The 2006 mid-term elections are just one week away. The outcome of the results we'll see next Tuesday night will not be Earth-shattering; we'll still all awaken Wednesday morning with families and friend, bills and jobs, etc. However, there will be implications arising from those results – implications that will have long-term effects not only on our lives, but the lives of our children and grandchildren.
The purpose of this article is to spark a discussion, in the closing days of this campaign season, which will look into the issues of most importance and to compare and contrast the alternatives that each of the major political parties offer to address them. The discussion should be informative and educational. It is not my intent to have this discussion devolve into a finger-pointing session, accusing one side or the other of incompetence or malfeasance. That may be true in some cases, but the idea is to educate and possibly persuade. Goodness know corruption is an equal-opportunity, bi-partisan evil. But, at the end of the day, we need to be voting FOR something, not AGAINST something.
Those who have read my comments in other articles on Gather know I make no bones about the fact I am a conservative, and I filter political/social issues through that perspective. That's not to say I'm not open to hearing a liberal take on the issues of the day. In fact, I relish the opportunity to engage those with that view in constructive dialogs on the issues. It's educational for both parties and it promotes an understanding on each side that their "ideological opponents" are not evil, or to be considered "the enemy". We are, after all is said and done, Americans – Americans who love our country and compatriots. We just disagree on how to achieve the common goals of our country – sometimes even what those goals should be.
Now, the ground rules for our little debate here. Comparing and contrasting positions is acceptable. Baseless accusations are not. If you want to point out where you disagree with the other side on a policy issues or vision for the future, that's acceptable ONLY if you provide concrete examples of what the other "side" is missing or doing wrong AND how your "side" will address it to make it better.
For example:
It is not enough to say, "Republicans don't give a crap our working families and the problems they face, so I'm supporting the Democrats because they do!" That's a legitimate position to take, but in the interest of the educational direction of this article, tell us HOW, specifically, that Republican lack of concern for working families manifests itself and HOW, specifically, the Democrats will do things differently to make things better.
Also, please try to limit yourself to one issue per posting. That will save everyone's eye from the strain of reading this excessively small font; and, it will allow others to comment/respond without having to write a contemporary version of "War and Peace."
I'll start us off.
I'm supporting the Republicans because our nation is in the midst an economic expansion that is the longest period of continuous growth since the 1980s and, I believe, the second longest period of growth in a century. The expansion has taken place despite the fact our country has suffered through the worst attack on our nation in its history and unprecedented federal expenditures required for the ramp-up of two new federal agencies to deal with the domestic issues of our national security. I believe that strength, in the face of such horrendous burdens, is primarily due to the tax cuts implemented by the Republican-dominated Congress and Republican President in 2001. I fear that recovery will be short-circuited if the Democrats take back control of Congress, or even just the House of Representatives, because of their history of favoring tax increases to support social programs over tax cuts to increase revenue to the federal treasury to pay for those programs. For that reason, I'm going to support the Republican candidates for my House of Representatives district and the contested Senatorial seat.
There. That's one. Please feel free to respond, or to add another comment all your own. Just remember – PLAY NICE!
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 230
I say vote Republican to Stay The Course.
Any good news is dismissed, ignored or discredited.
Fact is we have record home ownership, record low unemployment rates, inflation under control, stock market is seeing record highs....and there is nothing , absolutely nothing the political left can offer in a positive manner.
THey have done nothing but do everything they can to undermine our country on every front, they were against tax cuts, the same cuts attributed to this recent economic expansion. They blame harsh weather and the llack of the local Democrat elected officials to hanlde the situation on the President.
We are attacked by terrorists and they attack the President for takiong the bull by the horns and really doing something about it.
Over a decade Hussein ignored UN resolutions, corrupted the oil for food program, used WMDs to kill his own citizens, sponsored homicide bombers in Israel....and the political left is angry we ended his regime and instead rather than highllight the liberation of Afghanistan and Iraq,they babble on about how we are in a fabricated quagmire. Not a peep about how Iran adn Syria are putting "insurgents" in place to keep hotspots flaring up, not a mention that most fo the country is secured and we are training Iraqi police and military to protect and defend themselves....
no the political left has no use for the United States to succeed on any front, not if it means they won't return to the majority so they can uindo all of this.
Keith, you make a pretty strong case for the Republicans! Let's see how our Democrat brother and sisters respond. ;)
I also believe when the Democrats do not take control of Congress this year, they will wise up and change their negative direction. And if the Republican controlled Congress does not start behaving like Conservatives with regards to spending our money, then the now laughable Democrats mantra of a Balanced Budget (1994 Republican Contract with American ~ idea ~ thievery btw), people will actually start to believe its their own.
Stay the course, meaning let the President finish his last two years in office with a Republican controlled Congress, but to Republicans I also say… Stop spending money like a bunch of liberal idiots.
Republicans have the right ideas when it comes to National Security, Border issues, and Military preparedness. While I feel Democrats do not.
In short… Stay the Course…
--Charles Marcello
Soros is worth billions and he's as liberal as you can get... Most of his money is overseas where Americans poor can't reach it regardless of how many tax increases a Democrat controlled Congress will try and raise.
I am middle class, not rich, not poor. Me and my wife buy cheap junk all the time. Education, both my wife and I are educated. And I don't want my money going to the government so "poor" people can continue to feel sorry for themselves. I used to be poor, dirt poor! But I did not blame others for my situation like you are doing now.
Name me one poor person who has created one job, just one? It doesn't exists. When I owned my own business I had three employees. I sold my business. Made a profit and those employees went on to bigger and better things. Am I to feel guilty because I choose to work hard and earn money, while the poor, (in some not all cases) choose to blame the rich or whitey for all their problems. What you described is not a Republic, its call socialism, or communism, and is not welcome here in America by the majority of the people in this great country.
For me your entire post reminds me why everyone should vote Republican. The more the rich and the middle class can keep of our money, the more we will re-invest into our Country, which, whether you want to believe it or not, this still remains a fact, that will benefit the poor in our Country more then the Government ever will.
Welfare is not a badge of honor, just like being poor is not something to be ashamed of if you work hard every day to provide for your family. Being poor aint how much money you got, it's a frame of mind! Trust me, as one former poor person to another, it's all a frame of mind!
Vote Republican!
--Charles Marcello
And, the Lord is the only advisor you can take with you inside the voting booth. ;-)
P.S. Thanks for stopping by and posting.
You have any specific ideas on how they shift back to the center from the leftward swing, as you see it?
THe current administration did something right there with defeating Hussein's regime. But, it's easy to say that after he was elected and Hussein is captured.
A president and his/her administration of the most powerful country in the world ought to be able oust a terrorist regime like Hussein's. It should be a requirement of our leaders to successfully counter terrorism. Not something we celebrate as if were a victory in a spectator sport. The question is, how successful was this operation? For the Republican propaganda cause it was very successful. Because with all the cheap media's coverage of the war, the desperate hunt for terrorists, the bombs exploding in air at night, and the climax when Hussein is captured- sure it creates a Hollywood picture-perfect image of the Administration's success. But they are suffering now only because it wasn't a clean victory that ended before crucial elections. With as much support as the administration had for going to war, any other Democratic administration could have successfully done it too, but they would have clarified the cause for going to war and expanded all U.N. and military efforts as carefully and as long as they needed to even if it meant costing them some votes in the '06/'08 elections, instead of costing them helicopters and tanks full of American lives. Democrats weren't given the chance to prove themselves the last term and a half because of the election fraud. The popular vote went to Gore in 2000. But most important of all, the reason I think this war was a ploy for the Republicans is because war is a bad thing, a last resort, and it was abused for political gain. The world's on the Republican side because Bush is a hero- until the terrorism starts up again. We as the most powerful nation have an obligation to resolve these problems. But the more peacefully, the better. The fewer lives lost, because of it...the better.
First - get rid of Howard Dean as the DNC chairman.
Next - a "night of long knives" to purge the nutjobs.............since they can't be reasoned with, they'll have to be killed.
Then - public executions for the most treasonous offenders : Cameron Diaz, Johnny Depp, the Dixie Chicks, George Clooney, etc., etc., etc.
It would take days and days at the gallows or the guillotine, so the DNC should make it all pay-per-view at $39.95 per day or $100 "all you can watch".
For those that aren't so treasonous, but are still a menace - minesweeping duty in Iraq. They will be point-men and women out in front of the Abrams tanks as they patrol. Who would really miss Barbara Streisand if she stepped on an IED?
That would be phase 1....................
LMAO!
Damn that was funny! You're gonna burn in hell for that one... Hell, because I'm still laughing, I guess I'll see you in line...
--Charles Marcello
I am a registered Democrat but have a very hard time agreeing with them. I am also a Christian and in no way can I, nor will I, vote for anyone of any party who supports abortion, is against the one man/one woman principle or wants to limit God's role in our lives. My only hope is that others who believe as I do will not let their decision to vote be hindered by the conduct of a few bad apples
Scwarzenegger is pro-choice. If you can vote in California and you are a Registered Democrat, Schwarzenegger, a Republican might not be the guy for you.
I am not sure about Angelides. But I am voting Democrat because I feel the Economic policies help protect all of God's children, not just the ones who are more fortunate.
Let's start with a few assumptions (Axioms?), which I think most of us might be able to agree upon:
A1: Government Exists, maybe more than we'd like.
A2: Government is often Intrusive, and Destructive.
A3: Government is Expensive and not very efficient.
A4: Government is unresponsive (or at least, not as responsive as it could be.)
A5: Government is a Necessary Evil.
Like Euclid, I'll leave off at 5 axioms, and try to build my case with these. Are any of them questionable? If so, I'd like to hear the case.
Anyway, here are some Propositions that I'd like to interject for community analysis:
P1: Less is more. (by A1,A2,A3,A4,A5)
If there were a way to halve it, across the board, would that be a good thing, or a bad thing? Remember, that means half the Army, and also, Half the teachers! Half the Welfare, half the Police. Half the intelligence (BTW, What's half of Zero?) Half the Congress (just one Senator per state), but also Half the Electioneering! Half the Gerrymandering. Half the contributions, half the speeches, half as many Congressmen for the Abramoffs of the world to buy off and corrupt. Of course, this also means that the purchase price of Congress would be cut in half, too. And Half the Supreme Court (Ouch! That means 4 and a half Judges! I don't think we should cut anybody in half, really--not even Scalia! In fact, I sort of like him, on a certain level. He's witty, focused and imaginative, even when I disagree with him, which is more than half the time.) Half the laws, half the roads, half the bridges, half the pork, half the earmarks, half the Sexual shenanigans, Half the scandals, half the taxes… blah, blah, blah!
P2: Slower is Better.
Unresponsive, yes! (A4), but not ALL responsiveness is positive! Sometimes the response is to Intrude (wire taps), or Destroy (Baghdad, for example). Oftentimes the response is more committee hearings, more deliberation, more inaction, more bureaucracy (a la the Dept. of Homeland Security), more Debt, more taxes (hidden or explicit). What proportion of Government Responses are good ones? Are the good ones the ones that are the result of 2 AM-style votes? Are they the ones that "respond" to Jack Abramoff's desires? Are they the (often) un-read legislations composed of language provided by lobbyists, with all those obfuscating cross-references and language-change inclusions? No, I think the times when Government responds quickly, it responds poorly. Brashness is not what we want, here! Good law requires careful, complete, exhaustive reasoning. We WANT them to deliberate, even though this might add to the cost, and detract from the alacrity.
I'm running out of time, so I'll quickly (brashly?) conclude that I want there to be opposing powers (aka Checks and Balances) at play. Thus, although I'm not a Democrat, I intend to vote as one on Nov.7. I want to know more about what has happened so far, and I therefore welcome such investigations as the D's are (supposed to be) going to conduct and enforce. I WANT the Evil Democrats to balance out the Evil Republicans, Just as Iraq (under Saddam Hussein) USED to oppose and limit the actions of Iran. And I want my Government to be more transparent than it has been of late. I want less Gitmo, more Freedom, less bluster, more thoughtfulness, less taxes, less debt, more morals and less moralizing... Even at the expense of efficiency and effectiveness. Mostly, this is because I don't trust it as far as I could throw it!
Is my position Liberal? Libertarian? Small-Government, Fiscal Conservative Republican? Democratic? (After all, that's where I'll be voting.)
My own take is that it's ALL OF THE ABOVE. You choose, and label me however you see fit—as if I had anything to say about that!
That's a unique proposal. Not very practical, however. While I disagree with the celebribrats you've mentioned, I don't think execution is quite in order. I sure don't watch their movies or listen to their music anymore, but they have a right to say what's on their minds, as long as they are willing to pay the consequences in their bank accounts for it.
Now, what's phase II?
================================================
R.E., thanks for the comment, the economy and the federal budget deficit and federal debt is definitely something that all Americans should consider seriously before voting next Tuesday. But, lets get some terms straight before we go a whole lot further, because, with all due respect, you conflated some and that's going to making talking on the same page very difficult.
The federal budget deficit and the federal debt are NOT the same thing. In theory, a budget deficit does not necessaily equate to an increase in the federal debt. If there are sufficient reserves to cover the budget deficit, the government can spend more than it brings in without running up the debt. I know that in reality, we don't have those reserves, at least not to that magnitude, but the point is; the two (deficit/debt) should really be tallked about as seperate issues.
WE can get into speifics later if you like.
I'm not sure we can call the 2001 tax cuts "criminal", because I don't know what you mean by criminal. But, let's keep it simple for a second. The top 5-percent of income earners pay 35-percent of the taxes. The top 50-percent pay 80-percent of the taxes. Conversely, the bottom 25 percent of wage earners pay only 10 percent of the taxes and the bottom 15 percent pay no taxes at all -- actually receiving "refunds" for taxes they never paid in the first place (through the EIC). It's all very complicated, and, again, we can discuss that in more detail later if you like.
As to the budget performance during the 1990s, the Clinton Administration has planned on deficits äs far as the eye could see," even increasing after 2010. It was not until 1995, with the Republicans taking over the House of Representatives, then controlling Congress as whole, that serious measures were undertaken to cut the budget deficit. Remember the government shut-down in 1995 (or maybe 1996, I'm getting old and my memory fails me occassionally). That was due to (Republican Congress) refusing to yield to Clinton's spending demands and implemented spending control and the President closing up shop to make his point. In the end, however, he relented and starting with the 1996 (or 1997, same CRS syndrome) and the budget deficits not only shrank, but we ran surplus for 2000. Clinton gets credit because he was President and he signed the bill, but it wasn't his doing. I have a link to a site that lays this all out nicely, but I don't have it on this computer. I'll post it later when I have access to it.
I'll stop there. We can pick this up later.
================================================
Tiffany!
Nice to see you here, too!
You've raised some points that I'd like to address also, but the little woman tells me I have to run some errands. I'l be back later to to that, but I wanted to thank you now for participating.
One request from your humble moderator. You are all making good points in support whichever side you're advocating. However, perhaps a reminder of my loose ground rules is in order. PLEASE include positive alternatives or solutions to the problems you expose or highlight. To make this endeavor beneficial for all of us, I'll need you help to avoid turning this into just another "Gather bitch session"
Thank you and we now return you to the original programming.
I like your 'less is more' concept. I think if we could get the spending under control we wouldn't have to resort to such a measure............but that's easier said than done.
Some reasons for voting Democrat, or at least taking the power away from this administration:
#1 The value of the dollar has dropped by 40% verses other currencies since 2000
#2 Health care is up 800% for Americans
#3 The current administration invaded a sovereign country without provocation (I'll qualify this and myself a bit later in this post)
#4 You can not increase spending and cut income and run a successful company, let alone a successful country (which is why I was never a democrat before)
#5 This administration spied on it's citizens WITHOUT warrants BEFORE the patriot act and before 9/11
#6 If the Iraq war is so important to our country why did we send less than 200,000 troops. Shouldn't we have sent 500,000 troops?
#7 Our constitution makes us a Republic. not a democracy. We should stop saying we are spreading democracy when we in fact are not one.
#8 Our constitution separates powers between Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches. When the Republican party tries to circumvent the Judicial branch in the Military Commissions Act they are committing a unconstitutional fraud.
More about #7. I was a Marine Infantryman during the Gulf War. I was in the largest tank battle in Marine Corps history (up to that time), and I was on foot. I saw first hand what Saddam's regime was capable of. However, there were no WMD's. That was the moral high ground that we stood on to invade that country. It's like the police breaking into someone's house without a warrant because they think there might be illegal fully automatic rifles in the house. They break in, arrest everyone, find NO illegal rifles and throw them in jail with no evidence. Now I'm not trying to argue that Saddam should be in charge of his country, or that he's a good guy. I'm not. He's a monster. The simple fact is that what we have done is ILLEGAL. It's not a matter of if we like it or not. It's still illegal. Maybe it shouldn't be, but it is.
That is why I am voting Democrat, and encouraging everyone I know to vote Democrat. That is why I am no longer a Republican.
You are certainly prolific, ma'am. You've raised quite a few issues I'd like to address. In order to avoid that War and Peace thing I caustioned about, I'll split this up into several posts, lest someone chokes a one long one, and I'm forced to bone up on the Heinlich manuever.
Tiffany you said, "The mentality behind this economic system favored by Republicans is scary."
I guess I'd first have to ask; How so?
The unemployment rate is at historic low, inflation remains in check, interest rates (while rising slightly over the past few months) are still very low when compared to the last 30 years. Homeownership, as mention above is way up ... historic highs, as a matter of fact; we're in the 23 (or 24th, that CRS thing again) consecutive month of economic growth. All this despite the tias and travails we all know about.
What would have/could have the Democrats have done differently to improve on that performance? What plan have they proposed that would convince anyone they could do better? The last time the Executive and Legislative branches were both controlled by Democrats we has inflation rates pushing 20%, unemplyment getting no lower than 7%, and little hope of things getting better. Anyone else remember that feeling of "malaise"?
Tiffany, if I've missed that Democratic plan, please tell me where I can find it. If your confidence in the Democrats doing a better job is based on something else, I'd be very interested in knowing what that is. I'm always up for another ray of sunshine in my day.
Nice to have you join us. And, thank you for your service to our country.
My unit, the 2nd Armored Calvary Regiment, was in on the "Hail Mary" movement out west, in southern Iraq. Also, my stepson just ETS's from the Marines, an Iraq and Afghanistan veteran.
I'm not going to discuss economic figures point by point. One, those don't resemble anything I've seen in my research and I'm not sure where you got them. If you'd like to provide me with the source so I can see how they arrived at them, then maybe we can talk.
As to the "invading Iraq with no provocation", well, I WILL take issue with that. When the first Bush administration stopped us in the field when we were 90 miles from Bagdad to enter into a cease fire agreement with Saddaam, we set down firm and non-negotiable terms that he has to follow. Without going into all the violations of the agreement (and I'm prepared to, if you'd like), the fact is he DID violate that agreement numerous time. That, my comrade-in-arms, is the provocation. I've said ever since this all came up back in 2002/2003 that the current operations is NOT a new conflict in Iraq -- it's a continuation of the Gulf War 12 years (from when we went back in) later.
I'll stop there (abiding by the War and Peace rule) for now.
In any case, Semper Fi, Che.
Due to the reason I layed out above, I HAVE to stick with the Republicans next Tuesday, because the Democrats have already said they'll pull out before the job is done -- and America can't be seen doing that AGAIN!
I hope your plan works out the way you hope. I think sometimes it's like the old saying, "Better the devil you know, than the devil you don't." But, I won't quibble with your strategy.
For me, it's foreign policy. Republican's have a long term vision, and you have to respect the fact that the Bush administration has made some very tough decisions and have not folded under pressure.
First, Tiffany you didn't say why you think the Dems will do anything differently to make things better than the current policy in Iraq and specifically what that might be.
But, in light of your comment, let's look at where we are and how we got here.
Bush went the UN route and got a Security Council resolution giving Saddam 30 days to comply with its demand to cooperate with the weapons inspectors or face "dire consequences", or words to that effect. Saddam didn't and we know the rest. Also, there WAS and IS an international contingent in Iraq today, although I acknowldege the US dominates the coalition.
It's my belief that if Gore had won the 2000 election -- and he didn't; the popular vote doesn't decide Presidential election, electoral votes do, and he came up short.
But, I digress.
If Gore had won, I firmly believe he would've been too busy finding the key to the "lock box" so he sould fund the fight of the non-existent global warming problem to think about actually doing something about what really threatens us -- TODAY -- global terrorism. Remember, he was the second-in-command of the administration that let bin Laden get away, to attack us later, in the first place.
You say your voting Dem. But why? Do you really want to "redeploy'' to Guam or Okinawa? That was called retreat when I was in the service, and I just don't think that's in the best interest of the country, nor what most Americans want, despite the set-backs we've experienced.
The wife said to tell you to knock it off .... she has to live with me! lol
I haven't been ignoring you, I promise. This moderating thing cuts into my thinking/writing time ;)
First, the only one of your axioms I'd quarrel with is #5. Government IS, for all it's faults, necessary. Without it, it's anarchy, and I think we can all agree that isn't acceptable. Other than that, I'm down with the axioms.
Now for Prop. 1:
This proposition proceeds logically from a false [remise -- the halving has to be done across the board, affecting all segments of the government equally. It COULD be done by doing away with whole agencies or departments. Some in existence today are contrary to the founders intent, anyway,; so I wouldn't miss them and I doubt many others would either. Which ones could we axe?
Namely:
- The Department of Education, another one of Carter's lame-brained ideas. This is supposed to be a local function to begin with, and the inefficient albatross is nothing more than a dumping ground for excess NEA members.
- The Department of Commerce could go. Let business take care of business. They'd rather keep there tax dollars than get the DOC "help".
To be honest, let's do away with everything that wasn't established at the founding. That leaves us the Defense Department (have to make allowance for the Marines and the Air Force, so let's consider them, for the sake of this discussion, "army"), the State Department and the Treasury Department.
There! That should save a LOT of tax money, and we still hagve two branches to go.
Now, between the two dominant parties, which is more likely to buy into this solution? I think the answer should be instructive as to which we need in office.
I'll deal with P2 next time.
Very impressive, as always. Kudos to you.
I do see our government as necessary, but they are so inefficient at everything they do. One of the big expeditures in government is health care. I pay quite of bit of money each paycheck toward Medicare/Medicaid. On top of that, I just got a new health policy at work and my annual costs are going up 400%. So, I'm spending way more than I will likely use.
How about the government GET out of the health business altogether. Let me keep that Medicare tax I pay. I will use it to pay for my own health care. For those who do not have health care, let them negotiate a price they can pay with the care giver. Then, at the end of the year, all these caregivers can get a kickback from the government. Let's say a doctor does one million in revenues and that there are 40 percent without healthcare coverage. And with a little more statistical magic, they figure that half did not go to the doctor. So, multiply one million by twenty percent, (200,000) and that is the kickback that doctor is entitled to.
How does that help? The savings are in the fact that the government is OUT of the indivdual health care management business. Anywho... just two cents.
I can assume Mr. Hall won;t be counted in the Democrat tally after that comment! ;)
You're right, the government should not be in the health care business. In fact, how did it ever invite itself in?
Liberals would call this caring for those with less (and their brain stops working and by default anyone who is not with that program is evil, uncaring, but I digress). In fact you can care for those with less far more efficiently. We need to do this better, otherwise a good 30% to 50% of everything we earn in our life is going to go toward healthcare. You will no longer leave your estate to your kids - rather, it will be divided up by the various government agencies and the last health care facility to care for you. So the 30 years you worked to pay for your house... gone. All those years of saving and making sacrfice... gone. This is already true today, and it is getting progressively worse.
Should they? Could they?
First, Dems tend toward the full government run system. So just say no to that. That said, we should vote Republican to keep the monster at bay until 2008 when we get a new president.
As it happens, Newt Gingrich has some fascinating ideas on health care management technology - and he could very well be a front runner in 2008 if he decides to throw his hat in the ring. So that's where I pin my hopes on the health issue. Hold the dems at bay in 2006, then bring in some fresh Republican faces in 2008. The problem can be solved.
I'm not advocating for the benefits of running a budget deficit. However, it is not uncommon for this country to run a deficit during the times when this country is at war. However, with sufficient economic growth and proper fiscal management, that can be mangaed in the short-term to have very little, if any negative effect in the long-run.
Even if this wasn't the case, the tax cuts are working. (As an aside, R.E. I'm getting more money in my paychecks, and I can assure you I'm nowhere NEAR the top 2% in income.) The federal government's tax receipts are at record highs, cutting the budget deficit forecasts almost in half. Do believe me, read the NY Times, not known for watching the back of Republican administrations (see link).
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/09/washington/09econ.html?ei=5088&en=ec2d242da8699725&ex=1310097600&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
"On Friday, the Congressional Budget Office reported that corporate tax receipts for the nine months ending in June hit $250 billion — nearly 26 percent higher than the same time last year — and that overall revenues were $206 billion higher than at this point in 2005.
Congressional analysts say the surprise windfall could shrink the deficit this year to $300 billion, from $318 billion in 2005 and an all-time high of $412 billion in 2004. "
Not to be argumentative, but poverty is NOT growing, according to the Census Bureau. For 2005, the last year for which statistic are available, the poverty rate stablized after four years of increases. (see link provided)
http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/poverty05/pov05hi.html
It says:
"The official poverty rate in 2005 was 12.6 percent, not statistically different from 2004.
In 2005, 37.0 million people were in poverty, not statistically different from 2004.
Poverty rates remained statistically unchanged for Blacks (24.9 percent) and Hispanics (21.8 percent) between 2004 and 2005. The poverty rate decreased for non-Hispanic Whites (8.3 percent in 2005, down from 8.7 percent in 2004).
After 4 years of consecutive increases, the poverty rate stabilized at 12.6 percent in 2005—higher than the most recent low of 11.3 percent in 2000 and lower than the rate in 1959 (22.4 percent), the first year for which poverty estimates are available. "
So, all things considered, R.E., I think we should really stay on course with the Republican plan. It sure seems to me it's working just fine.
The Moderator is calling it a night. Be nice to one another in my absence, and the last one out, turn off the lights.
Liberals make the point that incomes of middle class and lower have remained flat - but those measurements are against things like rising energy costs, health and education costs. I beleive that business is playing catchup and in short time salaries will increase accordingly. Simply, when you have such low unemployment the workers have more leverage in negiating their salary - there is more competition for good workers.
It's also worth noting that having a flat or near flat salary is far better than being unemployed. Keep the momentum - vote Republican.
That said I am a conservative Evangelical Christian. That alone will keep me from supporting the democrats. They do not represent my moral values - they are pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, pro-removing God from everything that seems important to me.
Are people still losing jobs? Yes but we lost jobs during the Clinton Administration. My husband lost his job and we had to move to a new state, but in moving we increased our family income by 40%. I can't believe that he was the only one to accomplish this. This is the best economy since the Reagan administration. I am not rich by any means but I have no problem with the tax cuts for the rich. They are the ones who create jobs and investments in our country and with less money in their pockets, the number of jobs will go down. The amount of investment will go down.
The tax revenues are fueling a rapid decrease in the deficit despited the fact that we are in a war, that we have had smoe major national disasters and we are recovering from the biggest attack on our country ever.
I believe that the democrats will damage our economy irreperably damage the economic futures of millions of Americans.
Thanks! I guess that money I used from the Army to get a Poli Sci/Econ degree paid off finally. Now, if we can jst figure out how to translate that into a bigger paycheck! :)
=====================================
Nanci;
That's for stopping in and contributing! Salient and concise. You sure we're not fraternal twins? Keep stopping in, we can also use the Evangelical perspective.
Also, you have provided us all with a sterling example of how to observe the "War and Peace Rule" (One the Moderator violates frequently, because I just can't help myself.) Great Job!
======================================
Tiffany;
I'm glad you find this as enjoyable as I do. We'll be eagerly awaiting your return and contributions.
Also, I guess my paltry attempt at wit was wide of the mark. OF COURSE there are many (infinitely many) ways to divide by 2! I hope the larger point is obvious, though, in spite of my inability to convey the idea. Just in case, I'll retry it here:
Both R's and D's (as well as I's, G's [Greens], and even L's [Libertarians], et al.) have all kinds of things they'd like to spend our money on. It is illusory to suppose that this tendency is anything but a property of the one party we all (well, ALMOST all) belong to: the Human Party! The question is, to what degree—and to what end? Bush has said he'd like to fund a manned Mars landing. All those in favor, raise your hand! The Great Wall of Mexico? Any takers? I'll bet there are a lot on this thread! And all these bullets sure add up, don't they? I just heard yesterday that the Army wants another 80 bil [sic] for "reset costs", that is, to get us back to even! And the USAF is looking for 60+. Rumsfeld?—You Go, Girl!
Many here seem to presuppose that the R's are the party of merit, when it comes to Fiscal Conservatism. Is there an easy way to put this contention to the test? Does a fair reading of history support or deny this contention? It's an experimental question, I think, so I'm going to go see what I find out, and I'll get back to you all on the next post…
At the risk of getting fixated on one issue, at the expense of the others. The purpose of taxing the citizenry is to gain revenue for the treasury to pay the bills for the things the federal governemt must do; i.e. military, courts, foreign policy, etc. If raising taxes decreases revenue, which is historically the case, proven over and over again, that's the LAST thing you'd want to do.
The Republicans want to make permanent the 2001 tax cuts (that benefitted everyone R.E.; I saw an increase in take-home pay with a combined income of $75,000 -- not exactly putting me in the clubhouse with the fatcat 2%, now does it?). Those tax cuts have led to RECORD tax receipts for the federal government. I'm pretty sure I provided you the NY Times report. I'd like to see that report on 2006 poverty rate, I couldn't find anything yesterday newer than 2005, but if you have a link, I'd be happy to check it out.
Let me summarize:
Republicans - Make tax cuts permanent, locking in record tax receipts decreasing deficit.
Democrats - Repeal tax cuts, decreasing tax receipts increasing deficit.
It's a very simple formula, R.E. that's been proven time and again.
Just to make sure we understand why you're going to support the Democrats on Tuesday (you are supporting them on Tuesday, right?); you support them raising taxes. Correct?
and To Whom It May Concern
I'm having some difficulty understanding (or following) who said what to whom because of the inconsistant methods people are using for the demarkation of quotes. Can I suggest, in the interest of clarity, that we standardize this a bit?
Here's my suggestion:
David Beall says (to R.E. Heubel):
"...The purpose of taxing the citizenry is to gain revenue for the treasury to pay the bills for the things the federal governemt must do; i.e. military, courts, foreign policy, etc. ..."
The Attribution gives us an opportunity to easily find and re-read the source. The ... (elipsis) inside the quote marks indicate that there is more context to be read--in this example, both before and after. The quote marks themselves are (I hope) very clear.
Thanks for listening.
Excellent suggestion! Participants, please place this rule under the "War and Peace" Rule. Gome one folks that's only TWO rules, I'm really very easy-going - for a conservative, anyway. ;)
Thanks Randall
First off, thanks for your service as well! Glad to be talking to a brother! I've enjoyed everyones comments a great deal. Having been such a staunch Republican for so many years, I can totally understand where you guys are coming from.
As far as economic issues, I get my dollar value information from myself. I invest in currency. Primarily I invest Dollar vs. Euro, but have been known to go Dollar vs Yen. Simply put, in 2000 1 EURO bought you .8 USD. In other words.. it took about 80 cents to buy a EURO. As of my writing this message RIGHT NOW it takes $1.28 to buy a EURO. That is a HUGE difference. Almost a 50 cent difference. What it means is that what you used to buy for 80 cents (any good that is purchased either from United States or overseas) you now have to pay 1.28 for.
Consider this:
You make $100,000 a year in 2000. Your spending power is $100,000 (of course devalued through inflation anyway, but for this excersize that isn't important)
You make $150,000 a year in 2006 (because you are such a stand up guy). Your spending power is: $93,750
The point is this, if you got a 50% raise in the past 6 years, you have LESS spending power now than you did in 2000. I don't call that a good economy. I call that an economy that is failing and quickly.
This begs the question of "Why does the economy look so good then?" The answer is simply that when the dollar is cheaper, american goods and services are cheaper and we get more business. Seems good right? Maybe, but that's a debate for a different day (I don't think it is a good thing).
As far as health care costs go, I'll see what I can do to get relevant data for you on this and post it later (Data that is outside the realm of currency value).
I realize that many people use the argument that Iraq had broken the agreements it had in with the UN many many times. If that's the case it is the job of the UN to enforce its decrees otherwise they put themselves in danger of being pointless (which I think they have done). The problem shows up when the UN votes against action, but we take it upon ourselves to police the UN's decrees weather they want them enforced or not. The point is this. The agreements were NOT between the United States and Iraq. The agreements were between the UN and Iraq. Therefore we (the United States) have no legal standing to invade Iraq. Like it or not, we are in the wrong invading Iraq from a LEGAL perspective. Weather we should or not from a moral perspective we won't know until long after this war is over. What we should have done is handled Afganistan, and turned it into a paradise of the Islamic world. Instead of spending all of that money on Iraq, we should have built up Afganistan as a farming country with lots and lots of schools. We should have made it a model for what is possible in the arab world, and have the positives of the western world entice people to our point of view. I am a strong believer in bringing our muslim brothers into the fold of economic success as a way of getting them to put down there guns. In other words, stop fighting and start building.
Finally, a point that I didn't make earlier but would like to make now about why I won't vote republican. Waging war is not a christian act. Luke 6:29 says "If someone strikes you on one cheek, turn to him the other also. If someone takes your cloak, do not stop him from taking your tunic." Maybe a Christian might argue that the Isrealis of the ancient world waged war in self-defense all the time. Well, that would put you at odds with what Paul has to say about being right with God. So if Christians want to preach pro-life, they ought to be consistant accross the board. The death toll is something like 600,000 Iraqis are now dead. Which is more than Saddam killed of his own people. That's not the republicans being pro-life. I will start voting pro-life when republicans start voting pro-peace.
Thanks again David!
This suggestion comes from Brian P. Janiskee, San Diego Union-Tribune. (I know nothing about his or this paper's political leanings.)
"As a proxy measure of fiscal conservatism, one could employ the National Tax Payers Union system, which grades office holders on fiscal policy, granting school-style grades that range from A to F. Senators who receive As and Bs are taxpayers' friends while those receiving Cs, Ds, and Fs are big spenders."
So, I went to their sight, ntu.org, and read up a little.
By this measure, the Republicans win, by a wide margin (like 3 to 1 or so, depending upon which Congress we're talking about, and other things). There are some caveats here, though. It's based upon the "indications" that the members displayed, as opposed to the actual results—i.e. rhetoric as opposed to reality! Hmmm... Also, it's unclear from their description of their methodology whether they make any effort assess the relevant bills ex post facto, or not. So, I'd have to say, this organization needs to tighten up its working strategy, if they want to add actual useful information, as opposed to just more layers of terse, over-simplified rhetoric, and fuel for snap judgments.
Another apparent problem with the NTU's thinking is as follows. I'll give a more down-to-earth example, in the hopes of clarity:
Let's say I'm trying to cut my household budget… So, I see that my electrical wiring is getting old & rickety. Would it be a good idea to cut my spending on household improvements, and forgo spending the $2,500 or so that would be required to fix this? Well, maybe. But, what if I feel an old junction box in the cellar, and it's getting a tad warm? What if I find out that my neighbor's house (same vintage) burned to the ground, due to old wiring? Would the NTU's method give me an A rating for my obvious budgetary restraint? This seems to be what they are indicating. If so, it's a pretty stupid way to make such assessments, since my house, six months later, burns to the ground! (Replacement cost: $850,000!) But, hey! Look on the bright side! I got an A from the NTU! Thank the Heavens for small favors…
I'd like to get the Readers to think in these terms about such issues as Global Warming. Should Fiscal Conservatism trump the End of the World, As We Know It? What good is that A rating, if the Capital is under water? And even if you discount such doomsday scenarios, they're giving a B rating to Ted Stevens! (R-Alaska) What's the message here? That if you vote down everything but your own earmarks, then you're fighting the Good Fight? No, no! Fiscal Conservatism, like Charity, MUST begin at home! Otherwise, it's just another term for greed—more for me, and mine!
Let's look farther… Shall we?
PS. David, you let pass, without comment, the very first response! (From Janet B.) But her post is really not so much a reason as it is a Bumper Sticker (and an out of date one, to boot!) It's a position, but not in any way explicative. Are you letting it slide, because you concur with its thinking? (or lack thereof?) I trust that this is merely an oversight, on your part, due to lack of time. Anyway, I thought the point of this thread was to give REASONS. Is this incorrect?
All that aside, I too, want to second (or third) the motion for thanks about running this site.
Thanks for the detailed comments (although you both were very close to the "War and Peace" violation! ;) ).
I'll address each of your points in subsequent posts. I'm at work and that whole "duty calls" thing takes precedence at the moment. Remind me later if I fail to follow through. Also, Randell, I probably did let something slip through. I'll check it and let you know what I have to say about it, if anything.
I did let one slip through. I thanked her via email. Thanks for watching my back!
;)
I think you're looking for Utopia.
- Poverty has come to a halt at 12.6 percent of the population - the lowest of all the major industrial powers.
- Wages have been flat for almost 10 years........long before Mr. Bush was President.
- David is correct when he says that most wars push us into deficit. There was rationing during WWII, but there was also a deficit.
- Overall, the economy is in the best shape since Reagan was President. Almost every indicator is positive. No wonder our party doesn't want to talk about the Economy any more.............it would be too depressing to have to give all that credit to someone our Left Wing has been calling every horrible name in the book.
Che;
I'd be more than happy to engage you in an economic analysis about the condition of the macro economy, but for the purpose of THIS article that would get us off track a bit, so permit me to steer ever-so-gently back on point.
For the sake of this argument, I'll stipulate to your figures (with the understanding the actual figures are far different). What do you see the Democrats doing differently than the Bush Administration and the Republican Congressional leadership are doing, given Bret's correct overall synopsis above, to positively affect that situation?
==========================================
Randell,
Let's not look at obscure ratings from on interest group or another. They may be valid, they may not; this question the everyday Joe and Jane are going to have to answer for themselves next Tuesday is, "Which candidate from which party will ensure my financial and physical security." What soes the NTU have to say about that, bottom line?
I want to take issue with this one thought. I'll try to be terser than has been my custom, as per your Tolstoy hint.
David Beall Says:
"… I believe that strength, in the face of such horrendous burdens, is primarily due to the tax cuts implemented by the Republican-dominated Congress and Republican President in 2001.
…"
Would your view of this economic expansion period be altered, if it were to be demonstrated that this war were "Optional", as has been suggested by some? That is, if the 350 Billion (and counting) was a vendetta brought on by some perceived personal affront, like maybe Hussein's vow to kill George Bush, Sr.? In other words, if it IS a war of choice, than isn't it only fair to put it "off budget", so to speak—or is it "on budget"? What I mean is, could it be considered discretionary spending, or even perhaps Pork for Haliburton, et al.? If so, then what would that imply to you? If these "horrendous burdens" are (even partly) self-imposed… well, what then?
Is this short enough? Or am I still in the Russian camp?
PS. I just saw your question about my NTU post. I'll absorb and respond as soon as I am able.
Damn it, I spit soda all over my keyboard.
I have been quietly reading this thread for the awhile and haven't responded because the answers given by fellow conservatives have been right on the money. However, R.E. Heubel, that statement of yours was so damn funny I have a mess to clean up after I finish this response.
Supply side economics does work that's a fact, Kennedy, Reagan and now Bush(2) has proved it. Historically its not even an issue, it works. BTW, Clinton didn't do a damn thing but fold under Republican pressure, then attempted to take all the credit for the Contract With America. (Republicans stop breaking that contract btw.)
And "prudent tax increases", that began another recession because it was the largest tax increase since World War 2 and almost made our economy as bad as Europe's looks today... Prudent, HA! That was ended because President Bush called for and got badly needed tax cuts that continues to this day, and so does our job growth. More historical proof!
And yes, voting democrat is a no brainer/slam duck, if you want to create a recession and allow terrorists to win. IF not, then slam those no brainer Duckocrats and vote Republican. (couldn't resists, it truly was a nice setup!)
--Charles Marcello
"…
Let's not look at obscure ratings from on interest group or another.
…"
Let me explain what I did, and you tell me where I screwed up. I went to Ask.com, and typed in "What is a measure of Fiscal Conservatism?"
The first result was an article in the New York Sun, which I skipped over, because the very next (second place) result had the phrase highlighted, "measure of fiscal conservatism". So, that's what I chose! I'm surprised that you didn't LIKE their position, David, since they very much agree with you! But, regardless, I don't see how they can be considered "obscure", being that they came in a strong second on Ask.com! What would you suggest for a non-obscure measure? I'm all ears!
As you might imagine, I have more to say, but I'm listening! So I'll shut up now.
Just trying to get everyone's position clearly stated so everyone knows where everyone else stands.
Now, would you be so kind as to tell us what Democrat plan you are relying on as the basis for your conclusion that they will do a better job? The purpose of this thread is to give everyone an education as to what they will be voting for, and that requires specific options from each side so we can all make an INFORMED decision.
You disagree with the Republicans policies and action to this point, and I respect that. Why should we vote the Democrats back into power -- other than the Republicans suck?
Frankly, no. My view of the economic expansion would not be altered even if I believed the War on Terrorism in general and the Iraqi fron in particular was shown to be "optional".
Let me be clear. I don't see the Iraqi front as being optional. That being said, the economic expansion is undeniable, it's happening and has been for two years.
You don't see that as being enough, given the expenses of conducting the war. I get that, and I respect that is your position. So, my question returns to, having the opinion you do, what has convinced you, specifically, that supporting the Deomcrats next Tuesday will improve the situation as you see it?
(P.S. - Yes, you're response was perfectly with the "War and Peace" rule. ;) )
I'm not taking a position one way or the other on the NTU ratings, buddy. I see nothing inherently wrong with them; but, I also have never heard of this group before, I have no idea what their agenda or mission statement is, how the advocate achieving their pbjectives, etc. That's all I meant when I said obscure. Perhaps I should have been more precise and said "Obscure to me."
Now, I'm still waiting for the reasons to vote for someone other than the Republicans on Tuesday.
Thanks for spelling it out for us, buddy! Great job!
Maybe this is the way it ALWAYS is on Gather. Maybe that's the nature of open forums like this. Maybe I'm in the wrong place. Anyway, I think I'd like to bow out of the 'conversation' gracefully, and find a thread that is more cohesive, focused, and carefully typed! I don't mean to be insulting to anyone, and least of all David, who I think is making a valiant effort to reign it all in. But, I fear it's just too much!
Again, my apologies to any who might feel slighted, but I'm calling quits. If anyone has anything specific to discuss on this topic, I'll be glad to carry on via e-mail, or in a narrower thread, but my brain hurts from all the jiggling.
Bye…
David, you left out the crucial data I was hoping (digging) for. Namely, What IS the non-obscure measure of Fiscal Conservatism I should be looking at to inform my position?
David:
And since you're still waiting for reasons, let me give a top-ten list of "bumper sticker"-style ones, in the pursuit of brevity:
1. Moral: Who would Jesus Bomb?
2. Fiscal: Who's paying for this war?
3. Practical: Are things really being accomplished as well as they might be?
4. Fearful: Osama's still out there!
5. Really Fearful: Kyoto protocols?
6. Constitutional: Unwarranted Warrantless Wire taps
7. Judicial: Samuel Alito
8. Disgusting: Foley
9. Scandalous: Jack Abramoff
10. Conservative: Checks & Balances
Anyone who wants me to expand or expound on particular ones of these--well, you know where to find me. And you know I'm good for it!
Bye, again.
So please, let's follow the ground rules. If your voting for the Dems, please say why. If your voting for the Reps, again, please say why. One issue at a time.
Thanks.
Sorry I took so long getting here, just got home from work and.......well nevermind lol...So what have we here?
Ok, I make this as short and concise as possible. Unless something changes drastically before election day. I will vote mostly republican.
The simple and least confusing way to explain is "The lesser of two evils". This is just a pit-stop I'll be back shortly to elaborate. Just wanted to hollar at you and let you know I ready to jump in the mud with you. See ya soon.
R.E. Yes, these specific republicans suck, and yes it bothers the shit out of me personally, and I'm quite sure out of a lot of Republicans.
Bush, is the mouthpeice of the true incompetent war-mongers, Rumsfeld and Cheney. The only thing you can blame Bush for is being to much of a pussy to create his own policies and then implement them.
The Iraq debacle at this point is a complete failure but not because of Bush more like inspite of Bush. Cheney and Rumsfeld are choreographing this disaster from behind the curtain and we all know it.
My and hopefully our agenda, as Republicans or Indepedents should be to replace the shitty ones with better ones. It just so happens that most of the Republicans don't feel that the Democrats have much of a pool to choose from.
If Congress passes it, by Constitutional decree, it's a law and Constitutional. It wasn't until the Supreme Court gave themselves the power to take power away from every other branch of office, including the vote of the people. Everyone, except their own power which they continue to increase. That's a real problem if you ask me. Not Congress passing a law... If we don't like it, people can always demand change... OOPS, 2006 anyone?
***2) There will be proper Congressional oversight of the executive branch - of both domestic government activities (i.e. the Katrina rescue, evacuation and clean-up; homeland security) or foreign (the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq).***
That doesn't make a lick of sense. Will it only be proper because your side is hand tying the President for no other reason then to score points with the far left? Come now, this is a non-issue as well. If Congress don't want it, all they have to do is vote it down, and if the President had actually done something wrong,(instead of the trumpt up charges you liberal kooks keep screaming about), Congress would investigate, regardless of which side is in power. What we don't need any wasteful progessive witch-hunts thank you very much!
***3) Rumsfeld should be fired or resign - one or both Houses could request this or force this***
WRONG! Rumsfeld is doing a fantastic job, I just wish they didn't hide him nowadays so he could come back out and tell you liberals when to sit down and shut up like he used too. I love that guy!
***4) American troops will begin to be withdrawn from Iraq and redeployed or returned home***
IF that happens terrorists when come here, and if they do, after we cut and run, I will make sure every American knows who to blame... Crazy liberals and their cut and run ideas, bring out stupid troops home, as Jon Carry would say. A darker side of me wants you people to do something like that, just so we can keep you crazies out of Congress for the next fifty, instead of just 12 years. But then again, I don't wish any physical harm on any American, regardless of how politically inept they are.
***5) The long term problems of Medicare, prescription drugs and Social Security will be addressed***
Yeah like all the problems have gone away for Canada and Europe. Well all except that little problem they still have left... HOW TO PAY FOR IT! Democrats had control of Congress for years before Republicans got control, yet this time you're actually gonna do something? Pa-LEASE!
It was a Republican controlled Congress that passed Prescription Drug coverage while Democrats voted against it. How they gonna fix it now, repeal it? Nice idea!
***6) The inane, reckless, irresponsible budget policies of the Republican Congress will be abandoned; the budget should be brought into balance and the huge national debt should be paid down.***
America is to do what exactly? Trade that for the reckless, irresponsible budget policies of the Democrats, let alone cut and run, and take away Senior drug benefits? I will stick with the Devils I know thank you very much!
Yes R.E. you have given six good reason why Republicans should stay in office... I say… GOOD FOR YOU!
--Charles Marcello
***Ever heard of that $200,000,000 bridge to nowhere in Alaska that the Republican Congress approved along with a bunch of other pork barrel spending???***
Yes I have, do you know why that bridge is being built? The bridge to nowhere, is another liberal, scream it even if it anit true, hyperbolic outburst.
Find out if the people in Alaska believe it's a bridge to nowhere. Just because we can't understand the importance of it down here, doesn't mean its not important. Have you even looked into why that bridge is being built in the first place? I could tell ya, but why bother.
Can I call you Bubbles?
Regarding, ***How about a one year tour of duty in either Iraq or Afghanistan and a $5,000 annual increase in your federal taxes to pay for these two wars???***
Or how about this Bubbles, we run away from Iraq like a bunch of cowards and when the terrorists start blowing stuff up here in America (((again))) because we are not fighting them elsewhere. You liberals can come on TV and tell everyone how sorry you are, and how if the President wouldn't have listened to YOU none of this would of happened… Just like before this War… Liberals were all for it, even proclaimed Saddam had weapons of mass destruction and that he would use them. But that matters not to you liberals, oh no, this is an illegal war and once again it's all Bush's fault… Liberals never take responsibility for anything they say or do and I find that sad H.E. Bubbles!
I'm be voting Republican... At least they know who our enemies are and where to fight them!
--Charles Marcello
(I really wish there was an edit button, don't you? Can we agree on that LOL)
"I have seen the Enemy, and he is US!" --Pogo
Clearly, the divisiveness in this room is almost palpable. More than almost. Don't you feel it, Dave? Is Bush/Cheney going for TWO civil wars, one over there, and one here?
"I'm afraid. I'm afraid, Dave. Dave, my mind is going… I can feel it. I can feel it. My mind is going. There is no question about it. I can feel it. I can feel it… I can feel it… ...I'm a... fraid. Good afternoon, gentlemen."—HAL9000, via Arthur C. Clarke & Stanley Kubrick
I see we've had quite a lively discussion during my short absence. R.E. thanks for laying out your specific reasoning for supporting a return of Democratic control of Congress. Randall! Nice to see another post from you. Remember, one issue at a time -- digestable chunks ;) .
========================================
R.E. said;
***3) Rumsfeld should be fired or resign - one or both Houses could request this or force this***
R.E.
How will a Democrat House (or, in the unlikely event that the get both chambers, Congress) "force Rumsfeld to resign? Bush has made it emminently clear he has NO intention of jetisoning Rummy. And, isn't this a violation of the same "seperation of powers" agrument the Dems always make when the President goes against Congressional concensus and does things his own way? The phrase "Good for the goose, good for the gander..." come to mind.
=======================================
Todd,
Nice to see you joining us!
You said:
"The Iraq debacle at this point is a complete failure but not because of Bush more like inspite of Bush. Cheney and Rumsfeld are choreographing this disaster from behind the curtain and we all know it."
For the sake of argument, let's say I accept this unchallenged. What plan have you heard from the Democrats that convinces you they can overrule Rumsfeld/Cheney, and the Generals on the ground, to turn it around. To this point, the only "plans" I've heard from Dem's side it; 1) redeploy to Okinawa (Murtha) and 2) partition the Iraq (Biden) to quell the sectarian violence. Neither of these plans have been spelled out with much specificity, so I can't ask any intellegent questions as to their efficacy.
Lest you think I've forgotten you, I haven't. You example and points were detailed and well thoughtout, so it's taken me some time (with work AND this whole moderating thing -- thanks agaiin, Liz! grrrrrr ;) ).
I was fortunate enough to be able to use my Veteran's Educational benefit after I got out to get a degree in Economics (and Political Science - I'm a glutton for punishment). Your example make perfect theoretical sense, and your hypothetical numbers fit your conclusion. However, the real life numbers are different. Real incomes are now increasing faster than prices are going up (inflation), and the average wage earner's purchasing power is increasing in real terms. Admittedly, this took some time to come about, but you know, as I do, that wages are lagging indicators in a recovery, i.e. they are the LAST things to rise in the economic cycle. I have only a scant knowledge of the international money market, so I have no quibble with your statements. However, I have heard nothing from the Democrats on way or the other about the monetary market. They only thing I HAVE heard from the Dems on international trade is a desire to return to/strengthen failed protectionist trade policies at the behest of their labor boss supporters.
I was baffled at the Blacks and the racial insults hurled at Steele, a Black Republican candidate. Then the outrage at Cosby and Juan Williams (terribly apologetic for the Dems) because they advocated that Blacks stop playing victim and get in the game. It seems some turf is staked out and will be fought for (Give us more- the Dems are beholding to a voting bloc).
Dems opposed pictue ID's to vote, even when they will come to the home and process everything and paid for by the state and feds. Disenfranchment and a poll tax screamed Dems. They see the influx of illegals of a voting bloc. Convicted Felons reestablished voting rights. ALL voting blocs.
Seems they have sold their soul, if any left with the moral stands they have already made. They seem locked in the 2000 election and are like childeren that refuse to play since they did not get their way. It is easier to hate, whine and complain, and point to any flaw and fault, then backstep and wash their collective hands of any responsibility.
I see Bush and I see something totally lacking in any Democrat anywhere.
A CONVICTION and FAITH. A belief in something he is doing is Right. Right, wrong or indifferent, he feels no compulsion to back down because of a poll. (Clinton's agenda was totally poll driven and still is Hillery).
Is there any room for dicsussion on the topic of personal accoutability. Specifically this generation being the first to have a decrease in personal savings and the highest personal debt rates?
So, we are being ate up by the law of compound interest used against us instead of for us.
We will see the Medicare, Medicaid, SS hit with the influx of 40 million new draweees in the next decade. The birth rate has been decimated by abortion and lifestyle choices, so we have less participating in funding those programs.
Who will take steps to address the the simple math? Who wants to see the gov't filter more to DC to be distributed (thus lost)?
PLEASE cite one "freedom" any of you have lost. The ACLU has withdrawn it's suit filed a couple of years ago regarding the Patriot ACT - They are defending your freedoms, right?
NYT quietly apologized for running the financial tracking articles since nothing was "illegal".
Advice: just do not give money to Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Front Against America or any number of identified terrorist organizations operating here and when you talk with your cousin Abdul, don't discuss blowing shit up.
If you are an American CITIZEN, not just passing through, you will have the Miranda Rights, legal council, court hearings and the whole enchilada.
If you are picked up in Afghanistan while on vacation to Adul's goat farm, which has a little shed full of explosives you did not 'know' about, you may have an extended stay on your way to Gitmo. It is possible you will face a military tribunal with an appointed lawyer. If you are convicted, you will have at least an appeal to the US District Court in DC, maybe a few more rights as a citizen.
Please describe the RIGHTS you have lost. Just for the sake of argument, just ONE.
Where is the denial that we have a constant 'class warfare' in this nation. Republicans, simply put say if we let money stay in companies and peoples hands and not filter it through the Washington black hole, they will be good and generous citizens and responsible.
Dems constantly remind the masses that they are left-behind, neglected, without, and unrepresented because of their financial standing.
Fat cat liberals who profit from the same system they constantly complain as unfair to the little people.
I see one party that is politically, morally, and spirtually bankrupt, and if not for billions spent by the Soros-ites, financially bankrupt.
How do they break away from their position of such weakness if so senstitive and PC oriented?
I assume we can count you in the "Vote Republican" catagory? It's hard to tell from that ambiguous assessment. :)
Sorry about that, I guess I should clarify. In spite of my bashing of the administration, my follow up in that comment was that there was nobody in the Democratic pool worth crap either. So my point being is to elect better Republicans. Ones that will surrond themselves with advisors that have more than their own self-interest at heart, a president that listens to his Military Generals, instead of civilians that have hidden agendas that he is well aware of. Congressmen/women and Senators that listen to their constituents and act upon those wishes(Which should be demands, by the way). And you are absolutely right, the Democrats at least in my eyes haven't shown one decent plan to rectify anything they criticize.
I know in my district here in Louisiana I'm voting Republican but not because I am Republican, simply because out of the two parties I do feel that with good people they are the stronger and more pro-active party.
You're not in Jefferson's District, are you?