RNC Ad – Our Freedom Matters

Some of my friends here on Blogging Blue accuse me of showcasing the DNC ads too much, so I thought I’d give some equal time to this new ad from the RNC.  The ad gives Michael Steele a chance to go after those small donors with a dose of the “fear” message seasoned with a bit of patriotism message.

Share:

Related Articles

24 thoughts on “RNC Ad – Our Freedom Matters

  1. Is a “fear message” wrong if it is based in fact?
    “Massive government expansion… government takeovers (GM)… redistribution of wealth… staggering debt to countries like China.”
    What part of that message wasn’t true?

    I don’t know about “fear,” but this sounds like pure and simple criticism of the current administration. Something the DNC was pretty good at for 8 years. You had better get used to it from the RNC for the next three.

  2. Remember the PowerPoint presentation based on fear and playing conservatives for suckers? You bought it. Simple truths.

    Bush and the Republicans left Obama with $1.2 tillion in debt.

    Massive gov. expansion? Health care reform does not have a public option (for now). Where’s the government part? Old cliche and talking point, you should update that sometime.

    GM got a loan, it was not taken over by the government. Think hard and you might get that sometime.

    The gap between the rich and poor is greater than it ever has been, while joblessness is above 9 percent. Redistribution went upward, taking from the poor and middleclass.

    What part of the message was true? The RNC fear campaign is working…on you.

    1. “Bush, Bush, Bush”… so he left poor Obama a trillion of debt. So Obama’s answer: Trillions more in debt! Brilliant!!! I’m so glad you elected a Harvard grad to come up with that one.

      Massive government expansion entails more than just health care. Or did you forget cap & trade? Among other things. Your “for now” comment is very telling, but expansion doesn’t have to equal a public option. Expansion can just mean more government regulation or sticking its nose in where it doesn’t belong. Did you hear about a new proposed tax on soda pop?

      The same goes for GM. Whether you want to call it a “loan” or big government owning a majority share of the company, either way it comes with a host of regulations and conditions. When the government can dictate the inner workings of a company, it’s no longer a private company. I guess it’s a Ford for me next time.

      In case you missed it, the rich pay all the taxes and provide the jobs.

      It seems like Obama, the DNC, and you have a real tough time with some honest criticism. All of the message was true. Sounds like some of the DNC talking points have worked on you though.

  3. Remember the PowerPoint presentation based on fear and playing conservatives for suckers? You bought it. Simple truths.

    Bush and the Republicans left Obama with $1.2 tillion in debt.

    Massive gov. expansion? Health care reform does not have a public option (for now). Where’s the government part? Old cliche and talking point, you should update that sometime.

    GM got a loan, it was not taken over by the government. Think hard and you might get that sometime.

    The gap between the rich and poor is greater than it ever has been, while joblessness is above 9 percent. Redistribution went upward, taking from the poor and middleclass.

    What part of the message was true? The RNC fear campaign is working…on you.

  4. “In case you missed it, the rich pay all the taxes and provide the jobs.”

    Actually the tax rate on the highest income earners in this country is currently the lowest it has been since the income tax was invented. But actually what’s wrong the the richest paying the most taxes?

    As for providing jobs, it’s the small businesses that provide the jobs. And if we had a single payer universal health plan there would be a lot more small businesses and those small businesses would be much better to compete with big business for talented employees. I for one wouldn’t mind working for a small entrepreneurial business, but I can’t afford to leave my corporate benefits behind.

    And it is correct that a large part of the new GM is currently owned by the feds…but when they go public later this year it will be a huge IPO and the feds may actually make a decent profit.

    1. Because small businesses are exempt from having to pay in to a single payer plan? I don’t think so!

      P.S. What’s going to happen to the money if the government makes a profit?

  5. BTW: President Obama is the second Harvard graduate to be president since 2000…or didn’t you know that?

    1. Yes I remember. Harvard Business School. First MBA to be President. Didn’t stop Dems from calling him an idiot.

      1. Well a Dow drop of around 4,000 points and the lowest quarterly % change in GDP since 1958, I wonder why?

        1. Because the President’s intelligence is directly related to stock market performance? Um, no. It should really have no bearing on who the president is, unless s/he passes legislation that meddles in the economy.

              1. Well, the Reagan tax cuts cost George Bush I his second term, and the GWB tax cuts are partly to blame for the mess we find ourselves facing now.

                I am not against cutting taxes…but if you are going to cut them, cut them for those who will put the tax savings back into the economy immediately. That would be those with the lowest disposable incomes rather than those with the highest discretionary incomes.

                And of course if you cut taxes, you can’t saddle up the troops and invade two other countries at the same time. It wouldn’t be prudent!

                1. Well, the Reagan tax cuts cost George Bush I his second term,

                  Oh, c’mon. Ross Perot and Bill Clinton cost Bush his second term. Perot cut into more R voters than D, and much more importantly, Clinton was a very charismatic and shrewd politician. It couldn’t have been any more simple – more people voted for him because more people liked him.

                  1. Actually it was Bush I’s need to raise taxes to prevent the recession during his term caused by the Reagan tax cuts…it’s the economy stupid!

                    Do you remember that old chestnut?

                2. That would be great, except the people with the lowest incomes pay little to no income taxes to cut. Also, not a lot of low-income people can create jobs with their tax cuts/credits.

                  1. The rich create jobs? That’s more theory trending toward myth. The US economy is driven by consumption and if you enable the neediest consumers you are likely to get the biggest bang for your buck.

                    Most successful stimulus package that put the most money right into the economy? Cash for clunkers…money to Wall street is pretty much sitting in T bills and executive bonuses. Let’s see those bonuses hire people?

                  2. My suggestion is start the tax cuts at the bottom and work our way up the food chain until the economy is rockin’.

                    1. All cash for clunkers did was shift car sales a few months earlier. And then created a shortage of used cars for lower-income people to buy, who can’t or shouldn’t be buying a brand new car. But that’s not a tax cut — that’s an artificial government program. How great it would have been to just give a tax cut in that amount to everyone and let them decide how to spend it on anything, not just cars. The Wall St. issue you bring up is off topic — that’s not a tax cut for individuals, that was a bail out for companies, not necessarily something I agree with either.

                      Tax cuts at the bottom would be great, but it goes back to my original question, How do you cut taxes for people that don’t pay any? Tax cuts on higher individual incomes are often people who own small businesses and therefore can expand their business (i.e. job creation) with that tax cut.

  6. If the sale of GM stock makes a profit, it goes into the treasury to pay back some of the TARP and other stimulus money.

    Right now small businesses frequently don’t have the wherewithal to provide benefits and even those that do have been dropping them or increasing the employee contributions to cover rising costs. If there was an equitable universal plan that would permit employees to move from job to job as they wanted and provided the employer with an equal benefit to offer, it would do a great deal to improve/expand small business. It should also allow a lot more people to take the plunge and try to start a business.

    Now, let’s not confuse a diploma with intelligence…

  7. Well, the Reagan tax cuts cost George Bush I his second term, and the GWB tax cuts are partly to blame for the mess we find ourselves facing now.

    I am not against cutting taxes…but if you are going to cut them, cut them for those who will put the tax savings back into the economy immediately. That would be those with the lowest disposable incomes rather than those with the highest discretionary incomes.

    And of course if you cut taxes, you can't sacdle up the troops and invade two other countries at the same time. It wouldn't be prudent!;

    1. “I am not against cutting taxes…but if you are going to cut them, cut them for those who will put the tax savings back into the economy immediately. That would be those with the lowest disposable incomes rather than those with the highest discretionary incomes.”

      I would call that a short term stimulus rather than a tax cut. And, a short term stimulus is hardly worth risking long term stability. Unfortunately, both parties focus on the short term for election cycles rather than the health of the overall economy.

      The truth that no politician wants to hear is recessions are good. They clear out the bad money/ bad business out of the system and provide opportunities for new growth. But instead of letting the business cycle run its course, the Fed creates another bubble.

      One poster asked a rhetorical question earlier: “Well a Dow drop of around 4,000 points and the lowest quarterly % change in GDP since 1958, I wonder why?”

      The answer is because the Dow, the Nasdaq, and the S&P were all extremely overvalued. That’s was not healthy it was all built on greed and some cases fraud. But politicians still think nasdaq 5000 was a good thing.

      1. One poster asked a rhetorical question earlier: “Well a Dow drop of around 4,000 points and the lowest quarterly % change in GDP since 1958, I wonder why?”

        The answer is because the Dow, the Nasdaq, and the S&P were all extremely overvalued. That’s was not healthy it was all built on greed and some cases fraud. But politicians still think nasdaq 5000 was a good thing.

        I’m with you on most of this – fighting corrections so hard does make the inevitable recession more severe. But there were fundamental problems this go-round. An argument can be made for securitizing mortgages – but when Fannie & Freddie began accepting sub-prime loans it encouraged bad faith lending. The GSE’s were run in a corrupt individuals and their government oversight was led by corrupt individuals. Chris Dodd does not deserve a retirement party & pension this fall – he deserves a jail cell. Yes there were many other contributing factors including realtors who promoted home values as going up forever (despite the fact that they were already overvalued) and the individuals who took out loans beyond their means to pay, but it was the lending practices that caused the most damage.

Comments are closed.