A few days ago my wife posted the following link on facebook page. The title is self-explanatory and this post answer those questions.
1) If Republicans are so fiscally responsible, why was President Eisenhower (in the 1950′s) the last Republican president to balance the budget?
Because very few Republican presidents have been true fiscal conservatives. Reagan attempted to be fiscally responsible, but was hindered by several factors that I will address later. Since Eisenhower Democrats have controlled the White House just as much as Republicans, about 28 years apiece, including the eight presumptive years of President Obama’s terms. The bigger issue is that during the years from Eisenhower until 1992, Democrats held the purse strings of government by being the majority in both Congress. Congress controls spending more than the President. So I would turn the question back to you. If Democrats are concerned about the runaway spending of Republicans, why did they do nothing to stop runaway spending when they controlled the Congress?
2) If President Reagan was such a fiscally conservative hero, why did he quadruple our national debt during his eight years in the White House?
The answer to this question is an extension of the previous question. During Reagan’s eight years as President, Democrats controlled both chambers of Congress for most of those years. They controlled the spending. They could have cut his proposed budget in anyway they wanted; they did not. Also, there was a deal between Reagan and Democrats. Reagan promised to raise tax revenue by a dollar for every three dollars but in spending. Reagan raised the taxes but Congress never cut the spending (Beck, 2010, 98). Reagan also raised defense spending as a way to spend the USSR into submission. He was not willing to cut that spending because it was part of his plan and it worked. Within a decade of Reagan’s plan, the USSR no longer existed.
3) If tax breaks are the main driving force behind job creation, how would we create jobs once tax rates were reduced to practically zero?
Tax breaks are not the main driving force of job creation. Capital is the driving force behind job creation. If businesses and people have their income and capital tied up in taxes then they cannot spend it on things they want to, including spending money to hire more people to expand their business. If you are trying to make the argument that without taxes jobs won’t be created then you are completely ignorant of how basic economics works.
4) If socialized health care is so awful, why does every country that leads the world in life expectancy have socialized health care?
There are several reasons why socialized medicine is aweful. First, in the end socialized medicine leads to rationing of care. People have to wait long times for routine and/or life-saving procedures. Why? Because these procedures cost money and to control costs in a socialized medicine state means that the amount of these procedures have to be limited. Secondly, medical care, as stated before, costs a lot of money. These countries typically have significantly taxes higher than the United States. If there is anything that U.S. citizens hate its high taxes. High taxes robs citizens of their income and tells them how it should be spent instead of leaving those choices in the hands of the citizens, including how much they want to spend in their medical care.
5) If you support the freedom of religion (as per our Constitution), and my church recognizes gay marriage, isn’t your support for the banning of same-sex marriage an attack on my religion’s First Amendment rights?
Your church recognizing gay marriage has nothing to do with the Constitution and the freedom of religion. The state authorized marriages. I am not sure why, but they do. The bigger problem you should be worried about is how the state has the power to define or redefine marriage by law, citizen referendum or court degree. If the government has the power to define marriage or change that definition by that means they have the power over marriage, not the individual.
6) What’s more realistic? 1) That an entire region of the United States that supported slavery in the late-1800′s and support segregation in the 1950′s and 60′s suddenly stopped being racist, or 2) The racist southern Democrats in the south became Republicans during the 50′s and 60′s when the Republican party shifted toward an idea called the “Southern Strategy,” where the GOP appealed to the racism in southern whites who didn’t like African Americans voting for Democrats.
You are correct that the southern Democrats joined the Republican party in the 1950s and 60s in response to the Civil Rights legislation passed in that era. One problem though, those Democrats turned Republicans, are a minority of the party. Also, many of those new Republicans are no longer a part of the party because they have either died or have been voted out of office.
7) If taxes are at some of their lowest levels in history, and the wealthiest in this country are richer than ever, why hasn’t the growth in the wealth of the middle class matched that of the top 2%?
Because wealth growth is never equal. The rich have by law more opportunities to become richer. They can invest in stocks and other financial tools that the middle class and poor cannot participate in by law. These laws were passed in the 1930s following the stock market crash of 1929. It was meant to “protect” the middle class from people who might be selling instruments to them without them understanding them. Taxing the rich will not lead to the growth of the middle class, it will just slow down the growth of the rich, and even that is not guaranteed.
8) If our Founding Fathers wanted this nation to be based on Christianity, why don’t the words “Christian” or “Christianity” appear even once in our Constitution?
Because it was a given at the time for most people. The 1st Amendment’s protections of religion were meant to prevent a single religious denomination from being the state religion much like had happened in Europe.
9) If a Republican president reduced massive job losses in the midst of the worst recession in nearly a century by more than 50% in his first 4 months in office; presided over 44 consecutive months of private-sector job growth creating nearly 8 million jobs; killed Osama bin Ladin; saw stock markets reach all-time highs; saved the American auto industry; increased domestic oil production to highs not seen since the late-90′s and championed the largest year-to-year deficit reductions since World War II, would your party not be calling him a hero and a legend?
Your statistics while true are flawed. The drop in unemployment during the year of Obama’s term could be attributed to a lot of factors not related to the policies of the President and Congress. For example, in 2010 the Commerce Department had to hire a lot of people to complete the required decennial census. Domestic Oil production has increased inspite of the President’s policies, not because of them, because he has actually restricted the new leases. The largest deficit decreases are a sick twisting of facts. The president was responsible for those deficits. While some of them were because of the Bush Administration, Obama voted for them as a Senator, so by proxy he is to blame for them. So him cutting the deficit is not a big deal because he ran them up that high. Also, you do not seem to include the numerous things that have increased under President Obama, like number of people on food stamps, and disability, the number of people who have left the work force and other negative economic indicators. Why do you ignore those numbers?
10) If Jesus spent his life helping the poor and the needy, how does it make sense that a party which claims to be for “Christian values” continues to cut funding for programs that help the poor and the needy?
How did Jesus help the poor and the needy? He was a poor wandering preacher for three years before he died. His message was not about helping the poor and the needy, but preaching his saving grace to those in sin. Also, can you explain to me why Republicans by large margins give more money to charities than liberals? Yes, much of that money goes to churches, but many churches use that money to help the poor. But besides that they give money to other charities in larger numbers than liberals. Why don’t liberals put their money where their mouth is and donate their income to poor charities? Why do they rely on the government to be charitable with other people’s money?
Questions? Comments? Concerns? Class dismissed!