Is it the President's job to create jobs?

[BOSSHOG]

I ask because I'm hearing a lot of crap from fake patriots down here in Mississippi that "Obama should create jobs." This from people who don't want the government "in our lives." This from "rugged individualists" who get their "facts" from right wing radio.

[ShortnFiery]

1. I don't know about The South, but when my late father was a teenager during ...

The First Great Depression of the 1930s, he helped save his family's South Dakota farm by going into the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCCs) in Rapid City at the tender age of 16 y.o. Each month, $20 was sent back to his family and he could keep $5 for his living expenses.

Today, we need similar PROGRAMS to put people back to work if the corporate raiders are going to keep all the manufacturing jobs oversees.

[madrchsod]

8. my dad`s ccc/wpa administrator was ronny raygun`s dad.....

ron`s brother was the payroll guy....ronny was a big fdr democrat because his dad finally found a decent job.

[jwirr]

11. Yes, especially in high unemployment areas.

[kerrywins]

2. Government Can Only Pay People If They First Take Those Resources From Others

My humble opinion is that it is not the government's job to create jobs.

In other words, they might create jobs, but how many jobs were destroyed?

[ShortnFiery]

3. Create jobs to build up the infrastructure and national parks? eom

[Name removed]

17. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Hannah Bell]

28. oh, *mises.* now there's an unbiased authority.

capitalism's foundation was theft, & it's maintained by theft & murder.

"National parks are socialist parks" - pretty much the tenor of the article.

[kerrywins]

34. in a truly free society one cannot steal something from someone else

using gov., however, theft occurs all the time.

[Hannah Bell]

42. in your free society, what prevents people from stealing from each other?

who enforces contracts, title, buying & selling?

[kerrywins]

44. thats a good question, for the most part, third parties were used for contracts

there's a great book on it....
http://www.amazon.com/Not-So-Wild-West-Economics/dp/0804748543

[Hannah Bell]

50. in what sense are "third parties" who enforce contracts not "government"?

in what sense are third parties with enforcement power not government?

fucking semantics, typical of the mises/rand crowd.

oh, & btw, any book which purports that the "wild west" was governed by 3rd parties who enforced financial contracts is full of shit & engaged in the falsification of history. The settling of the west was all about the power of the US government & its financial backers.

[kerrywins]

52. they don't use force, obviously...only government can do that

both parties would adhere to the decision of the third party.

you should read the book...

but right now you seem way to angry to talk about it...

[Hannah Bell]

53. I read the blurbs. It's bullshit. "Parties would abide" because of the force behind it. Duh.

Same way they "abide" paying for car insurance provided by third parties.

[kerrywins]

55. you are angry....and its affecting your rational thinking...

the state forces us to have car insurance...

[Hannah Bell]

60. Typical. when a libertarian can't make a counter-argument, they make it about the character

of their debating opponent. I'm "angry". No, I'm not. But you have no counter-argument. The enforcing power = government. It may be good government or bad, but it's government, & to my knowledge, there's never been any government with 100% approval ratings. Not in the wild west or any other mythological liberatarian paradise.

Edit: There's nothing you said in your pm you couldn't have said right here. I don't do pms & i'm neither angry nor offended. If you don't want to argue, then all you have to do is not respond. If you want to reserve the right to make unchallenged assertions, get a blog.

[kerrywins]

61. I'm sorry...I should not have made a personal comment about you...

look, only government can use force...

you don't agree with that...fine, we'll agree to disagree.

and you're right...mises.org is bias...

they have a bias towards PEACE and FREEDOM.

[Hannah Bell]

63. lol. Mises = an aristocrat who drew a salary from business interests his entire life.

Mises institute funded by Koch interests, largest privately held corp in the US & all-around dirty player, as well as other similar donors r/t to the Scaife wing of the conservative party.

But it does well to gull little lambs such as yourself.

[kerrywins]

67. hehe....he made money yes

how terrible for him to have a job and make money....

shame on him....

but at least his way involves you having freedom....

Marx's way, involves force used against you to bring some bureaucrats' way of life forced on you.

[Hannah Bell]

111. i make money. but not by being the paid mouthpiece of private capital.

particularly not by being the paid mouthpiece of super-polluting, thieving & fraud-practicing capital.

your hero was nothing but a court propagandist. perhaps that's your idea of "freedom," doing the will of the richest & most violent.

[Romulox]

65. That's not really logical, though...

In a "truly free" society, why shouldn't I be able to use my "creator given" gifts to my advantage any way I can? Whether that be my wit, or my brawn? Why should the world belong to clever people, when brutes can easily take what they want?

And more importantly, who's to stop me? :shrug:

"a bias towards PEACE and FREEDOM."

Do you observe a bias towards PEACE and FREEDOM (sic) in the natural world? Then why would you expect to find such a bias among man? :silly:

[kerrywins]

68. read that book

you find that examples of little to no government situations, people take responsibility for themselves and arm themselves and tend to have prosperous and peaceful transactions and co existence.

Unlike government that wages war and force against innocent people.

[Romulox]

73. You're speaking gibberish.

"people take responsibility for themselves and arm themselves and tend to have prosperous and peaceful transactions and co existence."

You obviously aren't a student of the genocides of the twentieth century.

"Unlike government that wages war and force against innocent people."

What happens when one of those government wages war on you? What happens to your Randian utopia then? :hi:

You obviously haven't given this much thought. That's OK; you'll find that a great deal of your real education will occur after you earn that undergrad degree. Enjoy your Spring Break! :silly:

[kerrywins]

76. wow

genocide happened because people were having a love affair with the state and let them divert most of their resources into waging war and genocide....

you think people who get into government and start confiscating people's resources and taking over the economy are "well intentioned" people?

No...at their worst they mass murder their citizens.

are we ever going to accomplish no government?
no....
but I'm going to keep trying and at the very least get out of the fantasy that government acts in the best interest of the people.

[Romulox]

79. You don't seem to understand that real life has no Dungeon Master--

Nobody to enforce the rules.

Nobody to make others "play nice".

Nobody to respect your alleged "freedom".

You posit a world without governments without understanding that free individuals are axiomatically free to form such governments. Then they come and take your stuff.

Perhaps a different tack will snap you out of this libertarian juvenalia: where (or whence!), pray tell, is this Utopia to which you refer, and what precisely is stopping anyone who has a bit of organizational skill from seizing everything therein? :silly: :hi:

[kerrywins]

83. so your asnwer is to support big government?

to protect us from other big corrupt governments?


I understand we'll never have no government...we can never escape them...

but at the very least, try to get it where they steal the least amount of resources from the people.

[Romulox]

84. My answer is to reject your entire framing as unrealistic nonsense. nt

[kerrywins]

87. hehehe....

great...so we'll live in a world where gov. takes over car companies, banks, controls our money supply,

wages endless wars with endless resources....setup police states

nice...

keep sucking your thumb and pretend its not happening, but thats not going to make them stop or go away...

[Mixopterus]

95. Nice artificial dichotomy

We either live in an anarchy or the government owns everything.

Libertarians really are cut from the same cloth, aren't they?

[kerrywins]

96. so you want a semi big gov.?

you just want them to take over some of our resources then?

[Mixopterus]

99. Like corporations don't steal resources

Give me a break.

[kerrywins]

101. big corporations can only exist because of help from the gov.

if you understood that, we wouldn't be having this conversation....

[Mixopterus]

105. They are distinct entities

That are not our government, however. My point is that corruption takes multiple forms, and that "government" doesn't mean what your artificially narrow focus thinks it means.

[kerrywins]

107. again.....big corporations, that you hate, can only exist because gov. gives them unfair advantage

[Mixopterus]

109. Here:

Let me spell it out for you:

GOVERNMENT IS WHAT MAKES AND ENFORCES THE LAW IN A SOCIAL GROUPING.

THIS RANGES FROM A SMALL TRIBE OF FIFTY PEOPLE

TO

A LARGE, MODERN NATION STATE.

BY DEFINITION ANY SOCIAL GROUPING BOUND BY RULES THAT CAN BE ENFORCED IS RULES BY A GOVERNMENT.

Is that clear now?

[NightWatcher]

4. he doesnt HAVE to do anything

but if he wants people to support him and the Dems this year, he better do something for us.

He's in charge of the country and we're hurting

[madrchsod]

5. yes it is....

http://edsitement.neh.gov/view_lesson_plan.asp?id=385

[BOSSHOG]

10. But why would conservatives say that?

Its seems counterintuitive to their right wing radio instructions.

[madrchsod]

25. they have to blame someone for their situation

the president/ federal government is easy to blame.

[Ozymanithrax]

6. It is the President's job to act for the benefit of the Ameircan People...

The American people need jobs so, yes, it is his job to facilitate what the American people need.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

7. When "creating jobs" is a pillar of his election campaign... then YES, he'd better deliver. (n/t)

[Edweird]

9. Yes.

[laughingliberal]

12. Glad to hear it. Most RW fake patriots say the government can't create jobs and favor more

tax cuts for the wealthy cause they've been told that creates jobs. No real answers on why it hasn't worked the past 30 years but that's what they think.

[kerrywins]

23. not true...republicans love gov. jobs - warfare state

[laughingliberal]

38. True. But I don't think that's the kind of jobs to which the OP was referring. nt

[kerrywins]

47. and don't forget the police state too....but lets not leave out dems...

or at least the democrats in charge....

they seem to love the patriot act and TSA and our De Fur Homeland Security just as much as the republicans.

[TexasObserver]

13. Yes, in times such as these it is the president's job to create jobs.

In fact, in this year - 2010 - it's his number one Job.

Check out "FDR, WPA" through a search engine.

[On the Road]

14. I Would Say That It's the President's Job

to manage the whole system for the economic benefit of all citizens. Part of that is having enough jobs so that people who want to work are able to. Part of that, in turn, might be creating government-paid jobs, but only when necessary or otherwise justified on their own merits.

[guitar man]

15. yes

Directly and indirectly. As a steward of the economy the President, and Congress have the duty to direct policy that promotes the general welfare. That may include incentives to the private sector to do the right thing as well as government and infrastructure programs that create jobs also.

[Obamanaut]

16. I thought some of the $787 billion was going to do exactly that. nt

[kerrywins]

18. Republicans Do Favor Government Job Creation - The Warfare State

They love government to confiscate resources from others and use those resources to fund the military, military contractors and wars.

[Hannah Bell]

31. the "jobs" aren't crucial. the bucks to rich contractors & stockholders are.

the government jobs republicans hate are public jobs, the ones that don't provide a cash flow to "investors".

[kerrywins]

41. either way, all gov. jobs must be funded by taking resources from others

[Hannah Bell]

49. so what? if someone amasses capital, it also takes resources from others.

anything but perfect equality takes resources from others. your being born into the world took resources from others. the simplistic repetition of "takes resources from others" begs a world of questions.

[kerrywins]

54. in a truly free market, noone "takes" something from someone else...transactions occur

voluntary transactions...

I give you money or silver for something of value to me.

you don't just take my money by force the way the gov. does.

[Hannah Bell]

64. you said you didn't want to argue, but here you are, still arguing.

you just don't want to work too hard at it, that's all. the repetitious sloganeering isn't convincing.

[kerrywins]

70. i like you

you seem very feisty....

are you older or younger?

[Jennicut]

19. They want govt to stay out of their lives until it effects them personally.

And THEN they want help. And then they vote you out. Bastards.

[kerrywins]

22. thats not true...they want gov. job creation - warfare state

plus many other government jobs....

republicans want a big government just as democrats do.

[Jennicut]

26. Some rethugs do. Some want govt. entirely dismantled.

It is neo cons vs the Ron Paul types.

[kerrywins]

36. ron paul types are libertarians, not a republicans

they use the republican party to try and get a candidate elected...

[Jennicut]

39. Well, you are correct on that.

They do pretend to be Repubs. Repubitarians.

[kerrywins]

43. I think they just use the republican party

purely to get on ballots....

because the system is rigged.

[aquart]

20. Yes.

[HughBeaumont]

21. The government gotta do SOMETHING.

The Private sector sure isn't doing shit and hasn't been in the past 12 years except firing more workers than it hires. Well, unless you count creating jobs in other countries . . .

The only problem is how do you pay for it all when your money is being pissed away in deserts and corporate bonus pools?

[kerrywins]

24. Gov. can only pay people by taking that money from others first

[Hannah Bell]

33. you don't know much about history, do you? those "other people" got their $$$

through gov't actions in the first place.

[kerrywins]

37. true...

people have been using gov. to steal and kill for thousands of years.

[Romulox]

66. Were you in a coma when the gov't was handing out TRILLIONS to banks?

Who was that money taken from?

[kerrywins]

69. they have to take money from people....or counterfiet the money....

in that case, they counterfeited the money....

which is also a much slicker way of stealing people's wealth....

[Romulox]

74. It's just so silly that you're willing to shut off the music in this game of

financial musical chairs precisely at the moment after TRILLIONS in taxpayer $$$ were handed over to the banks. In fact, it's ridiculous!

[kerrywins]

77. what are you talking about?

gov. steals resources from the people in 2 ways:

taxation

and counterfeit of the currency

[Romulox]

80. 1) the gov't distributes TRILLIONS to corps; 2) Randian decides gov't handouts are HENCEFORTH wrong;

3) I ROFL.

[kerrywins]

85. who is Randian?

what are you talking about?

[Romulox]

88. She's your ideological fairy god-mother, and you don't even know her name?

Oh brother! :shrug:

The good news is that I've just pointed out your absolute favorite book to you. I know it's not yet. But trust me, it will be. :puke:

[Mixopterus]

91. Oh jesus

Let's not feed his sickness, please. For his sake.

[kerrywins]

93. lol

not wanting every aspect of my life controlled by gov. is a sickness?

yeah...I guess I'm a lost cause then....

[kerrywins]

92. I'm too busy with Mises, Lew and Ron Paul, and Rothbard

and some other works, like the other book I point out to you....

I don't get how you sort of said, yes big government is evil and it can lead to mass murder of its own citizens, yet you seem to have a love affiar with the state and love for the state to take over a good part of the economy...

welfare ok...warfare not ok.....does that about sum up your beliefs?

[Romulox]

97. Dude, that's like saying you're not interested in Shakespeare, because you're into DRAMA (e.g. CSI).

(Not that I equate Rand with Shakespeare in the sense of quality, but rather in the sense of her work being the root source for the material that follows.)

You can't talk about this stuff without a knowledge of the context. :hi:

"yet you seem to have a love affiar with the state and love for the state to take over a good part of the economy..."

And you seem to have a gross ignorance of the very context of your own argument, along with a penchant for demanding others defend arguments that only you have made.

I think we've reached the end of the line with this conversation.

[kerrywins]

100. again....why your love affair with the state?

maybe in a police state you'll move up the ranks as a bootlicker?

[Mixopterus]

102. So now people who disagree

Are automatically authoritarians? Wow... typical, but wow.

Have you ever considered that a just rule of law properly maintained and justly enforced can actually -help- the people under its guidance?

[kerrywins]

104. how can an organization that steals resources from people

and kills and wages war be helpful?

[Romulox]

106. Your slip is showing. How long do you reckon before your big flame out? nt

[Romulox]

110. Wow. He's gone.

(I didn't hit the alert button!)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=user_profiles&u_id=147153

[Dappleganger]

27. It's his duty to protect the ones we have, that's for damn sure.

Something Clinton and their NAFTA-ites failed to do.


Edited for clarity.

[krabigirl]

29. Nope. nt

[TxRider]

30. Yes when unemployment is hitting double digits

All people want to hear about are policies designed to get business moving and hiring them.

We have spent almost 2 trillion between banks, auto makers and stimulus most of which won't even be spent for another year or more.

Keeping a roof over one's head next month and food on the table next month ranks above HCR. Everyone is in fear of losing their income except for bankers.

[Iggo]

32. Yes.

[RainDog]

35. sometimes

my personal belief is that the economy is in really bad shape due to a lack of regulations on, for instance, the mortgage banking sector.

also a lack of oversight by those agencies charged to do the same.

the steady undermining of the uses of government to protect the general welfare against greedy, short-sighted motherfuckers has resulted in the greatest disparity of wages in the U.S. since the great depression.

now, things can continue as they are, and I would be we'll have violence in the streets of D.C. because people cannot afford to live based upon prices v. wages.

or, we can use the power of govt to spur newer industries and to create jobs - like infrastructure programs for our roads. like solar shingles that are bought on such a scale, or subsidized, that people can afford to put them on their roofs. like windmill farms. local economy-based jobs that will immprove the infrastructure of those areas.

this is what FDR did with things like the TVA. this is what Kennedy did with programs for Appalachia. this is what Obama needs to do now to put men and women back to work.

if you're going to spend money on a govt program to deal with problems in the economy, it seems it's better to give it to many people who all need things like refridges and water heaters than to give it to a small group of people who already make and have so much money they would feel the pinch, but they could recover far easier with their various assets.

what THIS president needs to do is to harness the power that he showed on the campaign trial to inspire this generation coming up to create a 21st century America, that develops industries of the future. The more local in nature these projects run, the better, it seems to me.

pay for this job creation with a cap on bonuses. anything over 250 thousand gets taxed at 70%. Let the rich share the pain.

[ddeclue]

40. YES.. NEXT QUESTION.

[BOSSHOG]

45. I think

I screwed up with the question. My intent was to inquire why conservatives would think the government should create jobs when to listen to them rant and rave the government should do absolutely nothing except maintain an Army.

[kerrywins]

48. well, maintaining an army and police state require many government jobs

[frustrated_lefty]

46. That's a potential inroad for democrats in the South.

Look, I was born and raised in Louisiana, had family in Mississippi, and went to college in Alabama during the first half of my life.

One of the almost inexplicable mysteries of modern American politics is why the South so frequently votes against its own best interests. Before going any further, please, if you're one of those Southern-bashing, holier-than-tho, enlightened folk whose fecal matter emits the scent of roses, please stop reading now and go start a thread about the confederate flag or something equally useful.

The simple fact of the matter is that Southerners frequently turn to faith, family values and christian morals because there aren't any other widely available options. Life expectancy, infant mortality, quality and availability of health care, quality and availability of education, employment opportunities, salary, and job satisfaction are all worse in the South. When you strip away those fundamental things, is it any surprise that individuals strive to retain some meager measure of self-pride via the less tangible, but universally available, sense of morals and values....thereby playing directly into the right wing's hands?

Here's a number for you to dig your teeth into. Everyone is freaking out, going gaga over the fact that unemployment is reaching 10 and 15% in some metropolitan areas. The adult unemployment rate in New Orleans, PRE-Katrina, was over 50%.

Democrats have a tremendous opportunity to make inroads in the South. No, it will not turn every state south of the Mason-Dixon line blue over-night. It's a fucking investment, and it's the right thing to do. Invest in education and job creation in the South, invest in universal health care, make these things work, and the South can turn blue in our lifetimes. Too often we have democrats, like Kerry in '04, saying we don't need the South. Ya know what? When someone says something like that, or acts in a way that conveys that very same message....it's a sign they lack the convictions of their words and that their liberal, political rhetoric is little more than political opportunism reduced to a sound-byte.

-fl

[wickerwoman]

51. No, it's the President's job to give money to companies and trust them to create jobs

and not pay themselves enormous bonuses while continuing to offshore.

What? That hasn't worked once in the last forty years of Republicans trying it?

Well, it must be the Democrats fault anyway... they made us raise taxes and they made us give it to feckless Wall Street investors and they dragged us into these two awful wars. Oh the humanity!

[kerrywins]

57. exactly...gov. moving resources around by force does not work...

how about both parties letting the real free market work for a change.

[Mixopterus]

71. "Ok"

...

Oh wait, that is what they have been doing for decades. Sorry, the free market gives about zero guarantees of anyone treating anyone else in a civil and socially just manner. Why do they have to when they can succumb to humanity's darker impulses and accrue obscene amounts of wealth while simultaneously shifting the power structure and guiding forces in their favor? In a society based on law and post-enlightenment government, there is primarily done for undermining the democratic processes of the government itself, such as what we are witnessing in our age. But without such things in place, why can't they just hand coin, food, and maybe even other human beings to a private army and take what they want by force? The latter scenario is how things usually play out when laissez faire resource distribution in the absence of proper law rears its head, I.E Somalia and pre-WW2 China.

The free market is a piss poor theory about wealth accumulation, distribution, and production. It has about squat to do with social justice or rule of law of any sort, in fact the essence of a truly free market runs counter to those principles.

Here, I'll summarize it the way a wise man told it to me some time ago:

Civilizations are built by human principles that are made by man and maintained by man, not forces of nature.

[undeterred]

56. Only if he wants to get re-elected.

He is behaving as though he doesn't give a damn about unemployed people.

[timeforpeace]

58. Business and industry creates jobs.

[kerrywins]

62. Unfortunately Big Businesses Use Gov. to Have Unfair Advantages

the common theme here is that gov. is lame.

[Mixopterus]

72. Whoeever makes the rules and enforces the rules

Is the government, be it warlords, feudal kings, knightly orders, corporations, senators, robot, or wizard.

In your Mises induced fantasy in which we all make money and play nice the forces that stir when people stop playing nice and exploiting the society are, guess what, the government! The forces that decide what is the appropriate medium for trade are, guess what, the government! The forces that unite when other groups of humans decide to challenge your civilization are, guess what, the government!

[kerrywins]

78. the only difference

I don;t live in the fantasy that gov. does what is in the best interest of the people....

[Mixopterus]

81. So you concede

That whoever makes and enforces the rules is the government? That means even in your libertarian utopia the government (be it a coalition of petty merchants or corporations) will be equally corrupt.

Well, thanks for playing anyway.

[kerrywins]

82. true...government will always be corrupt...

I mean, think about the function of government....

all they can do is take away your life, liberty and property...

why would anyone in their right mind want them to start taking over the economy with a welfare state?

[Mixopterus]

89. MAN is corrupt, Kerry

Man is not the feel good play nice let's all follow these rules that cannot be enforced animal that utopians like you paint them to be. By and large we have dark souls and an ongoing struggle between what our animalistic side wants us to do and what reason states we must do, and that is just for the people who even GET that far. Corporations are corrupt, most governments are corrupt (some more than others), merchants are corrupt. The only thing that can stem the tide of human excess is rule of law that is backed by more than nice thoughts and fanciful notions put forth by an idiotic Austrian who was consistently wrong.

That rule of law in WHATEVER form it takes will become this abstract thing called a "government". It is an imperfect institution but it is literally the only thing we have.

[kerrywins]

94. you seem to think that without gov. everything falls apart

and people start going crazy....

read that book....

[Mixopterus]

98. I've already read Mises

And he's a charlatan, to be quite honest. Same goes for Popper in regards to his economic works and Hayek.

I'm not sure if you are intentionally not understanding this or something, but WHATEVER form the rule of law and the apparatus of its enforcement takes will be the government, that includes your hypothetical society. They too will also be a government.

And yes, homo sapiens sapiens does extremely poorly without a set of rules and a means to enforce them, seeing as our species requires a large degree of artificiality to even survive.

[kerrywins]

103. i don't think you have read mises

or lew or rothbard....

at least not very much of them....

or you would understand that these big corporations that you hate can only exist by using the gov. to give them an unfair advantage....

[Mixopterus]

108. No

My contention deals with their rather absurd notion of government as only pertaining to a modern nation state. Government, as they failed to see, is whoever makes and enforces the rules in a social grouping. That means ANY system of law and law enforcement or any regulations dealing with social interactions are a government.

It's a simple point, really, and quite obvious.

[anonymous171]

59. I can be. Especially when the private sector is off masturbating in a corner or something. nt

[Yavin4]

75. When The Private Economy Stops Creating Jobs, Then Yes, The Govt Must Then Create Them

The private economy has not created any new jobs for over 2 years, and there's a huge surplus of labor. So, it's the government's job to create new jobs.

[Alias Dictus Tyrant]

90. They haven't made it easy

The government hasn't made it easy to create any new jobs. On top of the mal-regulation in the financial markets that screwed everything up, there is the looming threat of the government doing something really stupid that destroys the assumptions behind the economics.

Uncertainty is a killer for business. One of the failures of the current administration is the constant dithering and lack of decisiveness on economic matters; and when they do make decisions like to bail out Wall Street, it often makes so little sense as to seem arbitrary and capricious. The US economy is suffering from analysis paralysis. Inability to predict the real financial consequences of hiring means they don't, and the actions of the government are making it very hard to make such predictions.

If they had simply let bad actors go bankrupt and done some strict regulatory clean-up with all due haste, it would have been a minor bump in the road because business would know what the future was going to look like. Instead it is just one "wtf?" after another.

[bullwinkle428]

86. Terry Branstad, the Republican candidate for governor in Iowa, claims

to have a secret plan that will bring Iowa 200,000 NEW JOBS, if we only have the courage to elect him! :rofl:

Keep in mind that this guy already held the governorship for 16 years, ending in 1999. He's touting how great the Iowa economy was when he left office - of course, no mention that his term ended one year before the end of the Clinton/Gore era!