Who here supports the current administration?

[Masked Man of Mystery 0]

Nothing you're saying isn't anything I haven't heard before.

 

My view is that what you are describing is basically the way things were prior to the Progressive movement in American history. Pragmatically speaking, it didn't work then, and there's no reason to think returning to that level of government involvement in the economy would be beneficial now. There's a reason for government involvement in the economy. An increase in the standard of living over the last 100 years is directly related to the government taking on the burden of enforcing fairness in the economy. Allowing market forces to work unimpeded by government action (regulation for the common good) has already been proven a failure by history.

 

Monetary policy (setting the interest rate), the FDIC...I fully agree we need those. I'm against more of the social regulations such as EPA guidelines, Affirmative Action quotas, that sort of thing.

 

So I guess not only do you not care about the poor, and the uninsured, but you hate the planet too? Splendid.

 

I find it hilarious and ironic how a lot of conservative folks like to ignore problems such as poverty and the rammifications of it, yet fail to realize or just ignore the plain and simple fact that poverty causes much bigger long term fiscal issues.

 

There will always be poor people just for classifications purposes. If the median income of the US goes up, they'll just raise the poverty line threshold. So there will always be some percentage of people living below that line.

 

There will always be 'poor' people. If there are 'rich', then there must be poor as well. Its all in how you look at things.

So....we shouldn't do anything and let our fellow human beings live in the streets?

[EricMM 0]

Yeah, we wouldn't want our poor people to have houses.

 

We need them desperate.

 

Desperate enough to work for nothing.

 

What? They might be desperate enough to steal?

 

Second amendmant.

 

I'm not even touching the EPA stuff.

 

Not even going to touch it.

[Masked Man of Mystery 0]

Yeah, we wouldn't want our poor people to have houses.

 

We need them desperate.

 

Desperate enough to work for nothing.

I thought that was what illegal immigrants were for

[Guest JustPassinBy]

I'm not even touching the EPA stuff.

 

Not even going to touch it.

 

EPA regulations cause companies to move their factories to foreign countries that do not have as strict of guidelines. Consequently, there are less jobs in the US, but the exact same amount of pollution is released into the Earth's atmosphere. So in reality, its only the US that is hurt.

 

You obviously miss my point about poor people. Where does it end? When all the poor have houses, then the argument will be..."Why cant poor people have a 3 bedroom house instead of 2".."Why cant poor people have a 2 car garage, instead of having to park their cars on the street"...

 

I think its just a dumb argument.

 

If you want to help people, do it yourself.

Dont force me to give up my own cash to finance it.

[snuffbox 0]

 

dumb

 

 

[SuperJerk 0]

EPA regulations cause companies to move their factories to foreign countries that do not have as strict of guidelines. Consequently, there are less jobs in the US, but the exact same amount of pollution is released into the Earth's atmosphere. So in reality, its only the US that is hurt.

That's why we also push for international anti-pollution treaties. Or, at least, we used to.

 

You obviously miss my point about poor people. Where does it end? When all the poor have houses, then the argument will be..."Why cant poor people have a 3 bedroom house instead of 2".."Why cant poor people have a 2 car garage, instead of having to park their cars on the street"...

 

So...the government shouldn't help homeless people because it might lead down the slippery slope of them one day getting a house with a garage? Alrighty then...

How about we just make sure that every has basic shelter, and cross the bridge of "what next" when we actually get there?

 

Let me debunk your "the private sector can do it better" argument right here. The government does a few things to help homeless people. Charities do the rest. So, if charities and government COMBINED haven't solved the homeless problem, then what makes you think private charity BY ITSELF could help all of the homeless people?

 

If you want to help people, do it yourself.

Dont force me to give up my own cash to finance it.

 

You say that as if you, yourself, have never personally benefitted from government spending or a government program.

[Masked Man of Mystery 0]

But everyone does....the government builds roads and sidewalks, at the very least if he went to a private school

[Guest Felonies!]

You say that as if you, yourself, have never personally benefitted from government spending or a government program.

Oh not this argument again. Of course there should be certain areas that are the responsibility of the public. No reasonable man is advocating private roads. But could it really hurt to scale back the role of government?

[SuperJerk 0]

You say that as if you, yourself, have never personally benefitted from government spending or a government program.

Oh not this argument again. Of course there should be certain areas that are the responsibility of the public. No reasonable man is advocating private roads. But could it really hurt to scale back the role of government?

The point was that there's all kinds of things the government helps us with that we don't think about. Thus, for someone to say "If you want to help people, do it yourself. Dont force me to give up my own cash to finance it" (which you conveniently omitted from your quote of my response) overlooks things like state-funded universities, the FDA, student loans (which govt subsidizes the interest rates for), unemployment benefits for the temporarily unemployed, etc. Government programs work best when programs help people help themselves, but even that takes money.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

Laura still supports her man:

 

Laura Bush doesn't believe bad polls

 

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - First lady Laura Bush said on Sunday she does not believe opinion polls showing her husband's approval ratings at record low levels.

 

Interviewed on Fox News Sunday, Laura Bush said she did not think people were losing confidence in President George W. Bush, despite a series of polls showing support for him at its lowest point in his five-year presidency and among the lowest for any president in the past 50 years.

 

"I don't really believe those polls. I travel around the country. I see people, I see their responses to my husband. I see their response to me," she said.

 

"As I travel around the United States, I see a lot of appreciation for him. A lot of people come up to me and say, 'Stay the course'."

 

...

 

"He's the one that has to make the hard decisions. And, of course, they don't please everyone."

 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060514/pl_nm/...HNlYwN5bmNhdA--

[Guest JustPassinBy]

I stopped believing poll numbers when Exit Polls for the Nov 2004 election showed Bush losing.

 

Of course, the rest is history.

 

And Bush doesnt have to run again, so no one really cares if his poll numbers are down. At least, none of my GOP brethren do. If people want to hate Bush, eh go for it. It doesnt bother me.

[Guest Felonies!]

So basically you're saying that because Bush is locked in for another 40 months, it doesn't matter that he's almost universally reviled? Who are these GOP brethren you speak of? I'm willing to bet most conservatives are a little worried about the fact that this guy is doing his damnedest to sink his party and more importantly, the country. All the dumb shit that Bush and Team Texas are doing right now is just completely undermining the whole party. This is like saying you don't care that you're about to get fired in two weeks, because at least you can steal office supplies until then.

[Dobbs 3K 0]

Most real conservatives have already realized that Bush is no conservative at all.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

Most real conservatives have already realized that Bush is no conservative at all.

 

Yes he is.

[EricMM 0]

I get the feeling that Bush is just trying to starve the beast at this point.

 

Cripple the US govt into a small government.

 

If you can't CUT government spending, than you can surely bankrupt the government.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

Blaming the budget deficits on spending and not tax cuts is like eating a steady diet of Twinkies and cheeseburgers for a year, and then blaming the Diet Coke you drank with them for making you gain weight.

[EricMM 0]

Right I'm saying he's using both, because they're both popular politically.

 

Apparently responsability is NOT but whatever *rolls*

[Dobbs 3K 0]

Most real conservatives have already realized that Bush is no conservative at all.

 

Yes he is.

 

Certainly not in terms of government spending, foreign policy, or immigration issues. I guess he's conservative in that he's pro-life but hasn't done anything to curb abortions, much like Republican deity Ronald Reagan.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

government spending

-government services that benefit poor Americans cut (conservative)

-tax cuts that benefit richer Americans (conservative)

-shitty government entitlement program (Medicare D) that benefits mostly pharma companies (maybe not traditionally conservative, but pro-corporate--definitely not liberal)

 

foreign policy

Neoconservatism has won the debate on the right. Find me a prominent conservative who has opposed the Iraq debacle without being thrown under the bus (Buchanan, Buckley, and Fukuyama have all been ignored). Almost all of the prominent conservative opinon makers are still behind it. So, Bush's foreign policy may not be "paleoconservative" but it is representative of the thinking of most of the who's who of the modern conservative movement.

 

immigration issues

Again, pro-corporate. Definitely not liberal.

 

Sorry conservatives, but Bush is as close to a "movement conservative" as you're even gonna get. And he sucks.

 

If you disagree, I3K, name someone who you would define as a "real conservative" who has a shot at being elected president. Reagan, often touted as a "real conservative", racked up huge deficits, intervened all over the globe, and granted amnesty to a bunch of immigrants.

 

Maybe McCain is transforming into a "real conservative":

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Fuck McCain.

[EricMM 0]

That, I would love to hear.

 

And not just a name.

 

Why.

[Dobbs 3K 0]

Maybe there aren't any real major conservatives left. I dunno. I just get sick of hearing people on talk radio like Hannity and Rush talk about what a great conservative Bush is, when most of his moves are pretty internationalist.

 

You are right, though, Bush is definitely pro-corporate. That's basically why he got elected. You also nailed the point about Reagan on the head...he was touted as being a great Republican president, but he created a huge deficit and a lot of middle class people suffered while he was president. But, he made people feel good about America, and that's what most people remember

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

My point is that Bush is a conservative, and his failures (Iraq, Katrina, fiscal policy et al ad infinitum) are failures of conservatism.

[Dobbs 3K 0]

I guess if you consider conservatism to be completely pro-corporate (which mainly it has been in recent years), than yes, you're right.

[NoCalMike 0]

I stopped believing poll numbers when Exit Polls for the Nov 2004 election showed Bush losing.

 

Of course, the rest is history.

 

 

Maybe it isn't the exit polls that were wrong..!?!

[SuperJerk 0]

Blaming the budget deficits on spending and not tax cuts is like eating a steady diet of Twinkies and cheeseburgers for a year, and then blaming the Diet Coke you drank with them for making you gain weight.

Its nothing like that at all.

 

Under Bush, spending has gone up from $1.8632 trillion in 2001 to $2.4722 trillion in 2005--a 24% increase. As of 2005, revenue finally bounced back to pre-Bush levels, and was 8% higher in 2005 than it was in 2001.

 

Here, knock yourselves out, guys.

[NoCalMike 0]

I don't think anyone in this thread is arguing that a lower-class is unavoidable, however, it is the fact that the middle class is shrinking that is causing concern.

 

Also, haven't studies shown that there is a significantly less chance of someone "working their way up" through the system then say 50 years ago. In otherwords, you can have a college education and experience but there is still a "ceiling" for everyone unless you were basically "born into your position"

 

Without a vibrant middle class, you basically get an upper-class and the working poor, which is what trickle-down economics is basically all about.

[NoCalMike 0]

Maybe there aren't any real major conservatives left. I dunno. I just get sick of hearing people on talk radio like Hannity and Rush talk about what a great conservative Bush is, when most of his moves are pretty internationalist.

 

You are right, though, Bush is definitely pro-corporate. That's basically why he got elected. You also nailed the point about Reagan on the head...he was touted as being a great Republican president, but he created a huge deficit and a lot of middle class people suffered while he was president. But, he made people feel good about America, and that's what most people remember

 

 

Well yeah I mean because of media pundits your average fool believes

 

Democrat = Liberal

 

and

 

Republican = Conservative

 

when in fact that is hardly the case anymore, except on social issues, which even still the line is blurred somewhat.

[SuperJerk 0]

I stopped believing poll numbers when Exit Polls for the Nov 2004 election showed Bush losing.

The margin they had him losing by was within the poll's margin of error. Bush's approval ratings, even if you take the margin of error into consideration, are horrible.

 

I've been riding on the "I Hate George W. Bush" bandwagon since 1999. I'm glad the rest of the country decided to finally wake up.

[snuffbox 0]

My point is that Bush is a conservative, and his failures (Iraq, Katrina, fiscal policy et al ad infinitum) are failures of conservatism.

 

If, say, William Buckley were President...those things would have never happened. Im not saying hed be a great President or anything but his kind of conservative would have never initiated the same huge mistakes as this current administration.

 

Also, on another note - About these Bush 'tax cuts'...I work in a factory and earn less than $20,000 a year and my weekly taxation is a little over 25%. The times are pretty bad for anyone not very wealthy, yet there are still pliable/moronic folk who voted Bush in '04 for issues like guns, gays, goddamwomensrights and ignored their own financial problems.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

And William Buckley is pretty much crapped on by the modern conservative movement.