david: stephane, is steve right? he is right about some things, including that we should just have a simple tax on carbon. i ll tell you what this does not do. this does not cost us jobs. it creates enormous number of new jobs. shift away from oil, a wonderful old technology that is really just past its due date. the shift toward things like wind and solar and conservation. i attended green building conference in chicago and struck how many thousands of new jobs the tries are creating for us. this will go down as one of the great job creation programs in history. david: wow! rich, is this a solution to our unemployment problem? no, i m very skeptical. i m all for getting off the dependence on foreign oil or reducing it. but wind and solar? give me a break. here we are the saudi arabia, the u.s. is of coal and natural gas. those are the energy sources we should be pursuing full
word change being shouted from the fimountaintops of washingto throughout 2008 and 2009. i am considering ron paul as a viable candidate. and this one from julia in dallas. it means business as usual in washington. never finish anything and what s worse, not care whether it is finish ord not. the only one coming out is the people with the storage payments. this is the same administration that wants to trust the national health care system and job creation programs in their hands says j.c. yesterday you answered if the government was broken beyond repair. you just answered your question. if you want to read more go the cnn.com/caffertyfile. once the health care reform bill was likened to a hail mary pass. we will see what they say. and more problems on toyota s recall today. there was extremely emotional
that police could not respond to. a big motivator for the war on poverty. gave the government an excuse to engage in massive redistribution of wealth and social programs. it could say these have public safety values since the police cannot bring crime down the way we have to bring crime down is to take money from the rich and give it to the poor, otherwise they will cause social havoc in the streets. paul: so this means, whatever you think of welfare programs, whatever you think of job creation programs or food stamps, whatever their utility as redistribution and income maintenance programs, what you re saying is that those have almost zero utility as crime fighting programs. we should have known this after the 1960 s, paul. paul: that makes sense. because the 60 s saw a 43% increase in homicides nationally. at the time when the economy was growing and what was really growing were government jobs. you had massive government jobs
that police could not respond to. a big motivator for the war on poverty. gave the government an excuse to engage in massive redistribution of wealth and social programs. it could say these have public safety values since the police cannot bring crime down the way we have to bring crime down is to take money from the rich and give it to the poor, otherwise they will cause social havoc in the streets. paul: so this means, whatever you think of welfare programs, whatever you think of job creation programs or food stamps, whatever their utility as redistribution and income maintenance programs, what you re saying is that those have almost zero utility as crime fighting programs. we should have known this after the 1960 s, paul. paul: that makes sense. because the 60 s saw a 43% increase in homicides nationally. at the time when the economy was growing and what was really growing were government jobs. you had massive government jobs
that police could not respond to. a big motivator for the war on poverty. gave the government an excuse to engage in massive redistribution of wealth and social programs. it could say these have public safety values since the police cannot bring crime down the way we have to bring crime down is to take money from the rich and give it to the poor, otherwise they will cause social havoc in the streets. paul: so this means, whatever you think of welfare programs, whatever you think of job creation programs or food stamps, whatever their utility as redistribution and income maintenance programs, what you re saying is that those have almost zero utility as crime fighting programs. we should have known this after the 1960 s, paul. paul: that makes sense. because the 60 s saw a 43% increase in homicides nationally. at the time when the economy was growing and what was really growing were government jobs. you had massive government jobs