Mitt Romney did talk like this. In his I QUIT speech.

McCain/DeMint’08

HotAirExpert on February 9, 2008 at 1:47 PM

Of course not. Only the U.S. government is stupid enough to give “rebates” to millions of people who never forked over any money in the first place.

Jim DeMint for President.

AZCoyote on February 9, 2008 at 2:51 PM

That’s what I’m talking about.

Again, anybody who chooses to punish our military in a fit of political pique is unhinged.

funky chicken on February 9, 2008 at 5:33 PM

Again, disgusting smear tactic of anyone not supporting your candidate. How about trying a new and rational argument rather than a “you hate the military” track?

What did you think Congress’ job was?

Kafir on February 9, 2008 at 9:51 PM

Sorry. Missed the question portion of your answer. Contained in Article 1, most of the “job” is in section 8. Here you go:

Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;

To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;

To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States;

To establish post offices and post roads;

To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;

To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court;

To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;

To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;

To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;

To provide and maintain a navy;

To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;

To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;–And

To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.

Kafir on February 9, 2008 at 9:51 PM

May I then assume you support universal health care under the guise of ‘general welfare’?

It’ll do more because: A) people would suddenly have all that extra money not going up in fumes, and B) will also cut government spending by billions, simultaneously.

Smaller government; more money in your pocket.

Win-win.

1. Establish Justice
2. Insure domestic Tranquility
3. Provide for the common defense
4. Promote the general welfare
5. Secure the blessings of liberty

Creating a good business environment falls under #4. Good business environment = jobs. Jobs = general welfare and probably domestic tranquility as well.

What did you think Congress’ job was?

Is there anybody else on the scene in South Carolina that the governor could appoint if McCain did choose DeMint who would be even close to as good as a US Senator?

funky chicken on February 9, 2008 at 5:41 PM

I’m an NCian but Congressman Gresham Barrett would be my pick. In fact, he would probably be a good veep choice himself if not for the name recognition.

Is there anybody else on the scene in South Carolina that the governor could appoint if McCain did choose DeMint who would be even close to as good as a US Senator?

All three of those points were the opposite of the stances taken by Mitt Romney.

But Mitt Romney was the “true conservative” in the race, and now that he’s out, you are going to sit out or vote for Hil/Obama.

Again, anybody who chooses to punish our military in a fit of political pique is unhinged.

malan89 on February 9, 2008 at 4:39 PM

The difference being that they are two sides of the same coin. One the government intervenes for the consumer, the other the government intervenes for the provider, ie business.

Either way it’s government intervention, so to hold one of the positions and not both (or neither) is irony and reflects not a conservative view, but a pro-business view. I just prefer to label it for what it is.

Of course I think there is some irony that people praise this and simultaneously praise the ’suck it up’ posts here on the economy.

There is a HUGE difference between bailing out morons who tried to buy houses they couldn’t afford and stimulating business by cutting taxes.

The phrase, “What have you done for me lately” comes to mind.

So little vision.

On a more serious note, I still can’t believe that my state is responsible for sending Sherrod Brown to the senate.

MITT 2012!

full circle on February 9, 2008 at 2:50 PM

I’m not really trying to argue. :) I was attempting to point out that the premise that DeMint is working off of is that Congress has the responsibility to create a favorable business environment. As Malan illustrates, the principle is less important then the result to most (hence my ref to Rove).

Of course I think there is some irony that people praise this and simultaneously praise the ‘suck it up’ posts here on the economy. One (suck it up) says the consumer should bite the bullet without governmental interference and the other says that the government should intervene in the economy to make the conditions favorable to business. Irony indeed.