Democrats & Liberals: Archives

Team Red has not abolished social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminated labor laws and farm programs. But currently, it is interesting to note that if one tries to change anything, they are labeled as stupid…another interesting point is that Team Red does not appear to be negligible…And your point is?

I believe his point was that a REPUBLCIAN President of the past said that “a few other Texas oil millionaires” didn’t like “social security, unemployment insurance, and …labor laws and farm programs” and Bush jr. is the son of a Texas oil millionaire! And that REPUBLICAN President called them Stupid! And most Americans think Bush Jr. is Stupid. :)

Yes, I know according to the electronic voting machines with no paper trail made by Republican supporting businessmen say Bush got the most votes. And even though Ohio was ‘close’ you don’t see a problem with heavy Democrat districts not having enough voting machines…etc. Fact, is now the majority of Americans do not approve of Bush. Bush is already becoming a lame duck, losing support from his own party http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=536&e=2&u=/ap/20050512/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_fighting_gop.

*** The biggest thing missed by the Conservative media ***

Reagan and Bush Sr beat their opponants by double digit percents (mondale & dukakis), yet a Conservative wartime President only beat the #1 Liberal by 2%!!! The only logical those results can mean is that America is more Liberal then ever! Then again with movies, tv shows, and music that are popular today it should be no surprise that we are more liberal.

Conservative America = leave it to beaver, father knows best, Sinatra etc.

Liberal America = Fear factor, Simpsons, Queer eye, Queer folk, L word, sex in the city, will & grace, friends, Eminem etc.

Demorats ruled 40 years after Hoover gave us the Great Depression. So now that Bush has given us big deficits, big debt, wars, loss jobs, unpopular social security plan, etc. I believe we are at the dawn of another generation of Progressive rule.

I’ll end with another old quote:
“Happy days are here again”…coming soon.

We’ve come a long way indeed… just imagine how Eisenhower et al would react if you told them their party was referred to as “the Reds” nowadays ;-)

Here are some other good quotes from Dwight D. Eisenhower of which the Bush administration has not taken heed:

“If the United Nations once admits that international disputes can be settled by using force, then we will have destroyed the foundation of the organization and our best hope of establishing a world order.”

“Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies in the final sense a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed.”

“The problem in defense is how far you can go without destroying from within what you are trying to defend from without.”

“If men can develop weapons that are so terrifying as to make the thought of global war include almost a sentence for suicide, you would think that man’s intelligence and his comprehension… would include also his ability to find a peaceful solution.”

“We must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex.”

The United States has come a long way. When Eisenhower was president, the average middle class family had the buying power of someone at the poverty line today. People lived in smaller houses, had less reliable cars, and nobody but the rich owned stock. Many people didn’t even have bank accounts.

Today, more than half of American families own stock. A majority has retirement accounts and almost everyone has a bank account. The role of the government in the less developed society of the 1950s was different than the role of the government in 2005. As we can do more for ourselves, we need less the paternal hand of government.

The Bush plan does not suggest eliminating the programs Eisenhower mentioned. But they do need to be updated to reflect the vast changes in our society. A lot of things have changed since the 1950s and I hope we all agree that we don’t want to go back a half century. I don’t reject the past. I build on it.

Yes, we have come a long way. Our government can and will help us, but we don’t have to let them make all our decisions. It is time to act like the adults we have become and know that we can stand on our own feet and make our own choices.

Conservative America = leave it to beaver, father knows best, Sinatra etc.

Liberal America = Fear factor, Simpsons, Queer eye, Queer folk, L word, sex in the city, will & grace, friends, Eminem etc.

You seem to be confusing old tv shows with conservative tv shows. Either that or you are assuming conseratives are those old enough to have watched those shows.

even republicans should be able to see their party is not theirs anymore….they should really look at these neo conservatives and think carefully of the consequences of this new party ideal…..NO GOVERNMENT ASSISTANCE-MORE GOVERNMENT CONTROL….thats what the new republican party is going for…..pick yerself up by yer bootstraps, if ya can’t make ends meet we’ll give ya lots of money to join our army, we got wars all over the place! oh yeah, your brother the homo, ya need to go ahead kill him cause he don’t believe in jesus……i hope the previous commentor is right and we catch another wave of progressive thought in this country, but i’m not holdin my breath….

Scott-

For the sun to rise on your next generation you need more than just opposition to Republican ideas. You need to win elections.

“Team Red” figured out that you could crack the Democrats advantage by playing team politics. As Lindsey Graham told me last year, “Washington politics is a team sport.” And good, bad or indifferent they’ve been able to keep their rank and file in line even if it meant supporting less than ideal positions.

My question to you is, given that the power of the Democratic Party of old was its broad base of appeal (labor, farmers, minorities, progressives, and yes even social conservatives) how do you get such a big tent party to settle on just one agenda? And why do you think the party can settle on and get behind the progressive wing given the “New Democrats” of 90’s and the electability concerns of its progressive candidates last year?

There has been a large shift in the republican party. I think Reagan started the shift, although he may not have realized it, by reaching out to the Christian Coalition to help him get elected. The republican agenda has since become more aligned with superceeding our laws and changing our constitution to fit their moral values.

I must admit that the moral values of America as a whole seem to have declined over the years….or have they? Things that happen now also happened years ago. The difference is there are 24 hour news channels that report everything they can find including the dirtiest of dirt on our political leaders….it sells (there use to be some sort of “gentlemen’s agreement” when it came to personal lives). There has also been a rather large population increase since the 1950’s. If say, 20% of the population was engaged in “sinful” things in the 1950’s and the same percentage is engaging in those same things now….well, that’s simply a lot more people. Add to that the 24-hour news coverage and you get a message that things are awful.

I’m not exactly sure the Amercian populace morals have declined as much as we think they have (although I do think a decline has occurred). Even if they have declined, what can government do to fix them? Apparently the neo-conservative wing thinks they can pass legeslation to clean things up. I think the opposite. It’s the families job to teach morals and its the church’s job to teach the family morals as passed through Christ. It’s not the governments job to do this nor is it the churches job to become involved in politics. The wall of seperation that Thomas Jefferson discussed, and that has made our country great, is coming down. We are working on becoming a “religious state” unless we turn around.

I miss the old republican party. The one of fiscal conservation, government responsibility with our tax dollars, states rights, a strong military for protection (not necessarily nation building), and working to improve government efficiency in areas they are needed.

I agree that some of our biggest social programs are good. I also agree that they are in need of updating and improvement. Regarding GW’s plan of social security…I don’t think it is that bad with one exception. Allowing us to invest our own money is an excellent idea. However, if many elect to do this there will be an immediate need of cash-flow for those currently receiving benefits. How do we overcome this rather large need for cash? I suppose the same we GW has done everything else thus far…..Credit….let our kids pay for it. THAT’S my problem.

I’m a middle of the road person that has been forced further and further left by this new right wing agenda. I think we let the church bless the world by spreading the good news and let the government run our secular society. That’s the way its been and it has worked very well. It is what has made us a great nation.

When Eisenhower was president, the average middle class family had the buying power of someone at the poverty line today.

What happens when you adjust for inflation?

…we don?t have to let them make all our decisions. It is time to act like the adults we have become

Same old straw man. Jack, if you really believe that, you should be more concerned with Republicans legislating government enforced maternity and passing federal laws that affect the private, personal decisions of one single individual, like “Terri’s Law”.

George, we only lost by 119,000 votes in one state. The last election was a big wake-up call to get organized. Granted, liberals aren’t predisposed to march in lock-step just for the sake of political gain like our colleagues, but from all the email updates I get, it sounds like the wheels are in motion.

And if anyone really doesn’t know what Democrats are for, here’s a good place to start.

AP-

I know you have to spin but since 1978:

Senate has gone from 38 to 55 GOP
House has gone from 143 to 233 GOP
GOP won 5 out of 7 Presidential

I don’t know the number on the Governors or the State Legislations but I think there are now 26 GOP Governors. It’s hard to say the Party is just 119k votes away.

George brings up some good points.

I think there are several ways to progress your party but two stand out. First, are great ideas and agenda. Second, there is salesmanship. These things can or cannot be mutually exclussive.

I think the GOP has done a GREAT job with the salesmanship. Their agenda and ideas are at best mediocre since they preach one thing and do the other (they, by the way, aren’t the only party guilty of that).

A third way that a party can increase its gains is by the other party stepping on itself. I don’t think the democrats have done this to a large degree. I give most of the credit to the GOP salsemanship. However, I think the GOP is beginning to let the far right dictate agenda more and more at the expense of classical conservatives. This may be where the GOP steps on itself. Only time will tell, of course. I don’t think the democratic party is as organized or sells itself as good as the GOP. I think the dems will see tide turn when the far right agenda goes too far….if it does. I do know that our classical fiscally conservative republicans are gone. They have been replaced by tax cuts at all cost, budget be damned, let’s get these moral issues pushed through, and the list goes on.

I find it amusing that the democrats have approved 205 judges and not approved only 10 and the GOP is trying to make them look like the stubborn children. Nominating judges that have already been defeated seems to me like someone is actually picking a fight. It could be nothing more than a strategic move to smear the dems….not sure, but it’s bad policy. Are there absolutely NO other conservative judges that are qualified to serve? Is that why these were renominated?

Stating that all judges should get an up or down vote assumes we Americans are plain stupid. The Senate Judiciary Committee has blocked more judges from going to the senate floor than anything else. This was done to Bush Sr. when the dems controlled the senate and to Clinton when the Repubs controlled the senate. The majority is much larger now for the repubs so the only way to stop confirmation is the filibuster. Why not just find 10 other qualified conservative judges? If the dems blocked them then they would naturally look like obstructionist.

Sorry to get off topic. Just one example of how power seems to corrupt.

AP

The poverty level moves with the prosperity of society. Look at things like housing size, auto ownership etc. That is not to mention that today most poor people own hairdryers, microwave ovens, VCRs, color televisions and many other things that weren’t available in the 1950s and were only owned by the rich in 1975.

I am concerned with laws that regulate society. You mention some. The biggest social engineering relate to things like affirmative action and ADA. But our topic was economic.

Societies pass through stages where government must supply essential services most people are unable to supply themselves. Most Americans have gone beyond that now. The Democrats still live in the past where average people were less educated and owned fewer assets. They needed government to act as their father. What Eisenhower was saying in 1954 was true. It just is not true any more.

I think it is ironic that people who like to refer to themselves are progressives don’t understand progress.

I think it is ironic that people who like to refer to themselves are progressives don?t understand progress.

I think it is ironic that people who like to refer to themselves are conservatives don?t understand conservation.

I think it is ironic that people who like to refer to themselves are progressives don�t understand progress.

A beautiful soundbite, Jack, but it’s just not the case that “progressives” are promoting social programs that have been static for 50 years. Nor is it the case that economic progress over the last 50 years has eliminated poverty, illiteracy, prejudice, or economic inequities. The average family may be better off, but there are still national disgraces like homeless families and veterans. And more of the middle class that you might expect are just a layoff and a medical problem from bankruptcy.

While you may not be one of them, Jack, there are a lot of “conservatives” now that don’t want to “conserve” the safety net we have, or even reform it. They want to turn the clock back to before that safety net existed.

The 2003 platform of the Texas Republican Party wants to abolish the separation of church and state, phase out social security, abolish the income tax and minimum wage, abolish the EPA, and (!) take back the Panama Canal. This is not “reform” - and I for one will not trust Texas Republicans like DeLay, Bush, and Karl Rove to “reform” anything, if this is the direction they want to take us.

Back in the 50s, 60s, and even the 70s, radicals piped the tune that there were no real differences between the two big parties - just slight shifts in emphasis. To some extent, that was true; there was a large common commitment to a certain core set of principles (like separation of church and state) and programs (like social security). The budgets for the Army and Dept of Education might shift, but nobody wanted unilateral disarmament, and nobody wanted beggars in the streets.

Today’s Republican party has closed ranks and achieved a level of unity that’s new in national politics, and the result is that 51% of 51% of the country can have enormous political clout. Those of you that thank you are voting with the party of Lincoln, forget it - that party is long, long gone. It’s not even the party of Ike. You are standing shoulder to shoulder not with true conservatives, but with true radicals: men that want to tear apart the foundations of American society.

Tom L.,

Chris Matthews( “hardball”, hardly right wing) devoted a show to the judge debate awhile back, his advice at the end to the pundants… Democracts need to understand they lost the election.
I may not agree with him politically, but I respect the hell out of his political Intel., as I do James Carvel.

I may have read more into his comments than what was intended, however, I took it as; Rather than just sticking together and being “fighting mad”, you need to be fighting back and you must do that politically.

“I must admit that the moral values of America as a whole seem to have declined over the years….or have they? Things that happen now also happened years ago.”

While I think you may be going to extremes on this topic, it is worth bringing up. At times, progress itself has helped to make formerly-moral behavior immoral. As an example, consider teen sex. A hundred years ago, most teenagers were having sex — but it wasn’t a problem, because most teenagers were MARRIED! Even those that went to school were usually done by age 14. A 20-year-old unmarried woman was considered a spinster.

Today, we send everyone to high school until they’re 18, then tell them they can’t get a “real” job without going to a 4-year college (which takes most of them 5-8 years). Then we tell them to get settled in life before they think about marriage. So, we’re basically telling them to wait for marriage until they’re about 30, and have lived half of their lives post-puberty. And we wonder why teen sex and premarital sex are so common?

Drug use was also common 100 years ago — but it wasn’t illegal. Marijuana was the poor man’s tobacco — it’s what you smoked when you couldn’t afford the real stuff. It didn’t become desirable until it became illegal.

Prositution was as common then as it is now. I can ask my parents (dad grew up in the 20s & 30s, mom in the 40s and 50s) where the whorehouses were in their neighborhoods, and they can both tell me. It’s perhaps more violent now, but no more common.

Murders are more common, but that’s partially because the definition of murder has changed. At one time, if someone came on your property without your permission, and didn’t leave when asked, you could shoot them. Now it’s considered homicide (thankfully). The days of the wild west are over.

Finally, crime and immorality are almost always higher in urban areas than in rural ones, and our country is becoming increasingly urban.

William

Fond am I of sound bites when they make sense.

Neither I, nor the Republican Party of Texas, believes in getting rid of the safety net. Your link to the platform takes you to some guy in California. Let’s go to the original documentation.

Their platform says:

“We believe self-government, based on personal integrity of a proper moral foundation, is the best government. This is best balanced with limited civil government, coupled with public trust, to provide collectively for the people those services not efficiently achieved individually.”

“We believe that good government is based on the individual, and each person’s ability, dignity, freedom, and responsibility must be honored and recognized. We believe equal opportunity is a right and a privilege but equal outcome is not. We insist that no one’s rights are negotiable and that individual freedom demands personal responsibility. “

I think that is kind of progressive and fits better into today’s world than the outdated idea that your outcome is government’s responsibility.

Jim~
That was a down right ignorant post! Come back later when you realize both party’s have extreme sides and neither of their extreme sides are any less scary!!

Jack,

“When Eisenhower was president, the average middle class family had the buying power of someone at the poverty line today.”

Is this assessment adjusted for inflation or are you just throwing a crappy piece of data out there?

I thought I explained that up top. Consider what a middle class family could buy in 1955. They had a black and white TV. Maybe they had a car maybe not. As late as 1970 only 90.5% of Americans had a telephone. Today 98.2% of those in poverty do. Having recently lived in E. Europe, I know this is a luxury. In 1980 only 28.6% of Americans had central air. Now 45.6% of people in poverty do. Tell this to the poor guy living in a cardboard box in Brazil. 78% of the poverty stricken have VCRs. 48% own one car and another 14% have two.

I don’t mean to make light of poverty, but our definition is based on a comparison to a very affluent society. The U.S. was a much poorer county fifty years ago than it is today. Poverty is a comparison. Nobody in my nuclear family owned a car until I got my first when I was 28. We weren’t poor for the time.

A couple hundred years ago, ordinary families expected to experience hunger from time to time. A generation ago, anyone who traveled to Europe (except at the request of Uncle Sam) was a rare world traveler. By consumption standards of those times, we really don’t have many poor people left.

Unfortunately, we still tell the same stories. It makes it harder to find solutions when we have diagnosed the wrong problem.

I think anyone who looks objectively at both parties would agree that they have both morphed into something Lincoln and Jackson would probably quiver at the sight. I think, in many cases, both parties have tried to refresh their respective platforms to current “standards,” and at the expense of their core beliefs.

As a former card-carrying Republican, (still a conservative) I can now see the good in both parties. Unfortunately, as each party argues that it is destined to take over government, most of us are not thrilled at either prospect. I still maintain my core conservative beliefs. No, they are not perfect and not 100% consistent. And I am generally not above either admitting some are wrong and changing my mind, or admitting that some of them are based on “gut” or “heart” rather than a partisan diatribe.

I think both parties have come a long way. I’m just not sure either knows where they are going.

George Bush leading one and Dean leading the other. It seems like the blind watching the blind leading the blind.

Chi Chi,

You hit the nail on the head! Thanks.

Neither I, nor the Republican Party of Texas, believes in getting rid of the safety net. Your link to the platform takes you to some guy in California. Let�s go to the original documentation…

Jack, I’d feel so much better if what you said was true, and the story was all made-up by some loon, and that wasn’t what the Texas Party wants. But I believe you’re quoting from the preamble.

The 2004 Texas Platform does still include: “dispel the myth of separation of church and state”, “gradually phasing out the Social Security tax”, “abolition of the US Dept of Education”, etc - it doesn’t look very different from what CalPundit commented on.

I didn’t see the Panama Canal bit in the 2004 platform, but I might have missed it. Interestingly the actual “full platform” document is PDF of a bitmap, scanned in a little crooked - you can’t search it or Google it. You can download it from a sidebar on the page you pointed us.

A couple hundred years ago, ordinary families expected to experience hunger from time to time. A generation ago, anyone who traveled to Europe (except at the request of Uncle Sam) was a rare world traveler. By consumption standards of those times, we really don’t have many poor people left.

Well, not many poor Republicans, maybe….

From FRAC

in 2003 11.2 percent of all U.S. households were “food insecure” because of lack of resources. Of the 12.6 million households that were food insecure, 3.9 million suffered from food insecurity that was so severe that USDA’s very conservative measure classified them as “hungry.”…Since 1999, food insecurity has increased by 2.1 million households, including 1.1 million households with children. In 2003, 36.3 million people lived in households experiencing food insecurity.

One person in eight is below the poverty level, which is $18,725 for a family of four, including “public assistance” like SS. Not a lot of European vacations on that budget…we’re better off than 200 years ago, Jack, but why go back?

William

I have seen these hunger risk studies before. They are self-reported and it doesn’t mean that people are actually hungry or it might mean that they failed to go to the store or plan for the end of the month. Since things like obesity and diabetes are now problems of the poor, I don’t believe hunger comes from a complete lack of resources.

I don’t say there are not poor people. What I am saying is that our definition of poverty changes such that there will be poor always. By the standards of 1900 or even 1950, there are very few people who are poor in the U.S. But by the evolving standard, we will never eradicate poverty. It is like the old tautology that half of all Americans earn less than average wages and 20% fall into the lowest fifth.

As I understand the poverty figures, they DO NOT include payments in kind and many forms of public assistance, which accounts for the anomaly that the poor as a group consume more than they receive in income.

The problem with telling the wrong story about poverty (the one that was appropriate a half century or more ago) is that it leads us to the wrong responses. Back in 1930, it was possible for a skilled person with excellent work habits to remain in poverty for his entire life.

William

I was quoting from the preamble.

Being poor as I am, my home computer can’t read and download the PDF, so I will have to look at it tomorrow.

Jack,

“Consider what a middle class family could buy in 1955. They had a black and white TV. Maybe they had a car maybe not. As late as 1970 only 90.5% of Americans had a telephone. Today 98.2% of those in poverty do.”

This isn’t a sign of increased buying power, Jack… All technologies go through different phases of ownership in society and in time they come so close to being a commodity that almost everyone has one. The “buying power” of society can stay completely flat yet the ownership in the average american household of something, say broadband internet connection, will increase over time.

When you compare our numbers to that of countries like Brazil, you are slating what the true buying power of America is. Poverty to them, as you said, is quite a bit lower than what our definition of poverty is. You can’t keep things relative if you start using other countries as examples.

So going back to what you said, did the buying power really change? Or did the availability of that item change? Did people just become wealthier so they could afford TVs, or did TVs just become cheaper so they could be afforded? I would argue that it is primarily the latter of the two possibilities. Feel free to disagree but you don’t have much relevant evidence to refute me.

I think anyone who looks objectively at both parties would agree that they have both morphed into something Lincoln and Jackson would probably quiver at the sight…
George Bush leading one and Dean leading the other. It seems like the blind watching the blind leading the blind.

Some of the truest words ever written on WatchBlog!

Zeek

You actually quote the evidence yourself. Products become cheaper so they could be afforded. That is the whole nature of the progress I am talking about. If technology improvements make the products I buy half as expensive, my buying power has doubled.

Improvements in technologies have accounted for almost all increases in wealth at least since the industrial revolution and probably since men first crawled out of caves. Otherwise, you are right. An American farmer is no richer than an ancient peasant. All of his advantage comes from techniques and technologies.

Both parties have changed. However, the biggest changes I see with the GOP are these:

first, the have begun to ignore fiscal responsibility (used to be a core conservative value).

second, states rights don’t mean as much as they use to. The GOP will get into states rights if it furthers their political agenda. Or at least they will condemn the states. Examples are the Teri Schivo (sp?) case and the civil unions that states are passing….GOP answer….we’ll amending the constitution.

Lastly, they would absolutely love to take down the wall of separation between church and state that our founding fathers built in place and most of our presidents have praised.

William,

Nice article. Even better, in my opinion though is your first reply in this thread, which was great from start to finish.

You wrote:
“Today’s Republican party has closed ranks and achieved a level of unity that’s new in national politics, and the result is that 51% of 51% of the country can have enormous political clout. Those of you that thank you are voting with the party of Lincoln, forget it - that party is long, long gone. It’s not even the party of Ike. You are standing shoulder to shoulder not with true conservatives, but with true radicals: men that want to tear apart the foundations of American society.”

Spot-on! I agree totally and completely, and I couldn’t possibly have said it better myself.

Ryan,
Good Ike quotes — very salient and timely, indeed.

William, I agree with Adrienne. Excellent responses. In fact, I’m impressed with quality of all the responses. Even Jack’s, regardless of how wrong he is. ;)

Jack, when 40 million Americans live in poverty - and the number has been steadily increasing for the last four years - the argument that they aren’t really poor because they have a $50 Wal-Mart television and a “lifeline” telephone falls flat.

Neither I, nor the Republican Party of Texas, believes in getting rid of the safety net.

I don’t know about the Republican Party of Texas, Jack, but I’ve pinned you down on Social Security before, and you absolutely do want to get rid of it. Did you change your mind?

“The United States has come a long way. When Eisenhower was president, the average middle class family had the buying power of someone at the poverty line today. People lived in smaller houses, had less reliable cars, and nobody but the rich owned stock. Many people didn?t even have bank accounts.”

Jack,

People in the fifties didn’t know that they needed these things, and as a result they were probably more satisfied with what they had.

American society has changed greatly over the last 50 years. Our priorities have changed greatly as well. Remember that we had just come out of the depression and fought two world wars in the span of fourty years.
We didn’t need color TV because going to movies was relatively cheap. People actually read a book once in a while. Families actually sat down together for dinner. Cell phones and pagers weren’t nescessary because most parents knew where their children were.

What was the dropout rate in the fifties?
What was the divorce rate in the fifties?
What was the suicide rate in the fifties?

Has techology really changed America for the better?

Jack, if you have never had something, how do you miss not having it?

Tom-

The GOP was a limited government, States rights party when they were the opposition in Washington. Now it’s hard for them to be against who they’ve become. And that’s one of the big problems with the Libertarian Party; that they strive to become what they are so ardently against!

As for the Separation issue, well we’ve argued that one here countless times and their are certainly two sides to that “wall” that the founding fathers built somewhere. Over the last twenty years secularists put a big dent in the balance that all countries must obtain with regards to religion, and yes we are living in a time where the religious activists are trying to pull the rope back the other way. But this is a moderate society, and neither side will ever be allowed to pull too far…

It makes for good blogging though.

“we are living in a time where the religious activists are trying to pull the rope back the other way. But this is a moderate society, and neither side will ever be allowed to pull too far…”

George, I really hope that this is true…but I’d feel better if we weren’t giving them quite so much rope right now :-)

We also can’t forget that the Republicans are not the party of Barry Goldwater anymore either.

Here is a good Goldwater Quote:

There is no position on which people are so immovable as their religious beliefs. There is no more powerful ally one can claim in a debate than Jesus Christ, or God, or Allah, or whatever one calls this supreme being. But like any powerful weapon, the use of God’s name on one’s behalf should be used sparingly. The religious factions that are growing throughout our land are not using their religious clout with wisdom. They are trying to force government leaders into following their position 100 percent. If you disagree with these religious groups on a particular moral issue, they complain, they threaten you with a loss of money or votes or both. I’m frankly sick and tired of the political preachers across this country telling me as a citizen that if I want to be a moral person, I must believe in ‘A,’ ‘B,’ ‘C,’ and ‘D.’ Just who do they think they are? And from where do they presume to claim the right to dictate their moral beliefs to me? And I am even more angry as a legislator who must endure the threats of every religious group who thinks it has some God-granted right to control my vote on every roll call in the Senate. I am warning them today: I will fight them every step of the way if they try to dictate their moral convictions to all Americans in the name of ‘conservatism.’

– Conservative Arizona senator and 1964 Republican presidential nominee

Barry Goldwater

Wow does that ring true 40 years later.

AP

I would privatize SS for most people as I have stated. At the same time I have stated that we would keep up the safety net for the truly poor. Social Security, in my opinion, is like whole life insurance (something you should never buy or own). It combines a saving with an insurance function and does neither particularly well. There was a time in our history when SS was useful and when it could work. That time is passing. In fact, it has already passed; we just haven’t acknowledged it yet.

I don’t want to get too philosophical, but poverty is as much a state of mind as a state of money. For nearly a decade of my life, I had very little money. I qualified for (but of course did not accept) welfare and food stamps. But I was never poor.

The other factor is the comparison. I read the study William provided. Even within that advocacy piece, you can see the progress. They had to define hunger away from actually not having food to hunger risk, which means you don’t have consistent access to healthy food. A problem, yes, but not the same kind. Healthy food can be very inexpensive, so we have here a problem of education and behavior.

Rocky

The 1950s were good times for America, but like all times in the past, we have moved on. There are a lot of changes in U.S. society that I don’t like, but over all I would not want to go back to the 1950s except to visit. Us older guys remember the low crime, quiet streets and optimistic attitude. We forget the pollution, racism and fear of Soviet attack.

It is interesting that the problems you name are all social, at best tangentially related to technology. As I understand it, the graduate rate for HS is higher now than in the 1950s. (we can argue about the quality of education) Divorce rate is higher, but it depends on which social groups you study how bad it is. I don’t know if the suicide rate has risen and I can’t find historical figures. But that is very much societal based. I remember seeing a study that compared suicides in Sweden (lots) to the ghetto in Detroit (few). I also read that men are 72% of the victims, although women talk about doing it a lot more.

I would also add crime to the mix, although the rate increased until the early 1990s and has been dropping since. The disruptions of the 1960s were responsible for many of our social problems, but we are getting a handle on them now.

“I would privatize SS for most people as I have stated. At the same time I have stated that we would keep up the safety net for the truly poor.”

Good for you, Jack. Please let the Texas Republicans you feel that way, because their platform calls for abolishing the Bureaus of Alcohol, Tobacco & Firearms the Surgeon General, the EPA, the Depts of Energy, Housing, Urban Development, Health and Human Services, Education, Commerce, and Labor [page 20, under “Downsizing the Federal Government”] which would make keeping any safety net a little tricky.

Unless of course you don’t need one, because there no “truly poor” - I mean, you’re right, even today’s homeless are way better off than average people were a few thousand years ago. I mean, look at that bag lady, she’s got a shopping cart to push her stuff around in! Nomads from 10,000 BC would be so grateful for that technology! Now, if she were truly poor I’d help her out….

I knew ridicule would follow my discussion of poverty, but it is something we have to talk about. Most of us see the world no through statistics but through stories. That is why articles always find a human angle. Our story of poverty is much out of date and so our solutions are inappropriate.

Poverty today has little to do with economics and a lot to do with culture and sociology. This was not the case in the 1930s. In those days, if you brought jobs to a place you could make a serious dent in poverty. Today there are many places where poverty coexists with a very robust and even overheated job market.

Yes, some of this is the result of technology that has eliminated most well paying sporadic job opportunities. I was a longshoreman when containerized cargos were starting to come in. We used to employ lots of men on a daily basis. Many were drunks, who could work very hard, but not for very many days. When the containers came in, you needed reliable people, who didn’t shake when they handled heavy machinery. The sporadic workers were out of luck. This happened all over and is still happening.

But what is the solution? The old story doesn’t work and we haven’t written a new one.

“Today there are many places where poverty coexists with a very robust and even overheated job market…The old story doesn�t work and we haven’t written a new one.”

Fine - talk about poverty, talk about how you’d solve it. Right me a story, and explain what you’d do - but please, also let us know if either

(a) you disagree with the Texas Platform, and acknowledge that there are people with serious power in the Republican party that are way to the right of you, Jack - and that maybe the party’s even leaving you behind or

(b) explain why completely dismantling the existing infrastructure at the federal level is a step in the right direction for your solution.

William,

Please let the Texas Republicans you feel that way, because their platform calls for abolishing the Bureaus of Alcohol, Tobacco & Firearms the Surgeon General, the EPA, the Depts of Energy, Housing, Urban Development, Health and Human Services, Education, Commerce, and Labor [page 20, under “Downsizing the Federal Government”] which would make keeping any safety net a little tricky.

Thanks for linking to the Texas GOP Platform. You forgot to tell us why they feel that these agencies should go.
According to the platform, “This Party supports the downsizing of the federal government in order to re-establish state’s rights guaranteed by the Tenth Amendment of the United States Constitution.”

The platform says that if these authorities are needed, they can be “transferred to the state and local governments.”

Sounds much more efficient and cost-effective to me. Also more democratic, since the people have more direct control of state governments.

William, bureaucracies that employ thousands of people, waste billions of dollars and accomplish next to nothing have to either go, or be made more efficient. I would hope the average person would agree with this even if you (and Congress and the President) don’t. Perhaps you don’t realize that the nation is almost eight trillion dollars in the hole?

Also from the platform:
“We also call for the de-funding and abolition of the National Endowment for the Arts and the Public Broadcasting System.”
I certainly can’t think of a bigger waste of our money than the NEA.

William

Of course there are people to the right of me, as I am a centrist Republican. I don’t have a problem with that. There are people to the left of me too. That is the nature of a party.

I was thinking of something AP said about sticking with your party. I think it is a good thing. If I have a friend and he wants to undertake something, I will help him achieve his goal because he is my friend, not because I necessarily agree with him. If our relationship is based only on transactions where I support him if I agree, we aren’t friends, we are just traveling in the same direction. In any friendship, there can be strains and there are things beyond which we won’t go, but we haven’t yet reached that impasse.

I read the platform. It is obviously the result of compromises where different people got different things. I disagree with some things, like election of judges, but I could sign on, but I don’t live in Texas. I also looked at the Dem platform from Massachusetts. I liked it less.

Re the correct poverty story, if I could write the correct story I would put it in a book. What I would call for is flexibility and local control because one solution is unlikely to fit all of a country as vast and diverse as the U.S. I like the part about personal responsibly. Unpopular as this will make me, I am convinced that there has to be a sting to poverty and that sting some come right away. People drift into bad habits. Little by little these habits get so strong that they are no longer easy to break. If a young person doesn’t like the job he has, he should get a different one, but he should not have the option of taking some time off to do nothing. It enables a bad habit.

BTW welfare reform passed by a bipartisan majority under President Clinton was a very good step in the right direction.

Jack~
I completely understand your thought process! A lot of people are in denial about poverty situations, 8 times out of 10, people have chosen that path! I know people are going to be angry at that statement, but let me explain why I say that:
I am a single mother(with little help from his father…not whining, just stating my facts)! My situation is a result of my choices and it is not anyone elses obligation to support me! I have managed to stay off the dole by pure determination! Not always easy but not exactly difficult either!!(I do live on my own also not with relatives)! I have worked numerous jobs that I was not exactly fond of(like fast food), but it supported me! I have known TONS of people though that feel a fast food job is beneath them! I’m not quite sure how they reason that a welfare check is much more dignified!?! I have lived between Michigan and Missouri and have never been anywhere that dosn’t have an abundance of minimum wage jobs available!! It may not be what you want but that’s besides the point! It was your choices that got you there!One last point I would like to make is this: A fast food job may be beneath these people but what about taking money from these poor workers? Minimum wage employees pay taxes just like anyone else so while you’re sitting back collecting your check remember to thank that lowly McDonald’s worker for making it all possible!

TheTraveler:

“According to the platform, “This Party supports the downsizing of the federal government in order to re-establish state’s rights guaranteed by the Tenth Amendment of the United States Constitution.”
The platform says that if these authorities are needed, they can be “transferred to the state and local governments.”
Sounds much more efficient and cost-effective to me. Also more democratic, since the people have more direct control of state governments.”

If we were to get back to the discussion of core beliefs, what you have posted here is a conservative core belief. It represents the best in what the conservatives have to offer—local control of programs to benefit local needs, the individual states having oversight responsibility, and local decisions as to what programs are needed.

I realize that not everyone will agree with the specific moving of welfare and other programs to the local or even state level. But I think most would agree that, in general, the more local control there is, the more the programs can respond to the unique requirements or needs of any given area.

As a conservative, I broke away from “the party” due in large part to the newly installed majority running away from this belief screaming like a little girl in a pretty pink dress. It just seems to me the powers that be from both parties are interested more in partisan politics for reelection as apposed to good public policy. This leaves good liberals and good conservatives casting empty votes for empty offices.

Here’s a story to support my feelings:

I once dated this guy who’s niece was graduating from high school! They were poor and living on welfare, I asked her what she was planning to do with her life (she was an A/B student)! She said she was to poor to go to college. I said, “Sally”, with your mother’s financial background, and your ethnicity (she’s black) there are plenty of options to help you with college!” Her exact reply was,”I’m not taking any “welfare” scholarship!”
Funny how she’ll live on it though and has for the past 6 years!
I would much rather have seen my tax dollars going to better her, and be done, but now it will just continue forever!!
This is not an isolated case either it’s one of many.

Would someone mind explaining how privatizing Social Security works. I’m not refering to the Bush plan but rather the get-rid-of-the-current-system-entirely-and-privatize-it plan. How would it be different that just investing my own money? And why would I want the govenment to serve as an intermediary?

Reed

The Bush plan does not advocate privatizing SS, which we still need to help the unlucky, as you say. I don’t think any plan does. Otherwise you are right, you could just invest yourself.

Reed:

From what I can gather from a number of advocates of the total privatization of SS, it works like this:

The federal government will make available a list of various investment possiblities, presumably in the form of a mutual fund vehicle. These “approved” plans would receive your money from the federal government. Your money would continue to be payroll deducted and sent to a government beauracracy for processing and distribution. The private fund manager would invest the money on your behalf in exactly the same manner as if you walked into his office and bought mutual funds.

At that point, you are subjected to the same significant waffling of the stock market as if it were a private investment. If the market gains, you gain. If the market looses, you loose.

At the time of retirement, you would be given another set of options as to how that money is distributed, in what amounts, and in what frequency.

Two very important points to consider:

1.) Under this plan, once the money is gone, it is gone.

2.) Should you pass away before all the money is gone, the rest of the money can be bequeathed in the manner of your choosing.

The devil is in the details. What does the federal gov’t get for administering the plan? Who says what plans will “qualify” for federally stamped investment? What dollar amount or percentage will be deducted—what are the upper and lower limits?

Lots of questions, but no concrete answers as yet.

Traci~
While I do understand what you’re saying, and I know there are some people who “choose” unemployment and impovershment, I have to disagree with you when you say that MOST can change their situations. Here’s MY story:
My mother is also a single mother, not entirely by choice. That shouldn’t have mattered, however, since my mom is a skilled computer engineer with a college degree who had once even worked at the Pentagon. Sadly, though, Michigan’s economy turned really bad around 5 years ago, I think (I was pretty young so I don’t know if that number’s entirely accurate). Anyway, my mother was laid off of at her job. She was almost 50 at the time. Now, knowing the hiring tendencies of employers, not too many are eager to hire a 50 year old while 24 yr old recent grads are applying for similar positions, even if the 50 year old is experienced and skilled. My mom has been a “lowly McDonald’s worker” for about 4 years now, but we’re still impovershed as a result. We’ve lost our home, our car, and just about everything we own. And I know several others who have been put in the same boat as me after Kellogs outsourced plants in our town to Mexico and hundreds of people were laid off (the same man that made that decision is now Secretary of Commerce.. just some food for thought).

I’m not playing a pity game here, I’m merely trying to point out that not everyone chooses poverty. My mother has done just about everything she can do to avoid our situation, but there’s not always a clear black and white. Just because someone works hard doesn’t necessarily mean that they won’t wind up in an unfortunate situation. This is the largest error in Republican thinking, and this is why government assistance programs such as Medicare are needed and, contrary to popular thought, ARE appreciated by those who need them.

Thanks the explanation, Chi Chi. I’m still not sure I understand the incentives involved. Perhaps that one of the devilish details. For example, would there be some kind of tax-incentive for me asking or allowing the government to invest my money? Would employers also be paying into the system on my behalf?

TheTraveler:

William, bureaucracies that employ thousands of people, waste billions of dollars and accomplish next to nothing have to either go, or be made more efficient. I would hope the average person would agree with this even if you (and Congress and the President) don�t. Perhaps you don�t realize that the nation is almost eight trillion dollars in the hole?

I do realize it! And I realize that Dubya has racked up, what, half of that - starting with a surplus! - then growing government’s discretionary spending by 20% while massively cutting taxes on the wealthy?

But there’s no reason why fiscal mismanagement should be used to excuse a give-to-the-rich, take-from-the-poor philosophy of government.

Jack:

If our relationship is based only on transactions where I support him if I agree, we aren�t friends, we are just traveling in the same direction.

Jack, I’m sure you’re a good, loyal friend, and that’s wonderful. But keep your eyes open, buddy, because people change, and parties change, and the party of 10 years ago that pushed for balanced budgets and term limits is not “traveling that direction” any longer. The Republican party is following their leaders, and their leaders may well be following that platform. And sure, it’s a compromise, but don’t you think the compromise would be a little different if Rove or DeLay looked at this and said - “wait a minute - we’re not going to phase out social security! that’s crazy!”

So just watch out, Jack, that your “friends” don’t lead you somewhere you don’t want to go.

I know both sides have used the filibuster to hold up legislation. It’s not just a democratic tool….it’s a congressional tool that has been used to death (sometimes for the good, sometimes for the bad, but mostly for political reasons).

I found it interesting to hear what Madison had to say about majority power (I’m not pulling for the dems or repubs here, just found this very interesting):

“Wherever the real power in government lies, there is the danger of oppression. In our governments, the real power lies in the majority of the community, and the invasion of private rigts is cheifly to be apprehended, not from the acts of government contrary to the sense of its constituents, but from acts in which the government is the mere instrument of the major number of constituents.”

This in a letter to Thomas Jefferson dated 10/17/1788.

I’ve often fealt the filibuster was nothing but an obstructionist tool. It has been modified a couple of times. First, by the addition of Cloture, where 67 senators could overturn the filibuster. Later, in 1975, the number of senators was reduced to 60 for overturning a filibuster. Now, of course, the red team wants to eliminate the filibuster. Granted, nothing is mentioned in the constitution regarding such an instrument. However, when the guy considered the father of our constitution saw a problem with majority power, the rule propably has a sound basis. After all, these guys did compose the document that has been serving as the foundation of our government for over 200 years. They were, no doubt, very forward looking people.

As I continue to study about the history of filibuster and our founding brother’s concern regarding majority rule, I continue to retreat regarding my opinion of the filibuster as an obstructionist tool.

However, with the reds…the end and the means to the end are only seen from one angle…that, of course is from a “political victory”.

I’m not exactly sure that the filibuster, as used in the holding up of judges, is in context with Madison’s statement. However, I feel it “could” be. There should be some serious thought about changing rules for an immediate victory. Personally, I’m not sure Frist has the votes or this would already have been “nuked”…with little thought of the reasons we have it.

off topic? I don’t think so. The red team used this tool when they were the minority. Now that they are the majority in the exective and legislative branches, they want it gone. They are not better than the dems when it comes to being “power hungary”…

Reed:

“Thanks the explanation, Chi Chi. I’m still not sure I understand the incentives involved. Perhaps that one of the devilish details. For example, would there be some kind of tax-incentive for me asking or allowing the government to invest my money? Would employers also be paying into the system on my behalf?”

The theory is that the money would be payroll deducted—pretax—similar to a 401k, thereby providing a tax-free retirement environment. The incentives lay in the tax free nature and the fact that the stock market gains on each $100 invested has vastly outpaced the growth for the same $100 in the SS system. There are varying opinions, depending on the source, as to whether that is true. I have not yet been able to find the link to a southern city, I think it is Houston, that opted out of the SS system some years ago. Before the recent stock market bumbles, they had reported tremendous earnings to the point that many had planned early retirement. I wonder if those people are still retired.

Ok..let’s be fair here:

***…the biggest thing missed by the Conservative media (Scott Massar)***

According to Pew research center, the self proclaimed “fact tank”, moderates and liberals dominate the media; 34% liberal, 7% conservative at the national level; which may explain this link: http://www.democrats.org/media/index.html

***The republican agenda has since become more
aligned with superceeding our laws and changing our
constitution to fit their moral values. (Tom L)***

Don’t forget the Democratic initiatives to nullify the 2nd amendment to fit THEIR moral values..

***I miss the old republican party. The one of fiscal conservation,
government responsibility with our tax dollars, states rights,
a strong military for protection (not necessarily nation building),
and working to improve government efficiency in areas they are needed. (Tom L)***

Yes! Now in retrospect, I’m sure many repubs AND dems do!!

***Back in the 50s, 60s, and even the 70s, radicals piped the tune
that there were no real differences between the two big parties -
just slight shifts in emphasis. (William Cohen)***

Democrats have typically been the party of big government (which is good or bad, dependant upon your views) - now in light of the Patriot Act, Homeland Security and the Real ID scam, the Republicans are too. That’s another distinguishing characteristic of the repubs down the drain…the above mentioned is not such a radical viewpoint now.

***Lastly, they would absolutely love to take down the wall of
separation between church and state that our founding fathers
built in place and most of our presidents have praised. (Tom L)***

Umm…let’s not forget that the “Separation of Church and State” is simply an interpretation of what was (or was not) written in the Constitution. According to separationists themselves, it is a “summary of the intent of the religion clauses of the First Amendment.” I consider myself a separationist as well, but we need to remember that this is every American’s constitution and none of us have the right to take as holy doctrine what isn’t 100% clear.

***The GOP was a limited government, States rights party when
they were the opposition in Washington. Now it’s hard for them
to be against who they’ve become (George in SC)***

Very true…but…

***…and that’s one of the big problems with the Libertarian Party;
that they strive to become what they are so ardently against! (George in SC)***

Not the case George. So what you’re saying is, if a libertarian is elected to some sort of governmental authority and fulfills the typical libertarian agenda of scaling down the government, they are inherently as bad as the politicians who bloated it to begin with? Simply because he/she currently inhabits the position previously responsible? It doens’t make sense. Elected libertarians are proving that they will NOT become what they despise - most of their constituents are people that are tired of being lied to and tricked by politicians of the two major parties - they won’t let their leaders betray them….not now, not while they’re the underdogs at least… Check out this link..yeah it’s from the Libertarian Party site, but it’s a starting point:

http://www.lp.org/lpn/9707-taxes.html

To all of you Democrats: YOU LOST THE ELECTION…GET OVER IT. If you want to recapture power and do things your way, try comming up with ideas that MOST voters will support, otherwise accept the loss and quit whining. I have yet to see any legitimate proposal from the left to solve any of our problems since President Bush was elected.

“I have yet to see any legitimate proposal from the left to solve any of our problems since President Bush was elected.”

True, but its not as if the right had anything near a plan other than the Contract with America during the Clinton era. The minority party only has to throw stones; they don’t have to come up with anything on their own.

“To all of you Democrats: YOU LOST THE ELECTION…GET OVER IT. If you want to recapture power and do things your way, try comming up with ideas that MOST voters will support, otherwise accept the loss and quit whining.”

Hey tomd,

Your guy won the election by 2%. The tide will turn soon enough. If the Republicans don’t get their act together, it may be sooner rather than later.

Rocky

I understand both your point of view and Tom’s.

Democrats do seem to forget that they lost. The percentage of the win doesn’t matter. I remember when Ronald Reagan was president. He slacked both Clinton in 1980 and Mondale four years later as decisively as possible. Yet Dems still talked about the people not being behind him.

No Democrat has won the majority of the vote for president since 1976, so let’s not try to shade things too far. I think that Democrats considered that Clinton had won when he got a plurality of about 44% in 1992 and about 49% in 1996. They were right. And Republicans are right about Bush.

Rocky:

Your guy won the election by 2%. The tide will turn soon enough. If the Republicans don’t get their act together, it may be sooner rather than later.

I really don’t think so. In all seriousness. The liberal party used to be the pary of hope, now it is the party of “no”. Just read from the left here. It is so negative on everything. Very very few ideas and idealism that makes people want to follow are present. I don’t see the Democrats doing well until Democrats change.

http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=239

Take a look at the above link and tell me why I would be optimistic if I were a Democrat. Not only that but Bush is far more popular than Congress in general and Democratic leadership in specific.

This quote kills me.

Democrats’ approval of the party’s leadership stands at 56%; by contrast, fully three-quarters of rank-and-file Republicans (76%) have a positive view of their party’s congressional leaders. About a year ago, 63% of Democrats approved of the performance of Democratic congressional leaders.

If only 57% of DEMOCRATS support their parties leadership, how in the world do they expect to win over 50% of the general election vote in 06?

Craig

Craig and Jack,

Look guys you know that I respect most people’s opinions here. You both also know that, in politics, things can change in a heartbeat. There is nothing that the voters in this country despise more than yesterday’s message.

tomd,

“I have yet to see any legitimate proposal from the left to solve any of our problems since President Bush was elected.”

Don’t kid yourself, tom. This is about popularity not legitimate ideas. That’s the ugliness of majority rule rearing its ugly head once more…

Rocky

Look guys you know that I respect most people’s opinions here. You both also know that, in politics, things can change in a heartbeat. There is nothing that the voters in this country despise more than yesterday’s message.

You do a very good job.

I get tired of the negativism from the left. (I am not tbinking so much of you on this). It seems that the glue of the left is Bush hatred. I just don’t see that as a winner.

I get frustrated on this blog because the bloggers on the left keep rehashing or looking for more negative, and then refuse to focus on anything else!! As issues drift past us, they are a mixture of positive and negatives. (The old class half full thing). The left is like a filter that filters out anything positive so it can continue to talk about thenaegative.

It is like the left believes if they stay angry and bitter long enough, finally it will be their turn to lead and then life will return to normal with them in leadership roles. Actually I think they have it 180 degrees backwards. I think when the left stops being so cynical and negative, and returns to the people of hope they once were, that is when they will be restored to power. Instead of waiting to get back in power, I think the country is waiting for liberals to change.

Lately I have been wondering why liberal bloggers are so depressing!! Read from the left on the state of the economy and one would get the impression it were 1932 again. I think it is because national liberal leadership is so depressing!! I can imagine a liberal recruiter saying “Come and join us so you can be angry and miserable like us!!”.

It is really sad to watch a once proud movement imploding.

Craig

Jack said “No Democrat has won the majority of the vote for president since 1976”.

Partial credit for accuracy - you forgot 2000 :-)

Craig & Tomd, The Democratic Party has a great positive agenda, “The American Promise, A Future of Security, Opportunity and Responsibility.”

They’ve put together some great legislation that includes authorizing more troops go after terrorists and cover our committments around the world, doing right by our Guard and Reserve troops, a 21st Century GI Bill to help out our vets, get rid of government incentives that encourage companies to move jobs overseas, fully fund the No Child Left Behind Act, protect Medicade and Medicare, and reinstitute mandatory fiscal mechanisms to stop deficit spending.

It’s all good legislation, and you should urge your representatives to support the Democrat’s positive and responsible vision of the future.

AP:

Thanks for the link. That looks like a d@mn good agenda to me. As a part of the hmm what was I,,,, Oh I am a “pro government conservative” (according to the test I took here at Watchblog a week or two ago), could someone from this side start selling that agenda??? It looks like a pretty good road map to me. The only addition I would make would be a statement on Social Security. It would be great to debate something positive.

Craig

I agree with Craig…If you have such a positive agenda, don’t hide it….Lets debate it instead of being so negative. All I hear from the left is how bad the Republicans are doing. Lets talk about what the Dems can do better.

About social security:

There was an article in Newsweek about social security in the Feb 14th issue. Here is the link to the article

Here is an interesting tidbit from the article.

Bush is pretending Social Security’s about to collapse and go broke, which isn’t true. The Dems are telling you that it can continue as is for more than 30 years without a problem�and that’s not true, either.

Ok now here are the reasons that Allan Sloan gives for these.

Why Bush’s plan won’t work: Bush’s private accounts don’t make Social Security financially sound�the benefit cuts do. The private accounts are something Bush insists on, not something Social Security needs to regain its long-term financial footing.

Why Dems plan won’t work: You see that Social Security is now taking in more cash than it spends. The accumulated surplus is approaching $2 trillion. But there’s a big problem here, fans. The money isn’t being saved. Instead, one part of the government, the Treasury, is writing IOUs to another part, Social Security. The Treasury borrows Social Security’s surplus cash and gives it IOUs in return. It pays interest on the trust fund’s IOUs with additional IOUs rather than cash. So you’ve got a big pile of government promises to itself.

Ok, now here’s the analysis of the two plans. Bush’s plan won’t work without cutting benefits. Private accounts don’t gain us anything. The Dems plan won’t work because we are spending the social security money on other things…….like the Iraq War.

Sorry Republicans, your wrong on this one. Fiscal responsibilty would save social security so the “do nothing” Dems are 100% correct in their plan on social security.

Sorry for the bad news. Here’s a hint, since the Republicans are in power, they have the power to save SS but instilling fiscal responsiblity. It really is as simple as that.

You are right…privatization won’t save ss. However, if I take 6% of my “contribution” and invest it at least I will stand a chance of getting some of it back.
If private investments are so bad, try taking them away from congress.

So, tomd,

Do you belive that we should go all out in this “what’s in it for me” society?

No William. Gore did not win a majority of the vote in 2000. He won a plurality. Gore got 48%. A majority is more than 50% which no Democrat has achieved since 1976.

Rocky,
So, tomd,

“Do you belive that we should go all out in this “what’s in it for me” society?”
You don’t know me so let me tell you a little about myself…I grew up in a modest household with my dad working in a cotton mill in Ga. I graduated high school in 1966 and got drafted in 1967, Spent my year in Vietnam and came home expecting to recieve all the benefits I had heard so much about. Shortly after that I got married and tried to buy a house using the GI loan guarantee. The most I could qualify for was $15,000. A moderate house around Atlanta at the time was $18,000. About the same time a new “social” program came out called FHA-235, where a qualified person could buy an $18,000 house and have his payments subsidized by our government. I made $200 a year too much to qualify so I was in a position of having to live in a cheaper house while my tax dollars helped someone who might not have worked as hard as I did to live in a more expensive house…You are damned right I am looking after me and mine before I help anyone else. Do you have a problem with that?
Sorry about the long rant.

While I am on my soapbox let me ask some of you Liberals a hypothetical question with the following conditions…You work hard and make $5000 one month while I go home every day at 4pm and would rather spend my time fishing than working, so I only make $500 for the same month.
Can you justify me going to you with a gun and demanding that you give me 30 or 40% of the $5000 that you made?
If you can, please explain it to me…I sure would like to get into someone’s pocket every once in a while.

tomd,

I think you missed my point. The money should be there when you retire but since the fiscally irresponsible government is spending your retirement on other things, the money won’t be there. That is total BS and not much of an argument. Basically, you loan me ten dollars that I promise to repay you in the future but I end up spending it on a movie and popcorn and tell you that you should just deal with it and you are supposed to accept it.

So private accounts will take the government out of the equation a bit but lets not forget about the root cause of why there is a “crisis”. FISCAL IRRESPONSIBILITY. The republicans can shoulder most of the responsibility and should.

The government shouldn’t be anybody’s savior but come on, lets deal with the facts a bit.

“You work hard and make $5000 one month while I go home every day at 4pm and would rather spend my time fishing than working, so I only make $500 for the same month.”

tomd,

What the hell are you bitching about son?

You said it yourself.

You’d rather go fishing.

My point exactly Rocky, However If I don’t pay my taxes to give the bum down the road a free ride then the US Marshalls will bring their guns and cart me off to jail…What’s the difference?

tomd,

Do you have any idea what the tax difference between $5,000.00 a month and $500.00 a month is?

I’d rather be fishing too.

That’s my point Rocky
I feel like I’ve been robbed every time I look at the with holdings on my check stubs.
I believe just about all major problems could be solved by getting government out of them. I have seen very few things that government can do better or cheaper than private enterprise.

tomd,

The problem is that this is the only government we have.
Hey, you put them there.
America has one of the lowest tax liabilities of any industrial country. You want smooth highways you gotta pay taxes.
What about the folks that have taken it in the shorts in recent times?
How many of those private enterprises you speak so highly about, started their private enterprises with government sponsored small bussiness loans?
How would you like it if all those government employees were dumped into the job market?
The Defence Dept. is one of the largest receivers of your tax dollars. How is Mr. Bush going to run his “War on Terror” without your tax help?

You say you make 500 bucks a month. How much do you think you will be able to invest a month?
20, maybe even 30 bucks?
Let’s say you’re lucky. You manage to put together 100,000 dollars. Let’s say even 200,000 dollars. One major illness, one extended stay in the hospital, one accident, kiss it goodbye.
Now, remember those tax dollars you don’t want to spend? Other folks are now helping you out.
We’re in this all together fella. Getting yours don’t mean a thing.
But hey, lets go fishing.

Rocky, $500 a month was a hypoththetical number to make a point. I agree there are some things that we have to rely on the government for, such as roads and defense. I don’t think it’s the government’s job to give welfare to people. I think that’s the job of familys and churches. And I think familys and churches would be able to carry the load if we weren’t taxed too much to give them the money they need. There’s also the psycological aspect of it too. If the government is providing welfare then a lot of people won’t bother giving to charity because the government will “take care of it”
If the government were downsized and all those government workers hit the job market, I believe enough of them would start small businesses to support the rest. And the government has no business being involved in starting businesses either small or large unless it’s a vital industry and no one else can do it.
As far as a major illness wiping everything out, That’s why I pay more than $700 a month for insurance for myself and my wife. Which by the way wouldn’t be nearly as expensive if the government wasn’t involved with all the regulations.
And by the way, I don’t fish…that was an example to illustrate how I feel about the government confiscating my money at the point of a gun.

“Rocky, $500 a month was a hypoththetical number to make a point.”

Well tomd,

Your hyothetical lives below the poverty line and qualifies for government assistence. Which BTW, you want to deny him. He pays very little in taxes because he makes less than minimum wage.

And I would understand if you didn’t want to pay him to go fishing.

As the saying goes, “The best defense is a good offence.” Democrats like to complain
about Republicans being rich. I would point out that, when it comes to being rich, John
Kerry makes George Bush look like a pauper. Furthermore, 7 of the 10 richest Senators
are Democrats.

The 2004 election wasn’t close. George Bush won 81% of the counties in America. In
fact, if it wasn’t for Ross Perot who took 19% of the vote, Clinton never would have been
elected. Majority of Americans lean to the right. The minority better come up with some
positive ideas or they may never get back in. Just traducing against a popular president
won’t do it.

George,

“Democrats like to complain
about Republicans being rich.”

Hm, I would say that is largely false, especially as a generalization. It’s more about them being rich AND looking out for their own buddies/constituents instead of America’s interests.

“The 2004 election wasn’t close. George Bush won 81% of the counties in America. In
fact, if it wasn’t for Ross Perot who took 19% of the vote, Clinton never would have been
elected.”

Blah-Blah-Blah. If-If-If. If Nader hadn’t screwed up things in Florida, Gore would have won the election in 2000. We could do this pointless “if” crap all day, but it doesn’t really mean anything or prove a point.