The Rusted Dome and the Party of Decay
Oh, I know, I’ll get hit with some loud complaints from the Red Column over this, but I think this story tells us much of what we need to know about the fundamental flaw of governing from a position that is antagonistic to taking responsibility for the nation and its fortunes.
I mean, this is just shameful. It might seem cute to those who hate the federal government, but as a demonstration of what level our national pride is at, the people who run the house should be curling up in a ball and dying of shame. This is not a policy of hands-off government, this is a policy of neglect.
The fact that nobody seems to be willing to face, in my opinion, is that much of what this nation depends on, in terms of infrastructure, finance, and this nation's advantages in the markets and the academic fields was a product of a system that while not perfect, was actively maintained and developed by those who were in charge.
People once had pride about this country, not just in some boastful sense of having a big ego about the USA, saying it's the best country in the world, but in terms of actually doing something to make that so. There was a sense that you wanted to be the best version of yourself, the most educated, most diligent, most virtuous. There was a sense of community, not just individual ambition.
Paying taxes, while unpleasant, was a duty that you undertook to make sure things were paid for. It's not some odd coincidence that the national debt has skyrocketed under two Presidents who wrote up and passed two big tax cuts. That is simply what happens to revenue, and the budgets that depend upon them, when you cut revenue. Now folks would say we could balance those revenue cuts with spending cuts.
But who are you kidding? The spending cuts are never as popular as the tax cuts. Personally, my belief is that aside from emergency spending to deal with the sudden outbreak of a war, or a financial crisis, we should balance what we spend with what we take in, and the two should function to keep each other in check: people's desire for government to do more with the cost of doing more, people's desire to have the government do less, countered by whatever benefits there are to having government able to intervene. Too much of the policy seems to be based on one immature assumption or another.
This year, the Republican National Convention is loosing a day to the arrival of Isaac, a hurricane now churning in the gulf. Seven years ago, almost to the day, the arrival of a storm called Katrina made news, and lead to a shocking failure of government on every level. Some try to blame one layer or another, but the reality is, the problem was just one of generally not caring about doing what government is supposed to do, planning, doing the extraordinary things that require resources beyond the individual's reach, and taking care of the infrastructure that makes business and life possible.
Nature, whether mother nature or human nature, has a way of seeping into the cracks of our society's weakness, and causing disasters, or making disasters worse. Right now, the cast iron that makes up the capital dome is rusting, there are literally thousands of cracks. The Senate's done its part to pay for the restoration, but the House, as has been usual this Congress, has fallen down on the job. And for what? About sixty million dollars.
Chuck Schumer, Senator of New York had some apt words. He said, "This is basic upkeep to the United States Capitol building. There is a time and place to debate spending levels and the proper role of the federal government, but when your house has a leaky roof, you pay to fix the roof." [emphasis mine]
The article encapsulates the point well in another way:
In other words, just as it is best to fix a bathroom leak before it causes damage to the rest of the house, the dome repairs could prove much more expensive over time.
We have infrastructure decaying all over the country. We have an economy that's clearly dysfunctional, and not getting better fast enough as a result of market forces. The Republican game has been to try and get cheap on the American people, or try and force more of the costs onto individuals, for things like Healthcare.
Our manned space program, once the envy of the world, didn't outlive the first man to step on the moon. Our grid is decades old, eating up power just to transmit it. Our nation's most prominent architecture is decaying, our parks are being neglected. Our national treasures seem ready to be privatized, given to those who Teddy Roosevelt said could neither add to nor improve the lands given. We're relying on sources of energy that don't stand much of a chance of getting cheaper, and leaving behind the chance to become world competitors in a new energy market, for the sake of the old.
As time, disaster, and official neglect undermines infrastructure, national symbols, and our economic growth, this country will enter a period of decline. There will be those who blame aid to the poor, who blame entitlements, who blame regulations and laws constraining the behavior of business.
The reality is, a nation like ours is only great as long as the basis of its greatness has substance. If you don't have people really working, earning what they need to earn, you won't have a strong, vibrant economy. Poorly maintained infrastructure, buildings, and other economic necessities will only impede things.
It won't help if all the rich do is turn the financial sector into a members-only casino, accountable to nobody, yet posing a systemic risk to the economy, and the jobs of millions of Americans that will be lost even if they were the most virtuous employees on the planet.
America will not outcompete China or Europe on Green energy, nor kick its addiction to ever more expensive oil doubling down on the failed, expensive policies of the Bush Administration.
America needs a Congress and a President who at least have the sense to fix the leaks in the roof. it needs politicians who are willing and able to meet challenges, and who are not consumed by a dogma that discourages the sound, moderated use of government to help Americans deal with government. It needs people who are willing to find new answers, rather than sit down and assume they have all the answers while the roof falls down around their head.
We don't need small government. We don't need big government. We need functional government. We need good government, wise government. We need more than just the pampered assumptions of a party that's coasted on the bounty of America's past. We need to be the people's whose pride in their country means that they won't let this nation totter over into shameful decline.
Posted by Stephen Daugherty at August 27, 2012 1:06 PM
“The reality is, a nation like ours is only great as long as the basis of its greatness has substance.”
The “basis of our greatness” was always our individual freedoms and, due to this administrations ramping up of the ‘war on the individual,’ our greatness is definetely fading.
But you go ahead and worry about a leaky roof.
Just a twist on all other things you post. It is your
progressiveism vs. Americanism. No change. Just more of the same old crap that you spew. No original thought, but that is not new. So how do you expect to influence people? It ainn’t gonna happen, Stevie boy. You are on the wrong side of what America stands for.
War on the individual. Hmm.
You know, it must be great not to feel you have to back such dramatic charges with real evidence, or to define freedom so broadly that even the most obnoxious behavior gets declared part and parcel of being free.
It’s odd, but so many times, the freedom your folks complain about being compromised is the freedom of some corporation to do some sort of obnoxious business tactic.
I’m sick of the war on civic and public virtue, if we’re going to phrase things in terms of “wars”.
Progressivism vs. Americanism?
No. Progressivism AS Americanism. As actually having some pride in your country, in how good its schools are, how well it takes care of its own, how prosperous and happy the average person is, rather than just concerning yourself with the few and the privileged that dominate every society.
I want to see our country be a nation that does big things again. I want this country to be working at full tilt again. I want our country to export as much as it imports again. I want this country to reach out for the stars again. I want our students to be the envy of the world again. I want reason and science to be the basis of policy again, rather than political dogma that mutates as necessary to oppose whatever harms the bottom line of a given special interest.
When people say that my country is number one, I want that to be more than the empty boast of jingoistic summer soldier patriots. I want that to be a verifiable fact. I’m sick of my nation becoming lazier, crazier, and falling apart at the seems. I want, and I believe my nation can do better than its status quo.
That the Capitol Building’s turning into a rustbucket is only a metaphor for the greater neglect of this country by the conservative movement, a movement that seems more likely to destroy the things it tries to preserve or set aright, than actually save. We need and deserve better.
Stephen, if it wasn’t so blatantly obvious, maybe I would feel like I needed to give examples. Should I have given examples like sin taxes? the ACA? religion? this administrations promotion of society over the individual? Maybe. But what good would it do when your people believe it is only you who gets to determine what rights others should be entitled to?
Obnoxious behavior and obnoxious business tactics are defined differently from individual to individual. Some people such as yourself, define it according to who is doing it, which is why your hypocrisy on the Bain lay-offs and the Obama lay-offs is so ridiculous.
This is why people who understand freedom also understand that it is governments job to create a fair playing field, not micro-manage business or lives.
I can tell you what’s not odd though, and that is the “freedom” your folks rant about almost always has to do with you not being given something.
“I’m sick of the war on civic and public virtue, if we’re going to phrase things in terms of “wars”.”
Spare us the “if we are going to phrase things in terms of “wars” BS. Your people have framed everything not in line with your extreme left ideology as a “war on” whatever. War on women. War on hispanics. War on this, war on that.
Here’s the funny thing about this “war on civic and public virtue” that you claim to be sick of: Civic and public virtue begin with the individual. It is the duty of each and every one of us to not be a burden on our government. That means we take responsibility for ourselves and our neighbors, we don’t expect government to do it for us, as your people believe.
But your people can’t have that, can they Stephen. Because when it’s placed on the individual level as it was meant to be, it would require all of you who “say” you care to actually do something about it yourselves. And we can’t have that.
No, instead all we hear is how it is always somebody else’s fault for something not getting done.
Should I have given examples like sin taxes?
Kctim how does sin taxes equate to loss of individual freedom? Your paying a tax but your also smoking or drinking or whatever. Wouldn’t drugs that are illegal to possess be a better example?
The ACA went to the SCOTUS and was found to be constitutional by the most conservative of courts we have had in our lifetime.
My question as well . Religion? what specific individual freedoms have you loss that are religious?
this administrations promotion of society over the individual?
Be specific kctim what has this administration did different from other administrations that you would call it “promotion of society over the individual?
It’s not blatantly obvious to me, and to a lot of people, yet you complain when we ask for you to back your opinion up with something else than more of your opinion.
I take care to do that.
Obnoxious behavior and obnoxious business tactics are defined differently from individual to individual.
But there is overlap in many of the definitions. That’s how Democracy works: overlap of interests.
Some people such as yourself, define it according to who is doing it, which is why your hypocrisy on the Bain lay-offs and the Obama lay-offs is so ridiculous.
GM and Chrysler still exist, and are in better financial shape, which is more than we can say for many of Bain’s targets. They were truly in terrible shape, and Obama’s reorganization plan left it in much more profitable shape.
I’m not the kind of person who doesn’t think that the occasional layoff, the occasional divestment and shutdown isn’t economically necessary. But I’ve seen far too much on Bain where the company essentially robbed the companies blind and mugged them for big dividends. What Romney did was more speculation than rehabilitation.
As for individuals being the root of all things?
I think individuals have both solitary and social natures, and to neglect the kinds of behaviors either tends to prompt, to ignore the fact that individual behaviors can compound at more than an individual rate when they become repeated across society, is foolish.
My sentiment is that I expect the government to reflect its people in full, both in their social and their individual aspects. There are some people people should, sometimes must do on their own. There are other things we do best in groups. And there are still other things that absolutely can’t be done by individuals.
I wish to see the setting for the policy in whole, not be weighed down by preconceptions that behavior must be dictated strictly by individually reducible factors. Sometimes, getting people into groups changes the behavior of the individual in a way that does not scale all the way down, and cannot be understood just by looking at people by themselves.
I love the Federal government and I bet I pay more each year in tips than you do in taxes.
The problem is the wasteful bloat. We built the capital dome, the Hoover Dam, the Interstate system and lots of other things when government was much smaller. Much smaller. Today we don’t invest as much but we redistribute more.
“America will not outcompete China or Europe on Green energy” We probably will, precisely because we have less government control. We are much more innovative and have been for a long time.
Our German friend have way over-invested in solar at today’s technology. We will transcend this, much as we have become the world leader in reducing carbon. Don’t underestimate America.
BTW - the capitol dome was completed under Republicans and most during a war on top of it.
I agree with Stephen 100%, and I think the reason the dome is cracking is because of Global Warming. I think Al Gore is right. we are experiencing weather changes of biblical proportion, we are literally seeing the book or revelation being fulfilled before our eyes. And Stephen is right, the rich 1% should be paying their fair share. It’s not right that the 99% should have to pay for everything. CEO’s are making all the money, the rich bankers are stealing us blind, and those rich SOB’s in Hollywood should be paying their share. As far as I am concerned, Stephen is the only one who knows what he is talking about, the rest of you are just attacking him.
If I had my druthers, I’d be paying more in taxes than you make in a year. But that’s not yet a dream realized, so let me say this: It’s not that I love the federal government or hate it, or that I feel especially warm and fuzzy about taxes.
But my approach is to government is to address practical needs first, and political needs second, and what I see is a Republican Party that does the opposite.
Take your tax ideas. A lot of punchy rhetoric, a position that Republicans can sit down, cross their arms, and not budge on… and it’s total bull****. The promises of Arthur Laffer haven’t come true, the marginal tax rate has never really been the main factor holding economic growth back. The notion that austerity will inspire confidence, and then growth, while shot through with an undercurrent of sympathetic appeals to belt-tightening and responsibility, hasn’t worked in any country that’s tried it. At least, not in the middle of a recession. Austerity costs, austerity cools, so you better have an overheated economy that can afford the hit on growth and employment.
We don’t. Overheated describes our economy the way tropical describes the weather on Neptune.
We need to employ economic theories that deal with the real center of our economic troubles, the austerity that’s already come down on most family budgets. We can’t recover either from our fiscal troubles or our economic troubles on the backs of the poor and middle class. We have to do it on their shoulders. The consumer economy is a huge part of our economy, and if we want that to work, we have to put a whole bunch of consumers back in action.
Part of it, I think, will be putting people to work on projects whose end results either put people to work, or make it to where people have more disposable income. Obama has plans along those lines, the Republicans don’t.
The Republicans are stuck, basically, on reinforcing the industries and producers of yesteryear helping those who have already succeeded reinforce their success. I would suggest, though, that these are the places where government’s help is least needed, and where waste becomes most profound. Republican policies and proposals are rife with examples of places where they essentially hand money to private systems without much oversight or cost control. Vouchers in Ryan’s Medicare proposal, and in education proposals and programs. Drugs in the drug program, with the federal government forbidden to bargain with suppliers. Money to the folks administrating the Advantage program. contracts in Iraq, no-bids at top dollar. How much money disappeared there?
Trouble is, Republicans have a conflict of interest when it comes to efficient government, because their basic point is that government is not efficient. They don’t want to prove themselves wrong. If their aim was to make government more efficient, to cut costs sensibly, to reduce budgets constructively instead of destructively, they could afford to have things work out. But since government must be teh evil, such work simply isn’t done, and the corruption increases.
I believe in refining, optimizing, making government work better at lower cost. Such a government can provide more help more effectively. The thing I would keep in mind is that it’s not a process with easy or simple answers, and those looking for perfect records whichever way they go will be disappointed.
The dome is cracking because ceiling cat caught you doing something indecent. Didn’t you know that? It’s all your fault. You should have practiced better restraint.
Seriously, what is the deal, record high temperatures in unprecedented numbers, weather patterns all out of whack, Sea ice at its lowest ebb since we started measuring it by satellite?
It’s got little to do with the Capitol Dome, but it’s more examples of things that Republicans would rather spin a bunch of rhetoric and misleading, think-tank generated BS than actually admit its real.
As for the whole Hollywood thing, I find its funny that you’re so quick to point at those people, who have little real power in most people’s lives, and not at the guys leading the banks, or building up the piles of toxic assets. They get you scared and wary of the wrong people, the wrong things. They have you taking out your populist aggression on folks who have done little else than given you something to watch on television during your time off.
No money to repair the dome?
This is money that would go to construction workers for actual hard work, to small businesses, into the economy to get people working and with a tangible result.
Too bad these are all things our Republican party detests! I guess they would rather our work force go on welfare so they could complain about it.
By the way, can anyone tell me who Romney is going to hire if he gets another tax break?
Progressiveism AZ Americanism?
That is part of the error of your ways.
Americanism is what it is. Progressiveism is what it is.
And never the twain shall meet.
Taxing behavior is controlling behavior. Banning behavior is controlling behavior. If someone other than yourself is controlling your behavior, you have lost a piece of your freedoms.
The ACA takes away ones freedom to decide for themselves if they want health insurance or not. You must provide government approved insurance. You must support government mandated procedures and medicine. When you have lost your freedom of choice, you have lost a piece of your freedoms.
We have lost our freedom to express our individual religious views in the public square. Individuals place a cross to honor and it is ordered torn down. Students are censored or reprimanded for thanking god during graduation speeches.
An individual expressing their religion on public property is not an endorsement of religion by government. When you have lost your freedom of religion, you have lost a piece of your freedom.
“Be specific kctim what has this administration did different from other administrations that you would call it “promotion of society over the individual?”
Would the ACA be specific enough? I hope so, seeing how it strips the rights of every individual in order to move the country closer to the type of society leftists want.
How about Obama’s speeches? You know, where he constantly proclaims that no individual accomplished anything on their own.
Support of an issue doesn’t validate the stripping of freedoms J2.
Maybe by way of your limited imagination. You can only see us as an enemy, can only see our choices as malice in the face of what you’re sure we must agree is the truth.
My sense of things is that we Americans have been sold the myth that we are great, purely because individuals can do what they want. But a critical part of our greatness is that we can use that freedom to band together for the common good, rather than be held back by the fact that we’re not of noble birth, or wealthy and elite already. America’s soul lies in the possibility of both individual and collective greatness, not one or the other mutually exclusively.
Contrary to what you think, I don’t believe people can only be great together. Nor do I believe that people can only be great as individuals. I believe we can play between the two poles of behavior, not just stick with one or the other.
And as such, government as I can consider it has far greater options, and a far healthier relationship with the American people, who are both many and one at the same time.
“But there is overlap in many of the definitions. That’s how Democracy works: overlap of interests.”
But in a Representative Republic, that overlap of interests does not supercede individual rights.
“GM and Chrysler still exist, and are in better financial shape, which is more than we can say for many of Bain’s targets. They were truly in terrible shape, and Obama’s reorganization plan left it in much more profitable shape.”
The shape they are in is still open to debate. And this is just another example of picking and choosing based on politics. “many of Bain’s targets”? LOL. Nice way to avoid saying the majority of their projects still exist.
“What Romney did was more speculation than rehabilitation.”
For dividends or for votes, fact is people were layed-off in both instances in order to realize gains and you use your personal politics to justify one and condemn the other.
“As for individuals being the root of all things?”
Nobody is denying individual can come together and accomplish great things. The argument is that in a nation founded on the principles of individual liberty and limited government, government does not force people to come together for certain desires of some people.
The only way government can “reflect its people in full,” is to respect the rights of its people in full. Government stripping the rights of one in order to fulfill the desires of another, does not do this. Instead, it reflects the beliefs of some while ignoring the beliefs of the whole.
Individual rights are not “reducible factors” that were intended to be arbitrarily infringed upon in order to satisfy the desires of others. That is why the founders made it so difficult to take them away.
I wish to see us respect that once again.
This article is a great example of the mindset of the progressive and how they can’t see the issues they have problems with as being their fault in any way. It’s always someone else…
Let’s look at a specific line in the original article used as the basis of this ‘rant’.
The Senate Appropriations Committee voted just before Congress left for its August recess to provide the money.
“I support funding the Capitol dome,” said Senator John Hoeven, Republican of North Dakota, who voted against an appropriations bill because it did not include money for the dome. (The money was included moments later in an amendment, which passed with Mr. Hoeven’s vote.)
The appropriators in the Republican-controlled House are starting with a smaller overall budget for the 2013 fiscal year than the Democratic-controlled Senate, and they want to finance much of the government’s operations at lower levels.
Senate leaders have decided that it would be too difficult to reconcile the two appropriations bills, as is normally done, until after the election.
That means Congress will have to pass a short-term spending bill — the sort that set off the fight that almost shut down the government last year — and it most likely will not include more money for repairs.
So, the relevant points. This was passed in the senate just before the break, and didn’t originally include the leaking roof fix until some members, notably in this article a Republican, objected to it being left out.
The House budget didn’t have it in, but they aren’t saying they aren’t wanting to include the funding, only that they want to do it at lower levels of cost than the Senate amendment called for.
Then, because of politics, the Senate decided not to reconcile the two budgets to actually pay for it until after the election.
This is the tactics of the Democrats, using stalling and delaying techniques for political gain, as they did in 2008 with the banking industry needing some help with mark-to-market rules that would have prevented the need for TARP and the bailouts, because they wanted to win elections. They complain that filibusters are the issue (without there actually being any) yet they refuse to bring bills that have been passed by the House up to a vote, even in those cases when the majority leader has supported those bills for decades.
It’s all about misdirection and trying to be the ‘good guy’ and labeling their opponents as ‘bad guys’, while doing pretty much the same things they are accusing their opponents of.
And people like Stephen fall for it because THEIR leaders can’t be bad, can they? It’s got to be ‘the other guys’.
The truth is, both parties are doing nothing these days but seeking the power to control the citizens of the United States in the way they want to, neither party is interested in lessening the control over our lives that they already have. It’s all for our own good, after all.
Finally, Stephen then displays the fallacy that we can’t ‘work together’ without government. Government is only good at forcing people to participate, otherwise there would be no need for government. Like minded people can, and do, come together to accomplish great things, but in the progressive’s mind, it is tainted if it wasn’t done with ‘full compliance’ by all, at the point of a gun.
What about all those union members that are forced to give to the democratic party? The numbers are in the millions. But that does not bother you, does it. There is a difference there for you to clammer about and attempt to persuade someone that forcing union members to contribute to Obama is different than what you wanted us to believe.
But in a Representative Republic, that overlap of interests does not supercede individual rights.
You know what? I’m sick of the technical word twisting. Do we, or do we not elect those representatives democratically? Even if the president is elected by the electoral college, that electoral college still casts its votes based on the popular votes within the states and state districts.
It’s not purely democratic, but the way we select our leaders most decidedly is democratic.
But no, it doesn’t contravene the constitution, nor should it. I know the propaganda keeps on pushing you to conclude that people like me don’t believe that, but that’s a crock of ****. We believe it.
As for Bain’s targets? Bain’s sort of leveraged buyout business was not a charitable hospital, much less a hospital at all. It’s point was to make money off of vulnerable businesses. Sometimes that meant leaving behind a success, or at least a company no worse off. All too often, though, it meant leaving a company worse off than it found it. That the majority may still exist is not the only way to measure things. The question is, did the businesses come off better than they were.
You say it’s equal, but Obama’s layoffs helped save the company, whereas Romney’s layoffs were often just to make a profit. Obama let some jobs be destroyed, so that millions would not be destroyed by a liquidation of a Chapter 7 bankruptcy. Romney destroyed jobs to make Bain Capital money. Very often, the fate of the companies wasn’t positive, despite, or in fact because of all the things that Romney’s people did.
“You know what? I’m sick of the technical word twisting.”
Using your logic or lack thereof you did exactly the same thing you accuse someone else of doing. Credibility? Honesty? Integrity?
None of that applied.
Stephen writes; “Part of it, I think, will be putting people to work on projects whose end results either put people to work, or make it to where people have more disposable income. Obama has plans along those lines, the Republicans don’t.”
That sums up the liberal agenda. Work and get paid. Don’t work and get paid.
“All too often, though, it meant leaving a company worse off than it found it.”
Another case of not doing your research. Go ahead jump in the gulf. You make immaginary cases for whoever you want to please without any support of the facts.
Doing great Stephen “Obama” Dougherty. Keep up the goofy work.
Easy Stephen, don’t get your panties all in a bunch. Sheesh.
I’m not twisting words, I am clarifying the difference between the majority rules democracy that you believe in, and the Constitutional Republic our founders believed in.
Our government was not meant to give 51% total rule over 49%. That kind of governing leads to division amongst the people, especially when that peoples history is one of individual freedoms protected from such a thing. The ACA is a perfect example.
For the record, it is your beliefs and actions that validate the belief of your willingness to violate the Constitution, not propaganda. You have proven over and over that you believe your personal beliefs of what is best for “society” clearly trumps the rights of individuals.
Re Bain: I do not resent success and personal opinions on intentions do not make one set of lay-offs less harmful than another. If the ends justify the means for the holier than all Obama, they justify them for Bain.
Fact is, Bain saved many companies that could have closed without their involvement. A closed business has no employees, so Bains involvement meant jobs saved.
More times than not, the results produced by Bain were the same results you defend for Obama.
And again, Bain making a dollar profit is no different than Obama profiting from union votes.
I’m sick of the technical word twisting.
Then stop doing it?
But, it is not technical word twisting to say that we do not live in a straight democracy, the founders were very vocal about their dislike for such an institution. We don’t live in one, and it is a good thing. The minorities of this country agree…
I’m sick of having to walk on eggshells around the politically correct word police you seem to be a deputy of. This nation, while not technically a pure democracy DOES elect its leaders, its legislatures. And yes, it is a Republic, a constitutional republic, too. Nobody’s denying it.
But long story short? Democracy is a big part of how we govern our nation, even if it’s not the whole story, and yes, while we should have certain constraints on government, that government should follow the will of the people otherwise, as the constitution is designed to allow it to do.
Your views, your special interests should not get to dominate even when most Americans come to disagree with them.
As for research? I believe that the figure is that 4 out of 10 companies collapsed after Bain was through with them. I’ve have more up later, but trust me when I say, I’ve done the research. Have you? Have you looked any further than the assurances of your favorite pundits, the latest GOP talking points?
It’s amazing how much you read, only to come back as if you never had read it.
If it’s an emergency, sure you give people the funds not to drop into an economic black hole and drag the economy with it. But you know, you can’t just keep people limping on government funds forever. That’s only our attitude in your overripe Republican fantasies.
No, you need to start generating jobs, and that’s what Obama’s been concentrating on, at least where he’s had the power. Republicans? They spew out agenda items, point out some tangential relationship to jobs, by way of their theories, and call them jobs bills. Otherwise they’ve just try to check off items on their agenda wishlist. This Congress makes the do-nothing Congress of 1948 look like… Well, the last Congress, not to put too fine a point on it. They haven’t even gotten one appropriations bill in on time.
You’re clarifying nothing. I have never been under the impression of, or attempted to convince anybody of the notion that everything is simply a plebiscite of the the people. You’re just arguing over stupid distinctions.
The Congress won’t be appointed, the President will not be the heir of the previous office holder, the Senate will not be selected by some secret society or party from a group of nobles. People, like you and me, will vote for them, and though the process and the structure of our Constitutional Republican is not entirely dependent on majority rules, it will be those who get the most votes in their district, or their state who will go on to Washington, and that Congress will pass or not pass most rules and laws by majority vote.
Even the President, who is officially elected by the electoral college, will still depend on getting majorities or pluralities in the states and the electoral college districts in order to be elected. If not determining the whole outcome, the people strongly influence it, making it a Democratic system in most meaningful ways.
It’s a mark of your radicalism that you deny this, this thing schoolchildren are taught.
This system was not built so that a few could rule over many, or so that most items of essential business required supermajorities that would be rare in the offing. This is a system built in tension between the rule of the majority, and the rights of the minority. That’s how my very conservative civics teacher put it. Majority rules, minority rights.
The point of balance between the two tensions is meant to be determined by the people. It’s not meant to be set arbitrarily low to please a few people like you, who think their view overrule everybody else’s no matter what. It’s not meant to cater to the interpretation of the constitution by a few, to the exception everybody else. There’s a reason Supreme Court judges are appointed by one elected leader, and then confirmed by an elected body.
As for the Rest? Bain Capital was a leveraged buyout firm. If you think the health of the company was their compassionate concern, you’re naive. Their concern was making money. Your market fatalism, your believe that what happened simply happened because of the character of the market avoids the truth that many of these companies got burdened by ridiculous levels of debt for the sake of one-time big dividends, dividends that didn’t make any sense for folks trying to rescue a company.
LBO firms like Bain look at vulnerable companies because their stock is cheap, not because they’re looking for businesses to heal.
As for union votes? Man, we’re talking about the collapse of an entire industry, and you’re saying it’s all about union votes. You can never see it straight, can you? You can only see it as an opportunity to union bust, not a potentially catastrophic blow to our economy, with consequences reverberating for generations to come. No, it’s got to be all about something else, so you can deny that Obama exercised good judgment or had good intentions.
You write like you know what I am thinking and doing. Guess what, you are so far wrong. I don’t think like you think. I don’t believe what you believe. You cannot assume that people who do not believe and think like you do, are wrong. That is a serious flaw in how you conduct yourself. There are a number of people above that you treat the very same way. You are not wise enough to claim you are lord of all. Your interpretation of democratic is twisted. Anything you can lay a claim to that is supporting democracy is un-American.
Oh, how horrible. It’s only what you’ve been doing to me for the longest time.
I’m lord of no-one. I don’t assume. I repeatedly offer facts, facts that are ignored by people who seem to only be interested in continuing these stories.
My interpretation of Democracy is not twisted, it’s standard. Ask most people whether they think this country’s a Democracy, and most will say, yeah! They don’t parse out that to be a pure Democracy, everything would have to be decided by everybody in a plebiscite, no, they just think, “We elect leaders by voting, those leaders vote among themselves by majority rules to pass or not pass things, so, Democracy!”
Yes, it’s more complicated than that, which is what I’ve been trying to tell Republicans who lord it over me that Democrats couldn’t pass their policies, or who blame the consequences of their filibustering on the Democrats, for not being stronger. But at its basis, the framers intentionally created a nation whose leaders are accountable to voters. That’s what has people calling this country a Democracy, and that’s what people mean, and I don’t think they’re all that far wrong for thinking that way.
So what’s your alternative? Tell me!
I mean, what the hell are you really talking about? You just want to trash liberals like me for not believing in the constitution, for not being with it as to what this government really is. You want to act like you’re some kind of experts, like the rest of us are just poor deluded saps. Well screw that. Your view of this country is so twisted you can’t even admit that the country should follow the interests of the majority, rather than attend to the minority’s will.
It’s not always fair, I know, being on the other end of things, but if we want to have real power when we get on the upside of the various cycles in politics, we have to be willing to let the system function this way.
Like my teacher said, Majority rules, with minority rights, a system that lets us govern ourselves as a people without a big fricking gridlock logjam, while not letting any one group run away with the government once and for all, or letting them torment the minorities or the dissents with the force of law.
It is technical, but it is very important. Ours is not a democracy in the pure sense of the word. The Founding Fathers were very careful NOT to create a democracy, since experience with them had been so unfortunate. That is why they made the system with the balances and that is the genius of the United States. It is the reason we still have a government of the people, by the people and for the people after more than two centuries. No democracy is the pure sense has ever managed to survive even the lifetime of single individual.
Democracy is a pure sense is unworkable.
“The Republicans are stuck, basically, on reinforcing the industries and producers of yesteryear” - you got this exactly backwards. Which party more often props up the firms of yesterday with bailouts, protection and special help.
If we let people figure out what they want, we are usually better off than if a group of politicians does the choosing.
Dough boy writes; “If it’s an emergency, sure you give people the funds not to drop into an economic black hole and drag the economy with it.”
Giving people “funds” is a whole lot different than providing them with the necessities of life (ie) food, clothing, shelter.
Where in the hell in our constitution can you find any hint or provision for taking money from some to give money to others? Unemployment compensation is paid for by workers and companies. SS and Medicare are paid for by workers, companies and beneficiaries.
And you say…sure…give people money for sitting on their arse. You have gone way beyond liberalism into Marxism on steroids. At least under communism in the old Soviet Union people at least pretended to work as the government pretended to pay them.
Some fools still believe the liberal line about our economy. Borrow or print money to give to some so they can spend it to keep the economy going. What a bunch of pure bull crap. And Dough-boy doesn’t seem to think he is a “group rights” kind of person.
Dough-boy is a taker…like so many liberals today in our country. What has he given to or for our country? Like leeches, they suck the life blood from others who work and contribute. While never serving in our armed forces they lift their voices to disparage the men and women who protect their very life and liberty.
I suspect Stephen has taken more from government that he has ever contributed to it. Has anyone ever heard a simple “Thank You” from all those sucking on the government teat? I never have. And, I never will.
We have a raging case of entitleitis among many of our citizens. It’s no longer enough to provide the necessities of life, many…like Dough-boy…are now demanding money.
I believe Stephen Daugherty is losing it. Charles Krauthammer made a statement earlier today that by all rights Romney should be at least 10 points ahead of Obama. The economy is in shambles and if it wasn’t for the personal attacks by Obama on Romney, Obama would have no lead at all. He also believes Romney will get a 10 point bounce out of the RNC Convention. The left leaning MSM will try to protect Obama and get him re-elected, but the speeches will get out. The American people will see for themselves the Romney that Obama attacks is not the Romney running for president. Yes, Stephen is losing it, and as we get closer to the election, the left will become more and more shrill. One commentator declared today that by October he predicts the left will launch an all out war on the Mormon religion of Romney. I believe it, what else do they have to run on?
“Some fools still believe the liberal line about our economy. Borrow or print money to give to some so they can spend it to keep the economy going.”
The above comment is why it is so difficult to have a legitimate discussion on this forum.
It is not just liberal fools that think that the money supply needs (aggregate demand) to be increased in times of deep economic recession or depression. It is the cornerstone of both conservative and liberal policy. The only main difference is in the means.
The conservative economic wing believes that the best way to do that is with monetary policy, i.e., print money. The great conservative economist, Milton Friedman, famously said that the Fed should just “helicopter drop money” into the economy during times of deep recession.
The liberal wing believes that the best means is through fiscal policy, i.e., government deficit spending.
Conservatives argue that monetary policy is more efficient at distributing the increased money to stimulate economic development.
Liberals argue that monetary policy alone may not be sufficient in times where private borrowing is depressed due to excessive private sector debt and that government deficit spending can be targeted more effectively.
In the case of the recent collapse and continuing economic difficulties, the truth of the matter is that both monetary and fiscal policy have been implemented in a vigorous way with moderate results.
Blaming liberals for this situation is ludicrous. Fiscal Keynesian policy has had a stabilizing impact but not an explosion of growth. On the other hand, preferred conservative monetary policy has also had its limits despite the best efforts of the Fed to stimulate borrowing, i.e, zero interest rates, QEI and II, increased baseline money, bank reserve expansion, etc.
The country experienced a huge economic shock in 2008. Both liberal and conservative economic stimulative methods were employed. They stabilized the country.
Relatively speaking, the US is actually fairing quite well as compared to other western nations. Our treasury bonds remain the safe haven for the world and still are the “go to” investment in difficult times. We are gradually working out the private sector debt and clearing the overstocked housing inventory. We have economic growth and modest inflation.
In contrast, nations that have taken an austerity approach through fiscal policy have not been so lucky. England is now in a double dip recession due to its austerity program. It should also be noted that the Bank of England has not pursued an austerity or tight money approach as federal spending has decreased and taxes raised.
Well, I’ve never talked about democracy existing in the pure sense, so that’s not a problem I have. However much the Framers decided against having a pure Democracy, they took the radical step for that day and age, and didn’t establish a royal house, didn’t establish a ruling dynasty, and sure as hell didn’t establish a church. George Washington did not become king.
Instead, the shape of the government, who served in most of the offices, was either indirectly or directly influenced by the citizens of the country. None of the major figures of our government are given their position without at least some input.
I find it highly disturbing that Republicans have become so allergic to the mention of Democracy. What is it, they fear the mob now, the great unwashed who knock at the doors of their mansions? ;-)
As for the bailouts, they were made necessary by your party’s policies, policies that let the major banks consolidate to unhealthy extent, policies that let them take serious risks with that economic power their size and new divisions allowed them. It’s not a bad thing to arrest forward momentum if the direction happens to be off a cliff.
But that doesn’t mean we sit tight. My party immediately tried to embark on a campaign of reregulation, to make further bailouts unnecessary. Your side has so far gotten in the way, as much as it’s able. Odd, isn’t it? You scapegoat us for the results of your policy, and then try to go back to business as usual.
Well, one way or another, that can’t last forever. But you know what? I’d rather cut it short with government action, than have to go through another cycle of bailouts later on, or worse, another market crash that takes us into depression like conditions.
I think Americans have already figured out what they don’t want, which is why most are in favor of holding Wall Street accountable and reregulating it. The group of politicians trying to force them and browbeat them to choose otherwise are the Republicans, who bring up the specter of socialism to justify a rightward shift that their failures far from justify.
It’s funny how quickly the right turns to class warfare and character attacks, given how much they say they loath them.
I have yet to hear a thank you from Wall Street for the trillions of dollars the government has given them to cover their bad bets, to keep their asses, and thus everybody else’s asses, out of the sling. You talk about leeches, how about all these people who get thousands, millions, even billions in government contracts, but then turn around and demand that American taxpayers keep footing the bill for things without bargaining, without new efficiencies, so on and so forth.
One of the most egregious examples is the recent Republican argument about the Medicare savings that Obama generated in order to pay for his new reforms. These are subsidies - subsidies- that the party of the free market theoretically shouldn’t be touching with a ten foot pole. But then they defend these subsidies by dishonestly scaring seniors into believing that the loss of this subsidy, which would in fact not touch their benefits at all, would be a cut in their benefits.
And then, to make it worse, the Republicans turn around, and in their 2011 budget make actual, real medicare benefit cuts! No wonder these guys have Romney as their candidate. He’s perfect for the party that doesn’t seem to have a consistent bone in its body. You’re for class warfare, including a rather egregious example I’m detailing in my next post, when its aimed at the poor. You’re against it when people are asking the rich and the powerful to be held accountable for almost crashing the economy into a depression. You’re for Medicare cuts when you’re in charge, against Medicare savings when we’re in charge.
And all you can do, you in particular, is call people names. You’re a party that’s all talk, and worse yet, incoherent talk. Nothing sticks together in your party other than the drive to defeat Democrats, because that seems to be the only commonality between all your different positions, and all the different positions your Presidential candidate has taken.
Interesting that you have preface one of the wilder predictions I’ve seen in some time with “I believe Stephen Daugherty is losing it.”
I mean, ten points? The Registered voter polling has Obama ahead by almost that much, and I don’t remember the last time anybody got a ten point bounce (further research has Clinton with a 12 point bounce post-convention in 1992). Romney’s introduction of Ryan hasn’t had a bounce, so it may not be in the stars to get a big bounce off of this convention, especially when you just ticked off Ron Paul and his supporters.
Who knows? weirder things have happened.
As for running against Romney’s religion? I doubt it. We have his record as a leverage buy-out specialist with Cayman Island and Swiss Bank accounts set up to avoid taxes (and mysteriously enough, a retirement fund where he’s taking active management fees for funds he’s no longer running) We have his Wimbledon tennis ball propensity for switching sides of an issue on a whim. We have his total inability to confront the crazies in his party, and when he does, for his confrontation to have any impact.
Don’t worry about folks making his religion a campaign issue, we have tougher stuff to throw at him, much of it the product of his own stupidity and dishonesty.
You believe a lot of things, it seems. And before you started out on it, you had to say “I think Stephen’s lost it.” Maybe you’re trying some sleight of hand there, calling me crazy to avoid the consequences of your own crazy remarks.
My problem with the direct democracy idea comes from the same source as that of the Founding Fathers; if you read a lot of history, especially the classics as they did, you see how democracy w/o proper bounds leads to anarchy or tyranny, usually both in turn.
We have a mixed government with aspects of monarchy in the president, aspects of oligarchy in the Senate and aspects of democracy in the House. We also have a type of secular religion in the Constitution and the Supreme Court. It is one of, if not the best form of government in the history of the world. We have to be careful not to lose it in pursuit of the chimera of “democracy” in a metaphysical sense.
Re “the mob” we all can be or have been members of a mob. The will of the people is right in the long term, but we need to be insulated from ephemeral passion. We don’t want to be too much influenced by people who take to the streets or by passions that slip in and out of fashion.
Freedom lies in the moderation that we have generally achieved. Tyranny is in the quick fix or the appeal to the masses in extralegal ways. We have a government of law, not passion and that is how we have avoided much of the bloodshed and terror inspired by other revolutions.
“I don’t assume. I repeatedly offer facts,. .”
What a joke. You assume often. Your facts are opinion. You do not know the truth.
“Yes, it’s more complicated than that, which is what I’ve been trying to tell Republicans who lord it over me that Democrats couldn’t pass their policies, or who blame the consequences of their filibustering on the Democrats, for not being stronger.”
Where are the facts you speak of. This is opinion.
“and I don’t think they’re all that far wrong for thinking that way.”
But they are wrong. This is just another easing into the belief that evolution of political ideas will become mainstream sooner or later. Just like “living document”. And this of course is only one example.
I understand how representatives are elected and that they need majorities to get legislation passed. And, as is typical when debating liberals, when you can’t dispute facts you resort to things like derailing and questioning intelligence. Pitiful.
The fact is that simple majorities were given the power to pass legislation, but they were not given the power to take away our individual rights.
The fact is that the Constitution gives us a way to take away those rights and that process requires a true majority, not a 51% to 49% majority.
That is not “radicalism” Stephen, that is the Constitution and if school children were taught what it actually says, instead of the liberal re-interpretation of what they want it to say, our country would not be in the mess it is in now. We would be free. We would be financially stable. And we would be united.
“That’s how my very conservative civics teacher put it. Majority rules, minority rights.”
Did he also say majority rules trump minority rights? I doubt it.
“The point of balance between the two tensions is meant to be determined by the people.”
ALL the people, Stephen. That is why the founders made it so 51% could not run all over everybody else.
“It’s not meant to be set arbitrarily low to please a few people like you, who think their view overrule everybody else’s no matter what.”
IF there were only a “few” people like me, we would already be just another European style democracy on the verge of failure.
You see Stephen, I do NOT believe my views overrule anybody else. I respect your differing views and I would live as you dictated IF the country agreed with you and gave your people permission to take away their rights.
“It’s not meant to cater to the interpretation of the constitution by a few, to the exception everybody else.”
But yet, that is exactly how the ACA was just passed.
“As for the Rest? Bain Capital was a leveraged buyout firm. If you think the health of the company was their compassionate concern, you’re naive.”
They are a business and their concern is making money. I never said otherwise.
If you think Obama was concerned about the health of the company, rather than the health of the union, then you are the one who is naive my friend.
“LBO firms like Bain look at vulnerable companies because their stock is cheap, not because they’re looking for businesses to heal.”
Then maybe you should create your own LBO firm and show them the “right” way to do it?
There’s a reason “your people” can only talk about the “right” way to run a business.
“You can never see it straight, can you?”
Not buying your lies and hypocrisy of the situation does not mean I can’t “see it straight.”
To deny the union vote was a profit motive for Democrats is to deny reality. Union jobs were protected, non union jobs were slashed. Going through legitimate bankruptcy procedures would have put union jobs into the mix, so government took them through bankruptcy to ensure they were not.
“You can only see it as an opportunity to union bust”
I actually believe unions are great, but actually being pro-choice, I believe every employee has the right to choose to be a member or not be a member. Busting unions has nothing to do with this.
“not a potentially catastrophic blow to our economy, with consequences reverberating for generations to come.”
Oh, but I do look at that Stephen. I took what you think might have happened and weighed it against what will probably happen now that a precedent has been set.
To me, government getting involved and controlling private business is not good judgment, and to be honest, I don’t believe Obama would have done it if unions weren’t involved.
How many of those statements do you actually back up?
“How many of those statements do you actually back up?”
All of them. And you?
Stating opinion is absolutely different from fact and truth.
“As for running against Romney’s religion? I doubt it. We have his record as a leverage buy-out specialist with Cayman Island and Swiss Bank accounts set up to avoid taxes (and mysteriously enough, a retirement fund where he’s taking active management fees for funds he’s no longer running) We have his Wimbledon tennis ball propensity for switching sides of an issue on a whim. We have his total inability to confront the crazies in his party, and when he does, for his confrontation to have any impact.
Don’t worry about folks making his religion a campaign issue, we have tougher stuff to throw at him, much of it the product of his own stupidity and dishonesty.
You believe a lot of things, it seems. And before you started out on it, you had to say “I think Stephen’s lost it.” Maybe you’re trying some sleight of hand there, calling me crazy to avoid the consequences of your own crazy remarks.”
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 28, 2012 10:08 PM
Stephen, I don’t think it’s just you losing it; I believe all liberals are losing it. I believe Obama, Biden, and the Democrat politicians are losing it. The liberals in Hollywood are losing it.
I have to agree with C&J; the left’s attacks on Romney and Ryan are “small”, your arguments to defend Obama are small. As I watched the RNC Convention last night on Fox News, I believe it was Brit Hume or Krauthammer who was asked about Christy’s speech; the one asked said Christy’s speech was big and not small. I thought of C&J’s comment. They went on to say, while Obama is talking about Stephen’s points of “his record as a leverage buy-out specialist with Cayman Island and Swiss Bank accounts set up to avoid taxes or “his record at Bain, the war against women, Medicare, SS, or a myriad of other attacks”, Christy was talking about the real problems facing America, i.e. National debt, an invasion of our rights with the ACA, the solvency of Medicare and SS, the downgrade of our military. So while Stephen defends Obama with the same old small arguments that are meant to nip at the heels of Romney; Romney is talking to America about how to fix the problems that will eventually destroy us. Obama is out of his league, he is depending on charisma, personal attacks, and interviews with Glamour Magazine to sway the people; but we have been there and done that.
Re/attacks on religion; so Stephen, you are saying the left is too noble to attack Romney’s religion? That you have too many other personal attack items to ever have to deal with the Mormon religion. I will hold you to that Stephen, and when the left attacks Romney’s religion, I expect you to go against your own party. Of course I won’t hold my breath, because I don’t think you are capable of having any honor whatsoever.
You say, the left will not attack Romney’s religion, yet Stephen, here is an example of your party:
“TAMPA, Fla. — Yahoo News has fired Washington bureau chief David Chalian after he was caught on a hot-mic during an online video broadcast today saying that Mitt Romney and his wife Ann had no problem with African Americans suffering as a result of Hurricane Isaac, a source familiar with the situation tells POLITICO.
“They’re not concerned at all. They’re happy to have a party with black people drowning,” Chalian said during the ABC News/Yahoo News webcast, in reference to the fact that the GOP convention in Tampa is taking place as Hurricane Isaac makes landfall on the north Gulf coast.”
“ABC News reported Wednesday that a group of Romney donors gathered on a yacht flying the Cayman flag.
One problem: The flag is not the flag of the Cayman Islands. It is the flag of Bermuda.
Among the three reporters bylined on the story is Brian Ross, who suggested on live television that the James Holmes who murdered a dozen moviegoers in July could be a Tea Party member named Jim Holmes. Ross later apologized.”
Or Ellen Barkin’s remarks:
Or Samuel Jackson’s remarks:
Or perhaps the left’s racist comments about an up and coming conservative TP Republican star; the daughter of Haitian immigrants who came to America with $10 in their pocket. She is nothing like you Stephen; she believes in America and American exceptionalism, and she is black like me. She was attacked by liberal racists; the people you defend Stephen:
“TAMPA, Fla.— African-American support for the Republican Party has fallen so far that a recent Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll showed Mitt Romney capturing 0.0% of the black vote.
Enter Mia Love, the 36-year-old daughter of Haitian immigrants and a Republican congressional candidate in Utah. Should she win, she would be the first-ever black Republican woman to win a seat in Congress.
In a speech that drew sustained applause at the GOP convention Tuesday night, Ms. Love recounted her parents’ journey to the U.S., saying they arrived with only $10 in their pockets.
“The America I grew up knowing was centered in self-reliance and filled with the possibilities of living the American dream,” said Ms. Love, the mayor of Saratoga Springs, Utah.
She made apparent references to civil-rights icons Rosa Parks and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. “Our story has been told over 200 years, with small steps and giant leaps, from a woman on a bus to a man with a dream,” she said.
Ms. Love, a staunch conservative who converted to Mormonism, is challenging Democratic Rep. Jim Matheson, a six-term incumbent. Cook Political Report rates the race a tossup, and Ms. Love’s exposure on Tuesday night could give her a boost.”
Enter liberal racist comments and attacks:
“Sick: Wikipedia entry calls Mia Love ‘dirty, worthless whore’ and ‘House Nigger’
Posted at 10:19 am on August 29, 2012 by Twitchy Staff | View Comments
This Stephen is how your party feels about conservative blacks. Kind of makes you proud to be a liberal hack, doesn’t it Stephen?
All of them? You’re just a critical mass of facepalm.
You just say things. I explain, I provide evidence, I cite facts you can look up to see if I’m right or not.
Quit projecting your faults onto me.
I never thought growing up I would be arguing with a Republican about our system being democratic in its character. The word doesn’t have to describe a pure, majority rules, everything is decided by such a vote government. It can be used to describe systems where people vote for their leaders, and their leaders vote for policies. It can be used to describe the rule of the people in a generalized form.
And before you go trashing that, what was it that Lincoln said our government was all about? Rule of the people, by the people, and for the people? Was he some sort of raving nut leftist radical? Or was he simply putting forward what was the standard characterization of our nation’s system of government? I believe the latter is true, and you should, too.
As for taking away rights? Your definition is such a hair-splitting headache, it’s not funny. You could conceive of a right for everything people do, short of what the constitution disallows. That was never the intention of the framers. That would have been anarchy.
No, the framers instead created a system that safeguarded certain rights absolutely, and left other rights to be preserved or destroyed as the people saw fit. If they don’t like how much government has cracked down on something, they can initiate action to undo that.
As for what my teacher said, the plain meaning is that the minority rights put constraints on what the government could do. The government could not use majority rules to do away with political parties, unpopular opinions, dissent, or to impose an invasive sort of police state, as a nation without our fourth amendment would do.
One of the pitfalls of many democratically created governments is that they have a tendency to try and reinforce the revolution, and often are willing to use democracy to push through punitive measures designed to stymie the opposition.
I have long praised the fact that our laws work against this. You just haven’t notice. I am not against limitations on government, or limited government per se. I just think your interpretation is excessive, and impractical to boot.
I think your focuse on unions missed a critical fact, which was the economic importance of the industry. This attitude that union jobs are expendable is problematic at best in an economy like ours. Whatever kind of jobs they were, their loss would harm the local economy. It doesn’t magically make a job loss better if its a union job, in fact since they tend to pay well, you’re losing more money than you otherwise would in the community.
Always attempting to play the victim.
As a matter of course, I don’t think political campaigns in a party where the Senate Majority Leader is a Mormon are going to attack mormonism. You might have some private individuals who have a gripe, but you’ve got those in your party, too, though for different reasons.
Like I said, we got a lot of ammunition to go after him with, ammunition that doesn’t alienate Mormon voters needlessly.
As for Romney’s business experience? Simply put, Romney is the exact sort of speculator, the job-killing, company-harming, derivatives speculating wheeler-dealer who helped crash the economy in the first place. Long story short, electing him to fix the economy is like electing the fox to refill the hen-house.
You only have to look at tax cuts that are uber-friendly to people in his economic class, and which seem poised to raise taxes on the middle class if they are to be deficit neutral, to see what other problems that might bring.
Romney’s plan, in other words, would probably increase the deficit and the national debt, just like Bush and Reagan’s tax cuts did. It should be predictable by now, but it seems Republicans want us to beat our heads against the wall again, with the vain promise that what happened before won’t happen again.
As far as the ACA goes? The invasion you speak of was one your very candidate perpetrated on his state, and which he’s tooted his own horn about even recently. That’t the irony in all this. For the sake of limiting cognitive dissonance, you’ve put your blinders on as to the words and the actions of your own nominee.
As for the military?
In nearly every war America has fought, the after effect has been a “downgrade” of the military, or as we call it in the real world, a demobilization. We should be spending less on the military after we’ve finished a war. It’s wasteful to do otherwise. However, Republicans seem to have a blind spot for the evils of big government when it comes to the bloated pentagon bureaucracy, which is dozens of times larger than most of your favorite targets.
As for David Chalian? I don’t have any problem with his firing. He should not be making himself part of the story. At least, though, he was complaing on behalf of the victims of the storm, not discussing ideas on how to exterminate them. He can take that solace, as he goes to find a new job after his dismissal.
As for Ellen Barkin? I’ll gladly say she had no excuse.
Samuel L. Jackson? Well, he apologized about half an hour later, so I’m sure you’re a big enough person to accept his apology. God knows nobody should have to suffer through a hurricane. One reason I wasn’t so quick to indulge in the Schadenfreunde, or ask Jackson’s question is the acute awareness that Democrats put their convention in a hurricane prone state, too. Guess you can say I’m not calling any curses down on the GOP that I wouldn’t want coming down on my own head.
As far as Mia Love goes? Good God, you thought you were giving me difficult stuff to denounce! No, I wouldn’t support any of that bull****. That stuff is racist, and offense to me, and though the person might call themselves liberal, they’re not being a very good one.
I do think conservative blacks, especially women aren’t exactly in the right party, a party that has a tendency to make even more outrageous comments. But really, nobody has to get that disgusting about it.
Now that I’ve said all this, I want to know what your response to what Rush Limbaugh said is. Are you man enough to actually admit he said something horrible, or is the fact that it was all about liberals enough to make you switch off your single standard circuit?
You could conceive of a right for everything people do, short of what the constitution disallows. That was never the intention of the framers. That would have been anarchy.
No, this is exactly what they intended and it is NOT anarchy.
“Of liberty I would say that, in the whole plenitude of its extent, it is unobstructed action according to our will. But rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add ‘within the limits of the law,’ because law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual.” —Thomas Jefferson
“Being myself a warm zealot for the attainment and enjoyment by all mankind of as much liberty as each may exercise without injury to the equal liberty of his fellow citizens, I have lamented that… the endeavors to obtain this should have been attended with the effusion of so much blood.” —Thomas Jefferson
“No man has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights of another, and this is all from which the laws ought to restrain him.” —Thomas Jefferson
BTW, in case you didn’t notice, the last quote is word for word the views of the Libertarian Party. Wonder where we got it from?
“I explain, I provide evidence, I cite facts..”
Let me take a look just above.
“Romney is the exact sort of speculator, the job-killing, company-harming, derivatives speculating wheeler-dealer who helped crash the economy in the first place.”
“Romney’s plan, in other words, would probably increase the deficit and the national debt..”
“As for the bailouts, they were made necessary by your party’s policies,..”
Again let me state that your “facts” and “evidence” are made up of your opinion which you are entitled to. You should not declare them as truth.
I can give you opinion after opinion. That is only what my thoughts are. They may or may not be truth. You Stephen Daugherty have trouble separating the truth from fiction and immagination.
I’ve provided the evidence, in all my links and information. All you provide is just pat attempts at cutting short the argument.