Obama Presidency Watch/post election & first 100 days

Palin as president... my blood runs cold.

It won't happen though... even bush minor had more chops than she does... she's all fluff and no substance.

As for the death of the Republican party, I doubt it but as it is now it is firmly controlled by ideologues from movement conservatism and they are not about to budge...

... I could be wrong, probably am, but after the past 8 years of bush minor, not to mention the 13 year Republican control of congress, I think most people get it... that the average Joe (unless you are a so called plumber whose name isn't even Joe) is not their constituancy.

[edit on 11-2-2009 by grover]

reply to post by donwhite


Don and I have agreed to disagree in the past concerning the War on Terror and will have to do so once again . For the benefit of the reader I am going to give Don post a response . It is in New Zealand National Security interests that Afghanistan doesnt become a failed state and once again a terrorist . Sure other then a small Afghan population made up of refuges in New Zealand the country has no connection to Afghanistan . It must also be said that Kiwis have been the victims of Islamic terrorism which gives them an indirect link to Afghanistan . Had the needless war in Iraq not happened a lot more progress could have been made towards creating a stable country with a democratically elected government .

One that I am convinced that Obama has got right is returning the focus to the real war in Afghanistan . Given a choice between the Taliban and the presence of Coalition forces most Afghans seem to prefer having Coalition troops around as the lesser evil .

[edit on 12-2-2009 by xpert11]

reply to post by xpert11

Don and I have agreed to disagree in the past concerning the War on Terror and will have to do so once again.

For the benefit of the reader I am going to give Don post a response. It is in New Zealand National Security interests that Afghanistan doesn’t become a failed state and once again a terrorist . Sure other then a small Afghan population made up of refuges in New Zealand the country has no connection to Afghanistan. It must also be said that Kiwis have been the victims of Islamic terrorism which gives them an indirect link to Afghanistan.

Each citizen must decide what is in his or her own country’s best interest. Others must accept that even if they do not agree with it. HOWEVER, Mr X11 has gone further and described what he has regarded as “in the national security interest of New Zealand.” The elements are 1) Afghan not become a failed state. 2) Islamic terrorism has an indirect link to Afghan.

Let’s grant for a minute that Afghan is a failed state. But failed at what? Play along with me. Let’s say that 500,000 people living in Afghan have Western style educations and family traditions. Let’s say those 500,000 control all of the Western style businesses in Afghan. Now let’s say there are 32,000,000 people living in Afghan who do not either HAVE or WANT a Western style education and the culture that follows. ENTER the foreigners!

We, the US and all those we can pull along, NATO, NZ and Australia if possible. Mostly white Anglo Saxon Protestants in culture if not in fact. We are 2 centuries ahead of the 32 m. people living in Afghan, technologically speaking. Yea, we Westerners have a different religion - even non-believers share the common Christian culture - and we are saying Afghan is a FAILED state because the 32 m. will not kowtow to the 500,000?

I am told the US Army Manual for Occupations lays it all out. Under its guidelines, we (or somebody) would need 400,000 to 500,000 men on the ground. The whole US Army is only 450,000! The USMC is 120,000. That’s why WE need NATO, NZ and Australia if we can get you to come along!

But we don’t know where we are going! We want the 32 m. to obey the 500,000 and to follow their instructions. We can manufacture any number of REASONS why we ought to beat the hell out of those recalcitrant 32 m. people, but either good for them or good for us, we don’t have 1) the manpower, 2) the money, or 3) the long term stick-to-it-ness to get the job done.

You should know in late 2001 the US promised the Afghans $20 b. in aid if they would let us RAMPAGE through their country in 2001-2002 hunting for Osama bin Laden. We delivered somewhere between $2 b. and $5 b. depending on who does the counting. (We got asked to leave Uzbekistan in 2005 for the same reason).

So when faced with reality, why not withdraw with some grace?

Given a choice between the Taliban and the presence of Coalition forces most Afghans seem to prefer having Coalition troops around as the lesser evil.

I would trust no one to tell me what “most Afghans” prefer. I have read 2 recent books by Afghani who lived here and have then gone back to their homeland. What WE want in Afghan is NOT what the Afghani WANT. The only thing we have are helicopter gunships, cruise missiles and “smart” bombs but which are NO smarter than the guys who aim them. I know of NO ONE who says that is what the 32 m. Afghani’s want. OUR solution to THEIR problem is killing Afghani by the 100s. We are ALL top down, and NO bottom up types.


[edit on 2/12/2009 by donwhite]

Originally posted by donwhite
Now let’s say there are 32,000,000 people living in Afghan who do not either HAVE or WANT a Western style education and the culture that follows. ENTER the foreigners!

A general rule is that without Equal Opportunity's for education a country will not prosper . If you took away the west oil dependency Saudi Arabia would be just another poor extremist regime in the region because of Islamic Law . Women in Afghanistan have proven that they want the right to vote and other basic rights or privileges in society .

Afghan is a FAILED state because the 32 m. will not kowtow to the 500,000?

Afghanistan will only become a failed state if to many people subscribe to your way of thinking .

The USMC is 120,000. That’s why WE need NATO, NZ and Australia if we can get you to come along!

Regardless the US needs any assistance from its allies that it can get . The only people that failed to see this were the ones who got the US bogged down in Iraq .

1) the manpower,

As the draw down from Iraq continues more manpower will become available . As the US is boasting its efforts Obama request for more troops from the US allies will have far more creditability. Also the goal is to have Afghan army tackle the enemy .

2) the money,

Don't look at me I'm certainly not one of the hawks who refuses to pay for the wars they supposedly support . If you genuinely support your country troops being deployed somewhere overseas its only fair that as a tax payer you are prepared to pay your share of the Defence Budget .

or 3) the long term stick-to-it-ness to get the job done.

That only becomes an issue if people don't have enough sense to accept the reality of the situation .

We delivered somewhere between $2 b. and $5 b. depending on who does the counting. (We got asked to leave Uzbekistan in 2005 for the same reason).

Hey I would have much preferred that instead of the Iraq war that a fraction of the money spend on that war was used to build infrastructure in Afghanistan which would have helped the people bring the government under there umbrella .

I would trust no one to tell me what “most Afghans” prefer.

You have done exactly that and made a lot of wrongful assumptions in the process . If the coalition has a whole is unwelcome by Afghans then why hasn't the Kiwi PRT contingent suffered any casualty's . Good Fortune aside as I understand it all the attackers have come from other parts of the country . By your logic the locals in the Bamyan province should be shooting at Kiwi troops every chance they get . Now I am no way discounted the fact that even in the more relative secure parts of the country Afghanistan must be the most dangerous place Kiwi troops serve in .






[edit on 13-2-2009 by xpert11]

Generally speaking the so-called war on terror is kinda like fishing with a shotgun... it is not a war and it shouldn't be called that and it does nothing except prove our enemies right (in their eyes and their supporters)... its in nature akin to Palestinian-Israeli conflicts... it does nothing but shore up the opposition... any casual reading of history shows that the military approach is wrong.

Treating terrorism as a criminal activity and a matter for the police like most countries treat it is far more effective... you cannot, simply cannot use the military against an enemy that strikes and disappears into a crowd.

The quicker we end this delusion the better.

Oswald Spengler in his 1918 opus "The Decline of the West" suggests that the subjects of colonized and/or suppressed aka marginalized societies will learn the techniques, weapons and knowledge of the west and turn it against them... like the so-called barbarians learned from the Romans and then used that knowledge to dismantle the empire.

The west as a world dominating force has passed its peak... the future is transcultural.

Well I have not been here for a while so let me bring what I have seen so far with Obama and his 100 first days.

So far Is not looking good. If you think Regan deficits were cause for Wall street to panic, Obama will bring wall street into a full blown hart attack

This are my reasons.

Obama economical stimulus has been turned into a joke by the House and congress. The over bloated and irresponsible spending will sink this nation more.

As usual it seems that the private interest will be winning on this one.

Obama voodoo economics,
The fiscal year 2009 federal budget deficit that Obama is inheriting, and adding to, will be 10 times larger in absolute terms than Reagan's biggest and a much larger share of gross domestic product in percentage terms. Yet, economists are sending up no alarms.

Paul Krugman, for example, couldn't damn Reagan's puny deficits enough. But today he thinks the deficit can't be large enough!

The central issue of the stimulus and bailout plans is how to finance the massive budget deficit. This issue remains unaddressed by economists and policy makers.

www.economyincrisis.org...

Then we have the Obama administration what is been called a pack of rabid free trade whores (whores is added by me)

While Obama even got in the bad side of his party telling the bad policies of the Free trade he is surrounding himself with the same trash that help bring those policies to the table and help the economy get where is right now.

A Legion of Rabid "Free Traders",
During his campaign for the presidency, Barack Obama often spoke of the ills of “free trade” (“Look, people don’t want a cheaper T-shirt if they’re losing a job in the process,” he said during a Democratic Primary debate. “They would rather have the job and pay a little bit more for a T-shirt.”) but his actions and appointments have suggested that his economic policy in regard to trade will be nothing more than a continuation of the failed ideas of administrations past.

Obama has stockpiled his cabinet and the West Wing of the White House with men and women that have not only supported, but been instrumental in shaping the policies that have decimated the nation’s manufacturing base over the past two decades. The American people were promised “change” but it appears that when it comes to trade, Obama will simply deliver more of the same.

www.economyincrisis.org...

The new depression,

Sorry to say that if Obama is going to think that giving the people a miserable check or tax cut to bring consumer spending confidence, he is forgetting that Americas consumer can not longer keep supporting this nations economy any longer.

Beside 300 billions of the economical stimulus that will be in the hands of the populace will be lost oversea.

The budget deficit for Fiscal Year 2009 is on pace to balloon to well over $1 trillion as government revenues plummet and expenditures soar to record heights even before the recently passed $789 billion stimulus package is factored in, according to Bloomberg News.

“We’re experiencing a terribly challenging fiscal environment and a terribly challenging economic and financial crisis,” Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner said yesterday in testimony to the Senate Budget Committee.

According to the Congressional Budget Office, the annual budget deficit is expected to top $1.2 trillion and some economists expect that number to be closer to $1.6 trillion.

www.bloomberg.com...

I guess I can keep going on and on bur I will stop here, so in only a few weeks of Obama administration things are not looking good at all.









[edit on 13-2-2009 by marg6043]

reply to post by marg6043


I have said repeatedly (though no one ever listens to me) that the massive red ink that has been run up in recent years is all part of a conspiracy by the movement conservatives to bankrupt the government and so eliminate all "unnecessary" services... more than one, including former governor James Gilmore, strategist Grover Norquist, Phil Gramm and others have pointedly and publicly said that the goal is to run up so much debt that the state and federal governments will have no choice but to eliminate services.

reply to post by grover


That will not sit well with the America people as we have been taken for a ride while helping prop the financial industry with our tax payer dollars so they can keep living the America dreams in a lavish life style, something that most America can not longer dream off in this failed economy.



[edit on 13-2-2009 by marg6043]

The thing is Marg, the movement conservatives are a bunch of fanatical ideologues and they have (over the past 30 years) taken over the Republican party and forced out most of the liberal and moderate Republicans so it is the rare Republican voice you hear that is not part of the neo-con/movement conservative nexus.

If you read what they've said over the past 20 years or so you will be surprised at how up front and open they have been about what they are planning, regardless of whether the American people support them or not.

They do not represent you or me, they represent the top rollers and that is it. Essentially they want to turn the clock back to the Laissez-faire capitalism of the late 19th and early 20th century... these are the people who think Ayn Rand was a great writer and philosopher but worse, they take her seriously.

If they have their way... there will be civil war on the streets of this nation between the I've got mine screw you's and the rest of us.

reply to post by grover


Well the way things are going they may very well get their wish and America will brake into a civil war, many states will part from the union and America the united will be no more.

I am not so certain (the break-up of the nation) would be a bad thing because in the long run the age of the nation state and specifically the massive nation state is numbered... because face it, as it stands we cannot govern ourselves.... China is having a hard time as well... an interesting book on the subject is "The Nine Nations of North America" by Joel Garreau.

Even the Roman empire by the middle of the 3rd century found it necessary to divide its power base.

Mega states are by their very nature unstable.

However all that being said the last thing we need to do is divide along economic, social or racial lines... if we can avoid that we can be a people without being a nation.

But back to Obama.... no one ever said it would be easy and from what I can see his first month has been no better or worse than any of the other new presidents in my lifetime.

[edit on 13-2-2009 by grover]

reply to post by grover


Just a quick question for clarification..

Do you know what Neo-Con means?

Your post is self contradictory.

Republican party and forced out most of the liberal and moderate Republicans so it is the rare Republican voice you hear that is not part of the neo-con/movement conservative nexus.

Neo.... New

Neo-Cons is simply a made up word, used by the Liberals as is their propensity to bastardize names for some unknown reason, but the literal meaning is "New Conservative" ie.... Liberal or even RINO (Republican In Name Only)

You libs make so much fun of everyone and ridicule instead of examine so much, you actually lose track of your own insults..

Obama is proving to be exactly what "we" all knew he would, first 100 days or next 4 years.. A failure and a Political Hack..Things have gotten worse and it is not going to stop going down hill.

Businesses faced with Obama and the Legion of Dems disastrous tax proposals are either reducing the quality of their product, raising the price or reducing the work force by lay offs. All expected and all coming to pass.

Just as is the Liberal Propensity for inability to take personal responsibility and blame everything on someone else. Fact is, "they are in".. "They Promised Change"... We got nothing but more of the same old Democrat Pork and Taxes..

The "Stimulus" package and it's 80% Pork, is just a glaring example of what we can expect for the next four years.

The only bright side to all this, is I will be able to say "I told you so" far earlier than anticipated..

As promised...

Semper



[edit on 2/14/2009 by semperfortis]

reply to post by semperfortis

Obama is proving to be exactly what "we" all knew he would, first 100 days or next 4 years. Businesses faced with Obama and the Legion of Dems disastrous tax proposals are either reducing the quality of their product, raising the price or reducing the work force . . Fact is, "they are in".. "They Promised Change." We got nothing but more of the same old Democrat Pork and Taxes . .

Let me drop in here and bring forth some light from this heat I am reading. Just as I have all FOX channels OFF my remote, so I have a self-imposed mental block on all those so-called liberals who turned into the New Conservatives and who have dominated Republican presidential politics since 1980. Let’s give them credit where credit is due. They managed to take advantage of unforeseen opportunities - the first OPEC oil embargo of the 1970s - collapse of the USSR - to wreck the Roosevelt New Deal and the Johnson Great Society. It really is irrelevant why they feel that is a better way. They’ve done it.

I suppose in that regard adherents to political theory are equal to adherents to religious dogma. Personal: I am a WASP but I have lived next door to Catholic, Jews and Mormons. There are no better neighbors to have than Catholics, Jews and Mormons. At the one on one level there are no controversies between those - Catholics, Protestants, Jews and Mormons.

It seems to me all people want essentially the same thing. Summarized by: A better life for their children then they had for themselves. But the leaders of those groups want MORE. And friction between groups is inspired by their leaders. I have Catholic friends living in Northern Ireland. I have NEVER supported or agreed with Ian Paisley. Nor did I knee-jerk against the IRA. And I never will. It does not make me a BETTER Protestant to willfully and intentionally abuse my Catholic neighbors. And etc.

Oops! I digressed. Back to my topic. It is my contention that we misunderstand EARMARKS and PORK as used in the contemporary political context mostly in W-DC but in some states as well. I am a history buff. I can assure you if you didn’t already know that George Washington faced the downside of both PORK and EARMARKS in waging the Revolutionary War. Excesses of both nearly brought us to defeat.

But for the brilliance nay genius of Benjamin Franklin operating in France we could not have made it! Believe me. The French furnished guns, gunpowder, soldiers, ships and money to us in winning quantities. That’s why Bush43 and his FREEDOM Fries is a sacrilege if you can have that in the secular political arena. England is our progenitor and France was our mid-wife. I do not like people who disparage those who made our life possible. The good, bad and ugly. That’s close to cannibalism. OK, end of rant.

After the failure of the Articles of Confederation under which we fought the Revolutionary War, the founders realized they needed a strong government as England and France had. But we did not want an hereditary monarchy as both of those indulged. We wanted an elected KING. We named him “president.” The Founders knew well the temptations such a powerful man (or later a woman) would have to face and so, sought to limit his power.

It turns out the bicameral legislature (Congress) which replaced the unicameral Continental Congress was the best way! And it was proved to be just that yesterday. THREE senators were able to RESTRAIN the president. It may not seem to have been the kind of change and bipartisanship that Pres. Obama spoke of in the campaign and which concept the voters endorsed. We are now in real life and not surreal campaign life and Ike it or not, we are creeping towards bipartisanship. Foisted on all of us by those 2 wonderful women from Maine and that wise old fellow from Pennsylvania. (Arlen Specter, the last man standing who was in the front row of the Warren Commission. And whose word on LHO I take every day of the week over Mark Lane or his legion of imitators).

EARMARKS. There are 435 Congresspersons. Plus 6 delegates from US territories. 441 total. These people do not work for the president. Like it or not, they work for the approximately 700,000 people they represent. (Puerto Rico has 3 million people and should have 4 delegates but since they would most likely all be Democrats, it is hard to make the change). Each member of the House is independent and stands for election on his or her own. That’s why the 435 Members of Congress are called Representatives.

From 1789 the House leadership ran the House with an iron grip until the post World War 2 era. See Note 1. From then on, the individual members have gained more power. That struggle - who is to run the house - is never ending. It’s democracy in miniature.

Tough leadership was restored under Newt Gingrich and followed by Dennis Hastert. Now it’s the Dems turn under Nancy Pelosi. Yet, if somebody was not in charge, the 441 would produce a sound more like random noise than any understandable tongue we know.

EARMARKS. Here’s an earmark I am familiar with. Louisville, KY. A city owned zoo. 1998. The Zoo wanted a gorilla display. Nowadays you have to “duplicate” the natural environment. To do that on a medium size scale would cost $45 m. The local PTB decided that was a worthy project. Instead of building 800 low cost 900 sq ft houses for the HOMELESS, the PTB (and citizens) agreed to buy an air conditioned home for 6-8 gorillas. Priorities. To have built the homeless a place to live would be socialism and surely to GOD we do not want that! Better the homeless should live on the street as any good capitalist who makes a mistake would want to do! Oops. There I go again.

The state put up $15 m., the local PTB put up $15 m. and LEVERAGED a $15 m. earmark from our Congressperson to make up the shortfall. Today the Louisville Zoo has a state of the art gorilla exhibit! That’s an earmark. Had that proposal been put into the hopper as a bill to become a law, I dare say it would have never seen the light of day. But earmarks are not required to meet any standard except “how many votes” will that get me at the next election? And that’s democracy at its BEST (WORST)!

PORK. Pork and earmarks are almost synonymous today. But pork generally means getting something you don’t otherwise deserve. It is a pure power play. I consider the Houston Space Flight Center to be the largest single item of PORK in my lifetime. By any logical reasoning the Space Flight Center would have been built at Cape Canaveral. In Florida. Not in Texas. 800 miles away.

BUT, when the decision was made to build it in Texas, the Speaker of the House was Sam Rayburn. Of Texas. The vice president was Lyndon Johnson, late the senate Majority leader, also of Texas. And JFK knew that Texas would be a battleground state in 1964. He needed to carry Texas to win a second term. A convergence of interests! Can you (or me) even imagine how much EXTRA it costs the US taxpayers each and every day to keep reliable communications between Houston and Cape Canaveral? How much money is spent on air transportation between the two cities? And etc. Pork!

Last, the other major pork item I’m familiar with is the FBI Fingerprint Center located in West Virginia. Constructed there rather than in northern Virginia or southern Maryland. But the Democrat patriarch of the senate, Robert Byrd, got it there because it would be built NOWHERE but WV as long as he lived and had his power in the Senate. Where seniority reigns supreme. And you don’t get much more senior that Robert Byrd!

I hope this helps put Earmarks and Pork into a better perspective. Both are slandered when either goes to another state or district. No one calls money either earmark or pork when it comes to your state or district. So look at is as the cost of freedom.

We do need to have rules to let us avoid the most outrageous earmarks. Some are now being written so only the nephew or second cousin of the Congressperson can fulfill the contract requirements - micro managed - written into the earmark. That should not be allowed. And so it is and so it will always be. In a free country.


Note 1. The most powerful Speaker ever was Joe Cannon (R-Mo) who held sway from 1903 to 1911. Freshmen members could not speak on the floor during their first year. Their maiden speech had to have prior approval by Speaker “Mighty” Joe Cannon. All committees were appointed by the Speaker. All bills were assigned to committees by the Speaker. The Rules Committee was his baby. (That committee decides which bills to take up. Without a “rule” you have nothing). en.wikipedia.org...


[edit on 2/14/2009 by donwhite]

I know what neo-conservatism is.... and I also know what movement conservatism is. To say that have a stranglehold on the Republican party is not an insult or a smear... its the truth whether you want to accept it or not.

I truly wish the Grand Old Party could throw off these fanatics and return to the Republican party of the 50's 60's and 70's... a party that even if you disagreed with them, you could respect them.

Sadly no politician... be them liberal or conservative, Republican or Democrat has any real ideas... they are politicians... ideas do not come from them, they seem to be incapable of any new real thought... no matter who that politician, they work from the same set of ideas... for Republicans its all taxes are bad, cut spending, cut programs, cut taxes spend on military, pro-business no questions asked.... the fallacy of those ideas should be self evident... for Democrats its more programs, more spending, (perhaps) raise taxes, enforce regulations and perhaps add more etc...the fallacy of those ideas should be self evident... the simple reality is that despite Semperfortis' rhetoric neither party has a monopoly on the best or soundest policies... both are on the money on some issues and both are full of crap on others.

en.wikipedia.org...

Neoconservatism is a political philosophy that emerged in the United States. Its key distinction is in international affairs, where it espouses an interventionist approach that seeks to defend what neo-conservatives deem as national interests. In addition, unlike traditional conservatives, neoconservatives are comfortable with a minimally-bureaucratic welfare state; and, while generally supportive of free markets, they are willing to interfere for overriding social purposes.

The term neoconservative, first coined at least as early as 1921, was used at one time as a criticism against liberals who had "moved to the right". Michael Harrington, a democratic socialist, coined the current sense of the term neoconservative in a 1973 Dissent magazine article concerning welfare policy. According to E. J. Dionne, the nascent neoconservatives were driven by "the notion that liberalism" had failed and "no longer knew what it was talking about."

The first major neoconservative to embrace the term, and considered its founder, is Irving Kristol, (father of William Kristol, who founded the neoconservative Project for the New American Century), and wrote of his neoconservative views in the 1979 article "Confessions of a True, Self-Confessed 'Neoconservative.'" Kristol's ideas had been influential since the 1950s, when he co-founded and edited Encounter magazine. Another source was Norman Podhoretz, editor of Commentary magazine from 1960 to 1995. By 1982 Podhoretz was calling himself a neoconservative, in a New York Times Magazine article titled "The Neoconservative Anguish over Reagan's Foreign Policy". The term has been the subject of increasing media coverage during the presidency of George W. Bush. In particular, discussion has focused on the neoconservative influence on American foreign policy, as part of the Bush Doctrine.

In January 2009, at the close of President George W. Bush's second term in office, Jonathan Clarke, a senior fellow at the Carnegie Council for Ethics in International Affairs, proposed the following as the "main characteristics of neoconservatism":

* "a tendency to see the world in binary good/evil terms
* low tolerance for diplomacy
* readiness to use military force
* emphasis on US unilateral action
* disdain for multilateral organisations
* focus on the Middle East".

AND:

www.sourcewatch.org...

Movement Conservatism is a self-serving and socially malevolent cabal of mega-corporations, right-wing think tanks in Washington, their archconservative foundation benefactors, and an intricate nationwide network of linkages in the communications media, religion, higher education, and law. It has been called the "conservative labyrinth," and common to all its elements is a theology of "free markets," an ideology coming to full bloom in the Administration of George W. Bush. Today, the G.O.P. seeks to impose it at every turn....

... Endowed with corporate profits from the past, other archconservative foundations also established right-wing think tanks in Washington in the '70's and '80's or strengthened existing ones. In addition to Castle Rock, twelve other foundations form the financial core of Movement Conservatism. They are the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, the Carthage Foundation, the Earhart Foundation, The Charles G. Koch, David H. Koch, and Claude R. Lambe foundations, the Phillip M. McKenna Foundation, the JM Foundation, the John M. Olin Foundation, the Henry Salvatori Foundation, the Sarah Scaife Foundation, and the Smith Richardson Foundation....

....Taking shape in the late '70's, Movement Conservatism became a sort of economic Taliban, absolutist in conviction, righteous, and anxious to impose its ideology on the American people. It found its vehicle in the presidential candidacy and election of Ronald Reagan, and over the next eight years Movement Conservatism and the Republican Party came to be coterminous.

There was little resistance. Since the Republican Party traditionally has been the party of commerce and finance, Movement Conservatism had only to sell an appealing ideology to a receptive constituency. As the pursuit of "free markets" came to mean "corporate well being," the transaction was consummated. The Republican Party took on the ideology, and also assumed a commercial function: marketing public policy as a product. It became the G.O.P., Inc., and forfeited its role as a party of the people.

In short both Neo-conservatism and movement conservatism are ideologically driven with little tolerance for opinions other than their own.

I will reiterate again as I have several times now in this thread... I AM NOT ATTACKING EITHER CONSERVATIVES OR REPUBLICANS... I can and do respect both even though we disagree ( I just wish they would return the favor) rather I am objecting to the fanatical ideologues who have taken over their party.

[edit on 14-2-2009 by grover]

reply to post by grover

Sadly no politician ... be them liberal or conservative, Republican or Democrat has any real ideas ... they are politicians ... ideas do not come from them, they seem to be incapable of any new real thought ... for Democrats its more programs, more spending, (perhaps) raise taxes, enforce regulations and perhaps add more etc ... the fallacy of those ideas should be self evident ...

the simple reality is that despite Semperfortis' rhetoric neither party has a monopoly on the best or soundest policies ... both are on the money on some issues and both are full of crap on others.

Well, I’m not so generous when it comes to criticizing the Dems. The simple fact of life is we have 300 million people, 3.7 million square miles, and that takes a well staffed and properly directed bureaucracy to serve us well.

Life is getting more complicated and not less as Ron Paul would prefer for us believe. We can see from the Republican designed Grandest Financial Debacle of All Time that left to their own devices, money handlers of any ilk will KILL the goose that lays the golden eggs. The Republicans are ALL Bernie Madoof's at heart! We hear of global liabilities stretching to $50 trillion and beyond! Surely Republicans of good will must be so ashamed as to even speak publicly of financial matters for a generation!

As the Republicans left the broken economy of 1929 following the spending spree of the Roaring Twenties to the Democrats to fix, so history is now repeating itself. The Republicans of the Neo Con Free Market theology are leaving behind a mess following the Reagan Revolution for the Democrats to once again FIX! This one so bad not even Adam Smith could have imagined it! Come Quick, Sweet Jesus!

The price of gasoline is rising again because the Bank of America and other financial institutions that got bailouts from the taxpayers instead of making loans as promised are now buying crude oil by the super tanker load, and making them off shore waiting for a price rise. We will be kilt if we don’t stop those money mongers! And with our own money, too! That’s called making a FOOL of you. We must sooner than later ban non-industry types from speculating in food and energy.

Taxes are the mother’s milk of any society. The amount of milk a society gets determine the quality of the society.


[edit on 2/14/2009 by donwhite]

reply to post by donwhite


Don,

I love to read your posts and want to ask you a question..

Grover, my apologizes if this is too "Off Topic" but please indulge me and I think it goes to the heart of the matter.

Question: (Feel free to jump in too Grover)

What is wrong with advocating and supporting a society where the Government does not interfere in the lives of people except in extreme circumstances; leaving each of us to make it or fail on our own merits?

Please focus on the incentives in this question if you would as well as Taxes and overall size of the Government. I'm not totally against Social Programs as a whole.

Thank you all for indulging me.

Semper

reply to post by semperfortis

I want to ask you a question.. Question: What is wrong with advocating and supporting a society where the Government does not interfere in the lives of people except in extreme circumstances; leaving each of us to make it or fail on our own merits? Please focus on the incentives in this question if you would as well as Taxes and overall size of the Government. I'm not totally against Social Programs as a whole. Thank you all for indulging me.

Mr S/F, you embarrass me when asking for my indulgence. I am the one who needs the indulgences!

Academically speaking, your question has a short answer: “Nothing.” But we are not in school. We are in a vast economy which must feed and reward people of varying talents and of widely different needs. The very size of our population, the extent of our territory and the complexity of our not so wonderful mix of service and manufacturing with sometimes antithetical needs, makes it both unsafe and unrealistic to leave matters alone to seek their own level.

I feel much more comfortable in this prospect because I look upon government as my servant and reject notions that government must be regarded only as my master.

Which is to say in a few words, we must have a planned economy.

I think people who think like me now understand that when we say government planning we mean first, to provide a level playing field so the real entrepreneur spirit can be encouraged for the benefit of society. But today, “benefit of the society” is no longer the goal.

We are taught in school - high school - that competition is the great engine that drives our economy. But in college we are taught that MERGERS and ACQUISITIONS are the way of the future. Consider the XM Radio and Sirrius Radio fiasco. Instead of competition one offered to buy the other which the Government approved. Now I hear the new combined corporation is filing Chapter 11. Something stinks here. How or why would one want to acquire the other if either the buyer or seller was in deep financial do-do?

I have posted on ATS the historic top income tax bracket rates from 1913 to 2007. I have mislaid the URL but I got it off Google. It shows that in times of need - WW1 and WW2 - the tax rates went up - as high as 94% in WW2. After the Nine Eleven Event we continuously lowered taxes despite being in a WAR and incurring huge expenses, up to $10 b. a month in Iraq. You cannot sustain the idea of a war unless all of society in involved. The man on the front risks his life, the man at home should risk his wealth.

I sincerely believe that because American FEEL no pain and are DENIED the HARD truth of War at Dover AFB where the flag draped coffins did much to end the US part of the Vietnam War. Denied that in this War, we have been aimlessly squandering life and treasure in Iraq for some SIX years! Shucks, we beat the Germans and the Japanese (and Italians) IN LESS THAN 4 YEARS STARTING FROM SCRATCH! More than 2,000 men have died in vain in Iraq. If we had placed a 20% sur-tax on income taxes for the duration of the war, I believe the war's duration would have ended long ago.

I also noticed looking at those historic rates, that when taxes were low, as in the Roaring Twenties, and again in the Reagan Revolution, that financial disaster followed in both instances. It seems there is a real corollary between tax rates and societal conduct. High taxes produce a good society. Low taxes produce a bad society. Good equals share, bad equals selfish.

Last, we have so many things that need to be done. We have not yet re-built New Orleans. We should have sent 1,000 firefighters and a billion dollars to Australia already. We need to get our electric grid up to par. We cannot leave these things to citizens or faith based groups to do what we need to do as a nation.

As this financial disaster shows, only the Federal government has the resources to deal with it. Yes, Wall Street wanted to be left to its own devices and so the SEC was gutted. Now Wall Street wants the taxpayers to pick up their TOXIC investments. That does not work anywhere.

Does this help a bit?

[edit on 2/14/2009 by donwhite]

Originally posted by semperfortis
reply to post by donwhite

 

What is wrong with advocating and supporting a society where the Government does not interfere in the lives of people except in extreme circumstances; leaving each of us to make it or fail on our own merits?

Simply put Semper... size matters

As Don pointed out we have 320 + million people and 3.7 million acres and for any society the size of ours to even hope to function we need a well funded and activist government.

You can have someone assert that it is their land, it is their business it is their etc. and they can do with it as they please... for example: we had a situation here in the Roanoke valley a few years ago that highlights this issue... this guy out in the county had (for years) the largest illegal tire dump in the state. He had been cited several times over the years because of it and still he refused to clean it up... citing that it was his land and he had the right to do with it as he pleased... and the county commissioners (all Republicans by the way) refused to do anything about it saying that they didn't think that their citizens wanted them wasting their money on things like that... and that's where things stood until some kid playing with matches set the whole damned dump on fire. Because of the terrain the fire dept. was unable to put it out and it burnt for weeks polluting the air in the whole valley... everything smelt like burnt rubber for the rest of that summer.

There comes a point where the rights of the individual must give way to the needs of community for there to be any hope of a functioning society... at the same time the needs and wants of community must at some point give way to the rights of the individual... its how any healthy society functions... if either community or individual is stressed too heavily the society becomes unstable and ceases to function properly... if community is stressed too heavily individuality is supressed but if the individual in stressed too heavily it threatens to tear the fabric of society apart.

Another, more telling example comes from California... in 1978 proposition 13 was voted into law and:

en.wikipedia.org...

The most significant portion of the act is the first paragraph, which capped real estate taxes:
“SECTION 1. (a) The maximum amount of any ad valorem tax on real property shall not exceed One percent (1%) of the full cash value of such property. The one percent (1%) tax to be collected by the counties and apportioned according to law to the districts within the counties.”

The proposition's passage resulted in a cap on property tax rates in the state, reducing them by an average of 57%. In addition to lowering property taxes, the initiative also contained language requiring a two-thirds majority in both legislative houses for future increases in all state tax rates or amounts of revenue collected, including income tax rates. It also requires two-thirds vote majority in local elections for local governments wishing to raise special taxes.

It all sounded good at the time but times change... but it is now seen in many circles as the root source of California's current financial problems... to wit (from the same source)

Negative Effects on the State Tax Structure

California's Proposition 13 has introduced major problems of equity and efficiency into the state's tax structure. An analytical approach to examining a tax policy is to apply the traditional principles of taxation, including equity, allocative efficiency, revenue yield/elasticity and administrative and political feasibility. Equity reflects the basic values of how our society determines different groups should be treated; these values include horizontal and vertical equity, ability to pay and benefits received. Allocative efficiency refers to the ways in which a tax policy influences changes in private consumption behavior. Revenue yield and elasticity refer to whether a revenue policy has the capacity to increase in the future in order to continue enabling government agencies to meet the demands of its residents. Lastly, administrative and political feasibility refer to whether a tax policy can be implemented and enforced with relatively little effort and is politically possible.

Proposition 13 freezes the value of properties at the time of purchase with a possible two percent annual assessment increase. Therefore, properties of equal value have a great amount of variation in their assessment, even if they are next to each other. Assuming that the price of a house is somewhat a determinant of a person’s wealth (and therefore ability to pay) and benefit received, this feature would lead neighbors or business owners who purchased a property at different periods of time to pay a different assessment, without any relationship to ability to pay or benefits received. Overall, these qualities create serious inequities and potentially introduce some amount of regressivity into the tax structure. The state sales tax was increased as a result of Prop 13.

Negative Effects on Cities and Localities

Proposition 13 disproportionately affects coastal areas, such as Los Angeles and the Bay Area, where housing prices are higher, over inland communities, where housing prices are lower. According to the National Bureau of Economic Research more research remains to be done on whether the benefits of Proposition 13 outweighs the redistribution of tax base and overall cost in lost tax revenue.

Cities and localities have become more dependent on funds from the state, which transferred to the state more power over local towns and cities than they otherwise would have had. The state provides money in "block grants" to cities to provide for services and totally bought out local county health and welfare centers. It is unknown whether this has created additional administrative overhead. Local governments have also become more dependent on sales taxes for funds, which some have said has resulted in poor land planning and encourages cities to encourage more retail stores and "big box"-type outlets and the jobs and ongoing sales tax those stores provide, rather than encouraging the growth of other sectors and types of jobs that may provide better opportunities for residents. In addition, cities have turned to an increase in fees to make up for the shortfall, with particularly high fees levied on developers creating new houses or industrial outlets. These costs are transferred to the building's buyer, who is often unaware of the thousands in fees paid because it is hidden within the building's cost.

California public schools, which in the 1960s had been ranked among the best nationally in student achievement, have fallen to 48th in many surveys of student achievement. Some have disputed Proposition 13's direct role in the move to state financing of public schools, because schools financed mostly by property taxes were declared unconstitutional in Serrano vs. Priest, and Proposition 13 was then passed partially as a result of that case. California's spending per pupil was the same as the national average until about 1985, when it began dropping, which led to another referendum, Proposition 98, that requires a certain percentage of the state's budget to be directed towards education.

Public libraries have seen a decrease in funding from cities. Fire departments were gutted because of a drastic loss of funds. Police departments received generally the same amount of funding, from 15% in 1978 to 16% in 1995. Cities also cut water, gas and electricity expenses.

SO... to make a short story long the voters in 1978 revolted against increasing property taxes but instead of putting a break on them, limiting the amount that they could increase yearly... they put a halt to them instead and laid the ground work of the likely bankruptcy of the state, in and of itself one of the largest economies in the world.

This is not good. Taxes are the price we pay to live where we do and you simply cannot expect to continually cut taxes and expect things to continue functioning... sooner or later the system starts breaking down.

[edit on 17-2-2009 by grover]

reply to post by grover


Citizen initiatives. I oppose them. Period. The underlying motive long ago was to force rural dominated legislatures to enact laws that under represented urban centers needed to survive. If you think a legislator is too dumb to write good laws, you must surely know the rank and file of citizens are dumber yet. Writing laws sounds easy, but to do it right is a humongous task few do well.

To a large extent the under representation problem was solved by the US Supreme Court’s “one man one vote” series of cases. Which Republicans by the way still oppose in 2009. The twin ninny’s Tom DeLay of Texas and Bob Barr of Georgia sought to resurrect Gov. Elbridge Thomas Gerry (1744-1814) of Massachusetts best remembered for GERRYMANDERING his state. And they did just that to their respective states. (And James Earl “Jeb” Bush did it to Florida, too). Hey, they are Republicans. What do you expect?

By then the Republican ANTI tax philosophy had taken hold. As J Robert Oppenheimer could have labeled those political dinosaurs, “I am become death, the destroyer of worlds.” From the Bhagavad Gita. And destroy it they have done. Now $10 trillion in debt. And rising! The Republicans. The Reagan Republicans. The Bush Republicans. Republicans must hate America? The issue now before us is not only can the US survive, but can the world as we know it survive? All that foul work done between 1980 and 2008. By Republicans.

And don’t put Bill Clinton into that economic MESS if you please. Have Republicans oh so conveniently forgotten it was that secondary GOP genus, Newt Gingrich who gave us the Contract with America and how the Republicans gained control of the Congress in 1994, and not to lose it until 2006? The last time the Dems held 60 seats in the Senate - needed to block filibusters - was 1976 with 61 seats.

The Republicans are walking a dangerous road by being PRO FORMA against everything President Barack Obama is for! If this LAST DITCH TAKE NO PRISONERS strategy of theirs backfires, the Dems in 2010 may equal 1964 when they held SIXTY-EIGHT Senate seats!

I think the Bush Willie Horton, Jesse Helms Affirmative Action, and Bob Corker Playboy Club RACIST ads still have a lot of support amongst the GOP rank and file? In other words, they ain’t got over it yet! America having a BLACK president! Come Quick, Sweet Jesus!

[edit on 2/17/2009 by donwhite]