Republicans & Conservatives: Archives

Dawn,
I know the right wants to redesign America’s Constitution to fit their agenda, but give us a break. Four years is long enough for any president to prove his stupidity. Now I understand it mat take a will to fill some positions, but if a person is thinking of winning the seat one would hope that he plans well enough to know who he wants were. As far as campaigning, I thought Bush has been attending fund raisers about every night since he took office. Well, excuse me except when Bush is on vaction.

One thing for sure, a non-Republican President will result in the Veto pen Bush put into storage to brought back out and dusted off for use. That would be good for all Americans, since, we simply cannot afford an 11 Trillion dollar national debt, another 4 years of Bush will produce.

As for who voted the loopholes in, that is easy, all kinds of Dem’s and Repub’s (Republocrats) who received campaign endorsements and money from the corporations who got the loopholes. That is why we need and anti-incumbent revolution in this country, to continue until our representatives get it.

I agree with Henry, 4 years is not long enough for a President who benefits the nation, and far too long for a President who damages the nation. 4 years like baby bear’s bed is just right.

It’s hilarious that Bush is the first President I’ve ever heard of whose supporters had the gall to claim that four years isn’t long enough. They’re still blaming lots of problems on Clinton!

Anyway, I do find Dawn’s initial premise interesting: that any President’s legislative agenda is going to necessarily be dependent on the cooperation of Congress, and that thus *every* promise should be accompanied by the question “what deals will need to be made to pass this legislation?”. Still, I think Dawn disregards the power of the Presidency to steer legislation and to strongarm even those opposition legislators whose positions seem unmoveable.

And quite honestly, the best legislative action Clinton ever did was prevent Congress from passing the kind of ridiculous, destructive, hateful, and disastrous legislation they have passed in the last four years. There’s a lot to be said for the power of the Veto Pen when the majority in the legislature is hell-bent on dismantling the country’s prosperity and peace.

-Cf

re the economy

Presidents get praise or blame for the economy, but a lot happens they do not (and we do not want to let them) control. It would be truly frightening if the government could create millions of jobs. That would mean they could control them and the people who worked for them.

Presidents can’t control the whole economy (thank God) and what presidents can control takes a long time to happen. I do blame Clinton for the first two years of the Bush presidency. That is about how long it takes for the new policies to have any effect. The “Bush” years 2003-4 have been better.

That said, I don’t think those “Clinton” years were that bad, especially considering the 9/11 attacks and the havoc they caused. The bubble economy burst and left us where we were before the bubble. The Clinton administration (esp Robert Rubin) did a good job of economic management. Good presidental management does not mean a perfect result.

We are now in a growing economy. Unemployment is 5.4%, less than the average for the years any of us remember. Besides, unemployment and tax revenues (i.e. deficit reductions) are lagging indicators. If Kerry gets any traction on the economy, it will be because he has fooled some of the people some of the time.

Jack said, “It would be truly frightening if the government could create millions of jobs. That would mean they could control them and the people who worked for them.”

Jack, c’mon, guy, the Government already employs millions, add up the numbers of government service employees, the military, intelligence agencies, state, county, and city service employees.. Voila, it has worked for over 50 years. So, what’s the beef? If you have a beef, take it up with Bush who is growing the number of government employees year after year.

Presidents can’t control the whole economy (thank God) and what presidents can control takes a long time to happen.

Vetoes don’t. But you probably forgot that since it hasn’t happened in 4 years.

Unemployment is 5.4%, less than the average for the years any of us remember.

That is the Bush administration’s propaganda number. The real number is somewhere around 7.5 to 8.5%. Google “real unemployment”, there is plenty of information on the real numbers.

If Kerry gets traction on the economy it will be due to vetoing the Republican drunken sailor spending programs, and undoing the tax giveaway to the wealthy. Both of which will have long term very beneficial consequences for our economy. The question is, will that be enough after the national debt Republicans have buried tax payers under? Very dubious.

Jack is correct. When did it become the job of any American President to create jobs? Who out there believes any President can make companies hire people? All you can do is put into place policies that encourage growth.

If one believes the “real unemployment” that you speak of, then you have to understand that would apply during all times, during all administrations, and effect all employment reports, not just convieniently brought up to discredit Bush. Strange, but I don’t remember hearing anyone criticizing Clinton when he was running for re-election on essentially the same unemployment rate. Where was the “real unemployment” discussions then? Oh yeah, it was your guy. I forgot. For that matter, where was the “war mongerer” title when Clinton was bombing that great national secruity threat in Kosovo. Oh yeah, it was your guy. Nevermind. I’m beginning to get the hang of your duplicity.

Wow Christopher.
Are you really Steve Murphy - Democratic Strategist - in disguise? He was just on Hannity and Colmes and said, “Congress does what George Bush tells them to do.”

Then why do people elect a Congress? Aren’t they supposed to be representing ‘the people’?

Henry,

If I were important enough or rich enough to have an agenda … it would be to get most of these morons we call politicians out of office. I would get rid of them on both sides. The changes to the Constitution that I would make would include term limits, no more giving themselves raises, and no more retirement benefits.
They are supposed to be there to serve the people. Not line their pockets and go home never having to work another day in their lives.
No wonder someone will spend millions to get elected to a job that pays ‘so little’.

I went to get a new set of tires today and the mechanic noticed my Bush bumper sticker. He said that he was for Bush, so when I came back to pick up the car, I brought along a big Bush sign and some bumper stickers. As I gave him to the guy, I was mobbed by his fellow workers. Everyone wanted a Bush sticker and some for their friends. I promised to come back tomorrow with a bunch. They said that they supported the president but were surprised so many others did too. There is a big underground for Bush among ordinary people. We just have to find it and make sure they know to go to the polls. I think I added at least ten individuals to Bush’s margin of victory. Let’s make sure we get out the vote and let the Kerry folks do the same. See which is worth more.

Wait Mr. Kerry ! Please. Don’t close those loopholes too fast. I’m afraid we would all be running around naked and I can’t handle that. Might starve to death too. Make sure the factories have re-opened in the U.S. and they are filling the shelves first.
I am one American who watches labels and tries to buy things Made in America when I can. Most of you may know how hard this can be.

Not only in the clothing stores but in the grocery stores.

I’m not positive which of these companies I am about to name are actually companies of the U.S.A. I am talking about what I can buy.
These are brands available for purchase in stores such as JC Penney, K-Mart, and WalMart. These are also the stores I have to choose from in our city. Goody’s is the other and I don’t shop there.

I focused just on shirts. I was doing laundry and thought I would take inventory. How goofy of me.

Nickelodeon - fabric USA, assembly Mexico & Hong Kong

Sesame Street - Mexico

Disney - Guatemala

Fruit of the Loom - U.S. material, assembly Honduras

Old Navy - Honduras

Arizona - U.S.A., Phillipines

Eddie Bauer - U.S.A

Polo - Malaysia

Van Heusen - Indonesia, Pakistan

St. John’s Bay - Vietnam, Pakistan, Gautemala, Bangladesh

Companies themselves have to take responsibility and blame. Just because loopholes are there does not mean they have to take advantage of them.

What ever happened to “You’ll see lower prices in the stores.” The only things that get lower in price are the clearance items as they move in the next season’s merchandise at prices higher than the one before.

Dawn,
I feel your need for ejecting the entire crew of political leaders of our country, yet whom we replace them with is much more important. Today, politicans have been lead to believe by big business and special interest groups that they can obtain domectic tranquility through carefully controlling the populace of this nation.

However, this blog and many others show just how wrong the poltical strategist have once again read the American people. By people openly debateing the issues along with some solutions we can prove our worth to the nation by becoming the truth of the nation. Keep blogging and one day we all might become the party of tomorrow. Bloggers for Congress.

Jack,

You’ll like this…

My husband came home tonight and told me he was talking to a friend of his.

Now this guy is as diehard Democrat as they come.

I remember him during the Gore/Bush election. He talked about how he can’t stand Republicans. How we can’t have one as President. All that good stuff.

He reminded my husband of this tonight right before he told him that there is no way in this world he would ever vote for Kerry and he is voting for Bush.

Henry … we agree on something. Look out for the lightning strike or the roof caving in and I’ll do the same. Ha Ha ..
Dawn

See there is still hope for America. As far as lightning striking, I have a saying for that. The devil may only be able to tempt you, but I’ll take you to the other side! Arguing from truth and facts is fun when you know (not think)that you are right.

Henry,

Let’s not stop with Congress … let’s blog for America. These computers may be good for something after all !!

Dawn,
Check out my idea in the Dems colum about 5 minutes ads. Let me know what you think.

Aldaron, your reply that other presidents had a “real number” they didn’t tout is quite true. Doesn’t invalidate my statement whatsoever.

How about addressing my other two points?

I support a 6 year, one-term limit for a President. That way there would be no distracting re-election campaign.

As for people voting for Bush, what you offer is anecdotal evidence, but I understand what you and Jack are saying. Bush is a likable guy. Kerry isn’t. Only the die-hard, far-left (about 20% of the population) in this country actually like Kerry. The rest of the Democrats merely tolerate him because they don’t like Bush. In essence, they are against Bush, not for Kerry, which is a bad position for any politician to be in who is counting on voter turnout to push him over. Kerry inspires no one.

Lastly, if you believe in free trade (and its benefits) and a global economy, then some jobs moving to other countries that have a comparative advantage is part of the deal. Contrary to what the populist candidates claim, we do get a lot of benefits from free-trade. I know that is small consolation to the factory worker that has seen his job go overseas, but economies and technologies are always in flux. I’m sure the candlemakers were pretty pissed off when electricity and the light bulb came along.

There is NO loophole here. Kerry is trying to get companies to repatriate profits earned in foreign markets. Try telling IBM that if they manufacture, sell, and profit off of goods in Europe by a European subsidiary they should pay US taxes. Why? Any good economic argument will be accepted.

Also, not all foreign companes are tax reverters. I worked for Accenture a few months ago when they were going to disallow the US VISIT contract because they are HQd in Bermuda, a tax haven. They are HQd there because they were a international partnership looking for a netural homeland (not a US company avoiding income taxes, which they in fact pay for all US work).

Kerry’s ‘closing the loophole’ platform is nebulous at best, anti-free trade and anti-economic theory at worst.

Discuss.

“Aldaron, your reply that other presidents had a “real number” they didn’t tout is quite true. Doesn’t invalidate my statement whatsoever. “

I wasn’t trying to invalidate it, just show the partisanship and irrelevance of the comment because I’m quite sure you weren’t beating the “real employment number” drum in 1996.

I don’t see any other points to address really David. Something about not using vetos. Well he’s had a Republican congress for virtually his whole administration and they simply don’t send him s$*t legislation that forces a veto. Name one thing he should have vetoed? Prescription drug benefits? I’m sure the Democrats would have loved that so they could beat him over the head with it this election.

What “drunken sailor” spending programs are you talking about. I understand you want to blame him for creating a Homeland Security Dept., thus increasing the number of Federal employees, but I’m not sure how you do that in good conscience. If he didn’t do it you would be blaming him for that too. Take out all the spending on security and fighting two wars and your drunken sailor spending premise doesn’t hold up. We’ve been at war for 2 years. That costs money.

Adam,
The term loophole refers to tax regulations that allows company to offset their expansion cost as America businesses try to capture part of the global market. Some rules let companys to defer payments for years while other allows a total write off on US taxes.

Although I accept our need to help establish other countries markets, I am for a much more sound policy to keep bare necessity jobs in the US. I for one do not want to wake up some day to a tiolet paper shortage because America no longers produces enough for oue people.

Basic society needs should be the base of our economy, not the import of our economy.

No worries about toilet paper shortages here. The DNC and Kerry campaign sees fit to mail me—ME of all people—something about every five minutes. Which makes me wonder… how much clear-cutting and deforestation are they responsible for? Attention green voters!

Martin,
Thats a pretty good trick. Blast the liberals for trying to save the enviroment on one hand. And Dog them for allowing clear-cutting and deforestation.

Duh! Does this mean Bush is ready and willing to go totally green in America? Sure would create some high paying jobs.

“Four years is long enough for any president to prove his stupidity.”

I wholeheartedly agree. Unfortunately, we gave Clinton 8 years to accomplish what Bush can do in 4. Bush wins.

“we simply cannot afford an 11 Trillion dollar national debt, another 4 years of Bush will produce.”

And you’re basing this economic projection on what? You’re own stupidity in analyzing the economy?

“The question is, will that be enough after the national debt Republicans have buried tax payers under?”

And if it isn’t, by God the Democrats will blame Bush just like the Republicans have been blaming Clinton!

As far as companies manufacturing in other countries… do any of you truly comprehend what would happen if American based companies were forced to streamline their goods with American labor? Prices would TRIPLE. Without cheap, sweat-shop labor in China, there would be no 20 dollar pants. Try 100 dollars for Levis, like it is in Germany. Not to mention that the rest of the industrial world, i.e. all other foreign markets, who regularly engage in globalized manufacturing, would replace American industry in a matter of decades. The truth is that Americans would rather pay 10 dollars for a shirt made in France than a 40 dollar shirt made wholly in the US. You want to complain about lack of jobs? A purely domesticated American market devoid of cheap labor would cause more layoffs due to the infiltration of foreign markets than a depression.

semper,
High prices, High wages, High cost of living is an economic problem of all countries and 100 % employment of the population is not able to be accomplished with the current global economic system we have in place. Based on Greenspans remarks our two tier labor economic system is inverted.

Bush’s tax cuts have put to much money at the top of the level, while his failure to raise wages and deal with the Mexican border has left the bottom 10% with a 13% lose of real income.

Supply and Demand Markets always needs new customers to develop a strong supply growth. But demand comes from the availiblity of spendable cash. Fead the bottom wages jobs through a structured plan so that the unskilled labor living standard goes up and decrease the illegal aliens in America. As a Service driven economy, we must generate the income to increase the use of everyday services.

Henry that’s a good point. About 2/3 of the economy is generated by consumers. Putting the money into the hands of middle-class & under consumers will give you the biggest bang for the buck.

That, in a nutshell is what was wrong with Bush’s tax-cuts-for-the-rich. 75% of the tax cuts went to people who save and reinvest their income. Only 25% (expanded 10% tax bracket, child tax credits, reducing the “marriage penalty”) truly targeted those who would stimulate the economy the most.

There’s also an interesting report by the Economic Policy Institute which shows how over the last few years “income shifted extremely rapidly and extensively from labor compensation to capital income (profits and interest).”

In other words, the economy is sputtering back to life, but the average family isn’t seeing any of the benefits.

Aldaron, it appears you are not interested in what or how the debt is going to reach 11 trillion dollars under Bush, if you were, you would already know how little of the deficits have resulted from the war and homeland defense. Try 200 billion and 20 billion. Need a clue what the deficit was this year alone, 430 Billion. Now get out your calculator and add the deficits for the two years before that.

Got IT? Drunken sailors don’t waste money this badly, nowhere close. Try some facts, your arguments might have more persuasive ability. I don’t even pretend to assume you know what I think or what issues I stand for unless you want to quote from writings here dating back to summer of last year.

It would be better to admit ignorance regarding the budgets over the last 3 years, rather than blatantly and erroneously attribute the deficits of the Congress and Bush to the war and homeland defense as the primary factors. Fact is, that is not the case, as has been well publicized.

And that fact is why true conservatives, Republican and Libertarian are now bashing Bush and collegues on fiscal responsibility.

Semper,

You are right about how people would rather pay less for things.

I would like to remind everyone that $20 for a pair of pants is a lot of money for some people. When you make minimum wage it is hard to fork over that $20. Takes a long time to make it. Even if you get all of your taxes back at the end of the year - they still take it out of every pay check.

I used to be a grill cook at a Bob Evans. I never ate there because I couldn’t afford it on what they paid me ! I had to work at least an hour and a half ( after taxes ) to make the money to buy one meal. They made employees pay full price for their meals while working. I don’t know if they still do. I had more important things to spend my money on than eating out … like putting the gas in my car to get to work and utility bills.

It’s too bad the bigshots in these companies of ours don’t realize that they need to pay their people more than minimum wage. Have a few less dinner parties on the company.

Working for someone and not even being able to buy the product you just made has got to be one of the worst feelings.

David, my arguments are just fine and can hold up to yours anytime, anyday. I would never bring up a statistic like the “real unemployment rate” and use it to bash one administration. If you accept the fact that it applies to all administrations then it bears no relevance on any current argument because it applies during all times. It’s a weak attempt at making a point.

Name one “major spending” you think he should have vetoed? Prescription drug bill? Homeland Security? Increased funding for the military? Name something instead of talking about “drunken sailor” spending program. See… you aren’t really against the spending… you are against cutting taxes of any kind. That’s the real issue and that is why you won’t name something you think he should have vetoed.

Personally, I’d like to see less non-military spending and I believe that in a second term Bush and the Congress will look to shut down a lot of spending. Of course then the liberals will come out and say he isn’t funding some bullsh$% domestic program so he really can’t win.

“while his failure to raise wages”

How is the world does a President raise wages? Congress can authorize fry cooks to get 50 cents more an hour, but how does a President make companies pay middle-managers or programmers, etc. more money. I can’t wait to hear this.

Aldaron, you are funny if you think I am going to go do your homework for you… You have a long wait,

You still haven’t answered where the other more than half trillion dollars in deficit spending went. Nice dodge. Nice Bush strategy, if you can’t answer the question, change the subject. But, it does not go unnoticed.

Aldaron,
Yes, the President can directly order businesses to increase the employees pay or face harsh regulations and oversight by Congress or through exucutive order.

That being said, I would hope the republicans especial would support this idea. By increase peoples wages while help them learn the fine art of power investing and money management, more and more people will become financial secure and thus need less social assistance from the government.

Simple example; increase wages = less need for social programs = less need for taxes = higher standard of living for everyone. Added hiden bonus; tax revenue goes up locally, state, and federal levels due to higher wages. Win-Win-Win solution as long as the pencil pushers do their job right.

Did you know that for only a dollar an hour raise the 49 million Americans could afford spending $344.00/mth on health insurance? The total cost is about 202.8 billion a year which is a tax write off for business. However, we can stay the course and keep taxing the rich and upper middle class to afford to pay the 203 billion plus it would take our government to run such a program

David:

I feel that the deficit is too large, and that part of it has resulted directly from 911 and the war on terror. You may disagree with the tax cuts, but its hard to disagree with the fact that the economy began its upsurge shortly after the tax cuts were enacted.

The question that I ask is what the long term effect of the tax cuts will be. It could mean long term deficits as you fear, or it could mean a long term upswing in the economy, which would provide enough economic benefit to offset the expenditures.

Its easy to see that we spend too much money, as a country. I think it is relevant to ask you where you would eliminate spending, since you think we are spending too much money. I guess you would start with removing the tax cuts—-off hand, I dont know how much that would “save”, but suffice it to say that it would not eliminate the deficit entirely.

So the question remains: What would you cut in order to elminate the deficit? Its a fair question—will you answer it?

By the way, in regard to unemployment numbers, I’m sure you would recommend that we judge administrations by the SAME numbers. Doesnt matter much which particular number you choose to judge by, but its rather foolish to judge one admin by one set of numbers, and to judge a second admin by a different set of numbers.

Yes, I suppose I do have along wait for you to make a valid point. Do what homework? I don’t even know what (removed words here - Dawn) you’re talking about now. You keep saying he is spending like a drunken sailor so I want to know what has he spent money on that you disapprove? I’ve explained to your where the deficit comes from… 2 wars…. the devastating blow of Sept 11th to our economy, increased spending on security… and the prescription drug bill. What part of that do you not understand? Tell us which one he should have vetoed.

You’re just annoyed because I called you out on your irrelevant “real unemployment number” argument.

Aldaron,

I know the conversation you are having is irritating you but please don’t do that.

Thanks.

I can show you where that word was completely spelled out by another today, and it is still there. I can never tell which editor is going to be offended by #$%$ and which isn’t. It’s very inconsistent. I apologize for using @#$% characters.

Nadar is getting ready to launch his “Outsoure your CEO” campaign.

We need to keep an eye on that one.

Aldaron,
The deficit we now face could of been avioded easily be one or two actions from Bush and Congress.

1) Reduce the tax rebate of the top 2% of the population. or

2) Establish a War on Terror bond that would allow individual support of our war while given our citizens the ability to invest in their future.

Cutting programs in a down turn economy is not smart in the long run. However, using events and creative thinking when one is in trouble will normally win the day.

Fair enough Henry. I would certainly buy the war bonds.

jbod, I am not going to fall for the diversion of asking what I would cut. It does not matter what I would cut. What matters, is when is this government going quit racheting up the national debt. And it is not the deficit that is the issue. You can have deficits some years and surpluses in others, and as long as the surpluses exceed deficits over time, the national debt GOES DOWN instead of UP!

It is the National Debt and the huge sums of interest we pay on it and get absolutely nothing back in return for it which is the issue. An issue which Bush’s veto pen has never addressed. Greenspan, a Republican, is warning there is a limit to our national debt levels, cross it and our future is seriously threatened.

I don’t think you followed the thread, jbod. I never compared Bush’s unemployment numbers to anyone else’s. That was one of your comrades. I simply said the touted unemployment number is not the real number. And if you followed the thread, I agreed that is the case with any administration. But, I am talking about this administration, NOT George Washington’s.

It really is amazing to me how a topic has not thread life in this column, folks keep wanting to change the topic, context, or questions to anything other than President Bush and this Republican congress. Wonder why that is.

Aldaron, not annoyed at all. Just amused that you continue to defend 7.4 trillion dollars of national debt, all the interest that is paid on it with no return of benefit to tax payers, this President and Congress who have already committed to raising to a minimum of 9 trillion, and not a veto pen in sight.

Very amusing. And this is a conservative column?

Aldaron,

I wasn’t offended. I didn’t know that was ‘allowed’.
I guess I ass’umed it wasn’t. OOPS ! Typo there.

The whole idea of a Democracy is not to be stuck with your mistakes on a permanent basis. For Senators, who have plenty of competition to deal with in their branch, six years makes sense. For a president, four years is best.

Why? I don’t know, just try to imagine twelve years of Clinton or Kerry at the same time you envision that of Bush. Between steady leadership and accountable, I think accountable leadership is better. Steady leadership, taken in terms of duration, doesn’t necessarily guarantee high quality leadership.

Very amusing. And this is a conservative column?

I was thinking the same thing. Aldaron thinks it’s fine to run up the national debt indefinitely, and Dawn wants to raise the minimum wage. Freaky.

Six years with or without re-election, the way it is now. It wouldn’t matter.
No matter who is in the White House the other side doesn’t like it.
We hear promises of working together.
Even if something comes up that is good for the people and the country it either gets stalled out or thrown out because one side can’t let the other side take credit for it.
If something gets passed (easily) and it doesn’t work out very well … the blame game starts.
We need to have more than 2 major parties or just do away with them.
You pick.

Raising minimum wage is conservative? I thought it was tradition by now to raise minimum wage just enough every few years to keep the populous from revolting.

Amuse yourselves all you want but you aren’t understanding what I am saying.

I’m not defending the non-defense spending, I’m telling you why we now have a deficit. You never say what spending you are againt. Why? Because your idea of fiscal responsibility is to tax more so you can balance the budget and spend on more socialized programs.

My number one priority now is defeating islamic terrorism. That’s what I think about when I get up in the morning, not some abstract number that some people only mention to promote their eternal quest to raise taxes.

Unemployment is 5.4%, less than the average for the years any of us remember.

That is the Bush administration’s propaganda number. The real number is somewhere around 7.5 to 8.5%. Google “real unemployment”, there is plenty of information on the real numbers.

David:

I followed the intent of your post just fine, thank you. Jack said that unemployment being down is a plus for Bush, in that it shows an improving economy, and you tried to “nuance” that fact by suggesting that the real unemployment number is different. Nice slick attempt to use statistics to change the message, but…no dice.

I’m personally tired, David, of your whining about the deficit without being willing to come up with any solutions. That you want the deficit cut is admirable—-so do I. The question of WHAT TO CUT isnt a trap—its just an attempt to figure out how you would go about cutting the deficit.

Personally, if someone said cut out all defense spending, I’d be against it. If they said, screw the kids and cut all education funding, I’d be against it. If they said, lets get rid of “pork issues” , I’d jump on that one right away.

Im tired of complaints without solutions. If all you have is complaints, take em elsewhere. If you have suggestions, then bring them on. I’d like to see the deficit cut as much as you do—-but it certainly depends on what you are willing to cut in order to accomplish it.

Dawn,
The fact is unskilled laborers have lost 13% of their purchasing power over the last twenty years. It has become so bad that congress in 98 came up with a “Lower Living Standard Income” to help make sense of our two teir (class) economic system.