Enterprise Institute, The Heritage Foundation, The Fraser Institute, and the Cato Institute.
LOL!
Also, I mentioned last year's average increase in health care premiums was the lowest in years at 4%, and your OPINION piece by your conservative stink tank, was about the total for Obama's first term, or 4 years, and I never saw where that data came from in her article!
Let's get to the TRUTH without a conservative stink tank opinion:
Health insurance premiums see smallest increase in 15 years
The cost of providing health care benefits to employees rose by just 4.1% this year, the smallest increase in 15 years, according to a survey by human resources consultant Mercer.
And employers are expecting to see another modest increase of 5% next year, the survey of 2,800 companies found. That's a far cry from the beginning of the decade, when employers reported increases of 10% to nearly 15% a year. Last year, benefit costs rose by 6.1%.
http://money.cnn.com/2012/11/14/pf/health-insurance-premiums/index.html
But the more modest increases aren't because doctors or insurers are charging less. Faced with the 2014 implementation of health care reform, employers are making a greater effort to control their costs by shifting more of the expense and risk on to their employees.
Increasingly, employers are offering plans that charge significantly lower premiums but require employees to cover more out-of-pocket costs like higher deductibles. These consumer-directed health plans, or CDHPs, carry premiums that are about 20% less than other types of plans, making them much more affordable for employers, Mercer said.
http://money.cnn.com/2012/11/14/pf/health-insurance-premiums/index.html
Health insurance premiums for employer-sponsored coverage rose a moderate 4% this year, a national survey shows, but experts warn that rates may climb higher next year.
Annual insurance premiums for families increased 4%, on average, to $15,745, according to the annual survey by the Kaiser Family Foundation and the Health Research & Educational Trust. That was down from a 9% hike in 2011.
http://articles.latimes.com/2012/sep/11/business/la-fi-mo-employer-health-costs-20120911
I'm surprised that CBS allows you to keep posting such vile and vitriolic personal attacks on other posters, while adding nothing to the discussion!
In 1964 Congress passed, and Lyndon Johnson signed into law, a big income-tax cut that had originally been proposed by John F. Kennedy. The top marginal rate dropped from 91 percent to 70 percent, which represented a 23 percent cut. The bottom rate dropped from 20 percent to 14 percent, which represented a 30 percent cut. The middle rates dropped from 59 and 62 percent to 45 percent, which represented a cut of 24 percent to 27 percent. So we start out with one significant difference between the Kennedy and the Romney plan. Romney and Ryan wanted to lower taxes by the same amount for all brackets, high and low. Kennedy (really, Johnson) lowered taxes more at the middle and especially at the bottom than he did at the top.