The need for a Return to Conservatism

If the Republican party is going to make it in the next election they need to return to what made the republican party prosper. CONSERVATISM. There are three area’s that are needing to be addressed here Fiscal Conservatism, Foreign Policy and Domestic Policy.

Fiscal conservatism is hard to find now days. (in either party). Spend only what you have. Take less from the people. If there is extra give it back don't find a new program for it. Give a man a fish he eats for a day teach a man to fish he eats for a life time. Hard work should be rewarded. Helping a neighbor when he is down to get back up. The current Republican party reminds me a lot of what the democrat party use to be. Build the federal government creating more centralized power. It needs to be dismantle much of the federal government so that states can be free to do what there constituents want. what happen to conservatism that say get rid of the education department (definately a huge waste of money)? Education should be handled on a local government level not by someone half a world away. Why are there corporate subsidies? Do away with them all if a business can't make it then let them fail. Free Market. Conservatism use to be about Free Market. Now it is about regulation and government oversight. I say this because they have made no meaningful progress in dismanteling the beuacracy that is currently in place to impede business success. I like the taxes and that has helped. My business was able to hire more employees due directly to the tax savings. This created more tax through income then it would have if we had paid the extra taxes on the income we would have made and then not hired any extra help. If the Republican party does not come back to what made the Republican party Fiscally then I think it will in the end lose. The Republican party has grown the government more then ever. I find it rather disturbing and it needs to be dealt with now. End hand outs teach people to fish. we have had power now for a long time and have accomplished nothing of any substance. Out side of tax breaks. We need to overhaul completely the welfare system, medicare and social security. We need to get rid of the education department and corporate and agriculture subsidies. These suggestions are by no mean exhaustive just a start.

The Republican Foreign policy needs to be defined with more precise terms. It cant be all about Terror. We need to address human rights as well. what do I mean by that. I do not believe that true freedom can stand by and see human slavery with out doing something about it. I think we should actively pursue changing China's policy on human rights. People should be free to choose how large a family they want or to pursue their own financial freedom. We should not give political help nor humanitarian aide (except immediate natural disasters) to countries who are human rights abusers. Every bit of contact we make with these countries should have one goal and that is to move them towards becoming a free country. We must be the Vangaurd for freedom. Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Religion, Freedom of Thought and Freedom to Be. Of course there is much more to be said of this but I wont take all that time here.

For the Domestic Policy we need to focus our selves. We need to pick three broad goals and make concrete ways to accomplish those and then actually do it. I find that politicians are good at making all kind of great statements but doing nothing about it. I would say the three areas are Border Security (north and south), Balanced Budget (make it law) and Shrinking the Federal government. I have already made suggestions for that so I wont here.

On the border I would say very simply put up a dual wall system and then have more border patrol. I have to say that the imigration policy needs a complete over haul. It is very complicated to go through the process to become a citizen. We need to simplify it. We do need standards and background checks but it should not be so hard to do all this. I have helped people through this process before and it can take years. We are supposed to be a land of imigrants and we should encourage more imigration. We have plenty of unused space our country. If you take everyone in the US and give them a half acre in Texas there would be plenty of room left over. I would say that we have room to allow more people to get in. We need to stream line this process so people are able to come to our country. Imigrants keep a vital life blood in our society.

On the balanced budget it should be law. States are required to make the federal government do that as well. If my business did not do that then we would go out of business.

When it comes to shrinking governement the only thing that the federal government should put there hands on are things that are not able to be handled on a local level. We should not allow special interest that are local special interest to have pull on the federal government. States are more then capable if we give the power back. Schools use to be better prior the the federal government putting there hands on them. For that matter phone service was better prior to the break up of Ma Bell. OOPs sorry Sacred cow there being harrassed.

Posted by Randall Jeremiah at May 16, 2006 12:04 PM
Comments
Comment #148775

So Randall, your position is that the current administration is not in line with Conservative or Republican values???? Well, where the hell have the Conservatives and Republicans been??? Stopping any oversight of the misguided fiscal policies and the deliberate attempt to weaken our government, that’s where!!

Don’t talk to me about how Conservative and Republican platform and policy will strengthen our country. Look at the mess and the direction it is in now. Fine tuning these policies won’t help. Your party has done more to advance a progressive (I know you read that as ‘socialist’ agenda than any Democrat or Liberal could.

Thanks. BTW, I personally hope the Democrats do not win the House, Senate, or the White House in the next elections. My kids need more of these destructive policies to wake up and get off their ass to end this Conservative Monopoly Game approach to economic and civil policies.

LibRick

Posted by: LibRick at May 16, 2006 9:23 PM
Comment #148778

I already have a great plan we can all implement to meet all three of the goals you set:

VOTE DEMOCRAT

Posted by: RGF at May 16, 2006 9:28 PM
Comment #148781

Ah Yes… The What-If Scenario. The lame attempt to excuse gross incompetence and hypocrisy by recalling the days when such power did not exist for them. It ignores the rather obvious fact ofcourse that the same people who espoused these values, the TRUE Conservatives, were the same people who never followed it. Its the same for the Followers too. Where were the GOP Followers when BushCo raised the Debt Ceiling the first couple of times all those years ago? I don’t remember a slew of Red Column Threads denouncing the Credit Card Budget when it started. Up until a few months ago, every Conservative here was a True Believer. Everyone else was a Liberal. Everyone else loved Bin Ladin. Everyone else hated “The Troops”.

Then one day… soon after the New Year… A Conservative called Bush a LIBERAL!!!

Heh. All this is just a pathetic attempt to pin the blame on someone else. Bush, the GOP Congress, France… its everyone else’s fault. Not YOUR fault, ofcourse. YOU aren’t to blame for electing these slobs… Hell no.

Take responsibility!!! YOU are as much to blame as them. The “Ideal Conservative Movement” you claim to support is the same Conservative Movement today. Same Leaders. Same Followers.

Take the Blame.

Posted by: Aldous at May 16, 2006 9:37 PM
Comment #148789

I must clarify I do not dislike all that he has done. I think he has handled the war with Afghanistan nicely. I am sure there were errors being human anyone would have made them. I also like how the decision to go to dethrone Sadaam. I have not had any fantasy that says it would be over so quickly. From what i have noticed from history it takes decades to see meaningful change in countries especially when they have had this long under tyranny. We are still in Germany some 50 years later and Japan for that matter. I would not expect us to leave there any time in my life. We should have a base but our role needs to change drastically. it should not be to hold the country together. Our role should be to be a deterent in the middle east. This is what we did during the cold war. this is why Reagan was so successful at helping the wall to fall. he built up large military presence at the borders and that helped provide pressure to the communist governments as well as hope to the populace which wanted and needed freedom. There are many other items I think he did a good job at as well.

RGF vote democrat will not accomplish these goals. The democrats love the education department. It is a large constituancy for them. They would be shooting themselves in the foot. In my life time i have not seen a Democratic President fight for Freedom on any substantial scale. I did see President Clinton go into Bosnia and try to interfer in a Civil War which many of the same democrats who agreed with him then are saying now that we should not interfer with a civil war and let them fight it out. No democrats do not share the values i expressed here. I wish they did i would vote for them. i do not care about parties I care about my views (which are conservative). I have and will again vote for people not republican. I really hope that they change but if not society will drop them and move on.

Aldous.

I gave not what if scenarios. So I find it hard to answer that. sorry.

Hmm I am rather new to the board so it is hard for me to answer what happened a few months ago. though i am glad you choose to throw me in with every one. I will do likewise when the time is right. I don’t believe I made blamed anyone other then the Republicans for the mess they are in. I must therefore figure that my english was not clear. I will clarify for you and others who may also misunderstand me.

I voted for Bush. If I had the same choices I would do so again. I believe the Republicans made there bed and now they must sleep in it. I hope they will see that and fix it. What I presented was a way I thought would go a long ways to fixing it. I do not blame the Democrats for what the Republicans have done. (side bar get rid of both parties and make 4 new ones this topic is for a different post)

I hope this has clarified things for you and others who may have misunderstood my stance. I do not blame Democrats I blame Republicans (myself included) for the problems we have created.

Posted by: Randall Jeremiah at May 16, 2006 10:10 PM
Comment #148791

Aldous, while I agree with much of what you say, I have to admit I always thought of myself as a conservative. Based on ideology and all that fun stuff. The problem is that the more conservative I became the more I looked like a liberal. I believe in a government based on the constitution. Unfortunately, most people who call themselves conservatives don’t quite get what that means. But I admit I cannot justify much of what this or any Republican calls conservatism these days.

Posted by: 037 at May 16, 2006 10:11 PM
Comment #148798

Randall Jeremiah,

throw me your thoughts on Bush’s address monday night. Do you think that infact it shored up the Republican base again, I mean the immigration issue was the hairy gorilla that the Republicans had a hard time getting beyond that led to the base essentially charging Bush with liberalism.

I know what you are saying has mainly to do with porko spending and regaining some semblance of Buchanan-ism (Old Right—Nixonianism) and out of the corporatist internationalism and free market laissez fairism that puts us as a nation in a worse position as Americans but rallies a boon to Wall Street for the multinational corporations. I BTW am not anti-corporatism except where it treads all over us and our own competitiveness as a nation. I just don’t want to see corporatism as our new form of government.

So question: Did bush earn “brownies” with his base Monday night or did it all fall flat? The ideas were what Hillary Clinton/Harry Reid were proposing years ago and Bush may be implimenting them—that’s the DEM-bomb I want to drop.

Posted by: Novenge at May 16, 2006 10:49 PM
Comment #148804

Novenge

I listened to his speach yesterday. I think that the standard republican base is behind it. I think that he has to do something to show he means what he said in his speach prior to the elections or his words will seem empty and will hurt the Republicans during the election. I also tend to agree with much of what he said. I think it is a good idea to use the national guard while more border patrol is being trained. I would like to see a stronger sense of enforcing the laws that we already have instead of new legislation though. I think that alone would stop most of the illegal imigration that comes here for work reasons. It will never stop the illegal imigration that comes for malicious reasons.

As for the old right and all. I very much follow the wave of thought of Reagan on economics and the wave of thouhgt of Teddy Roosevelt on foreign policy. I will do a piece some time that directly ties Reagans trickle down economics with the boon that Clinton so enjoyed and how Clintons economics caused the recession that Bush had to get us out of. Very similar to how Reagan helped us out of trouble when he took over from Carter.

I think that private enterprise should be free to do business but with out help from the government. I also think that Government should allow business to be handled by the market not regulations.

Posted by: Randall Jeremiah at May 16, 2006 11:40 PM
Comment #148816

Randall I like the concept of helping people by teaching them to fish. Hopefully this applies to welfare and to corporate welfare alike. And hopefully it doesnt apply to social security. Havent you noticed yet that private enterprise needs rules and regulations in order to thrive. The market doesnt and cant do everything. I think conservatives hide behind the market excuse to manipulate the consumers and producers for the gain of the business owner. In other words they are selfish and self centered in the name of business. We have been through periods and generations of people who thought the business uber alles approach was the way for the country to go. Unfortunately an unregulated “free market”capitalism ended in a 2 tier society and
a depression that took years to overcome. Why would you think business should be unregulated?

Posted by: j2t2 at May 17, 2006 12:24 AM
Comment #148817

Oh Randall, now you’ve done it. How dare you blame Clinton? He balanced the budget, remember?

Ohh, that’s right…all’s that he had to do to was tax the life out of the private sector, leaving the US with a recession as a nice parting gift.

Actually, now that I think about it, thanks for reminding us.


Posted by: Craig at May 17, 2006 12:26 AM
Comment #148818

Randall what have we been doing the last 6 years if not living the conservatism dream. Has the Republican party been less than truthful about its intents? Has the republican party been lead down the wrong track by the party leaders and are just now realizing this? We the American people get “spend and go in debt” as opposed to “tax and spend”. We get total sell out of the middle class. We get insulted and degraded with almost every law they passed. We get slimy corporate businessmen posing as government leaders and make the worst they ever said about the federal governmentcome true. And now you want to come back to conservatism. What the hell have you been selling the last 6 years?

Posted by: j2t2 at May 17, 2006 12:35 AM
Comment #148832
The Republican Foreign policy needs to be defined with more precise terms. It cant be all about Terror. We need to address human rights as well.

Randall, that’s a very liberal foreign policy. A conservative foreign policy would be one that intervenes only when US interests are at stake.

According to a conservative foreign policy, human rights in Rwanda or Darfur do not warrant intervention.

You Republicans kill me though. You’re all talk about ending genocide, but when it comes to actually putting US lives on the line to do so, the world hears crickets.

Frankly, as a foreign policy conservative, I like the way Clinton (and Bush Sr.) handled things: Very cautious, and always with an eye to advancing US interests. Quite unlike the current crop of liberals like yourself who hide behind the “conservative” label.

The world has turned upside down. Democrats are the fiscal hawks with a conservative foreign policy, and Republicans are the irresponsible spenders who send US troops all over the world in pursuit of every hare-brained liberal human rights cause that comes their way.

Posted by: American Pundit at May 17, 2006 1:30 AM
Comment #148858
Republicans are the irresponsible spenders who send US troops all over the world in pursuit of every hare-brained liberal human rights cause that comes their way.

AP I must take issue.

Remember, that Lie was the Lie they told only *after* the Lies about WMD and Osamasaddam didn’t hold up to exposure.

Besides, anybody who listened to Paul O’Neill or read his book knows that BushCo was planning the Invasion Of Iraq in late January of 2001, more than seven months before 9/11. Notice the titles of just two of the many documents passed about in the First-Ever BushCo NSC meeting: “Plan For Post-Saddam Iraq” and “Foreign Suitors For Iraqi Oilfield Contracts.”

As you can see, the Plan was not to pursue a “hare-brained liberal human rights cause,” but rather to make Money for “Suitors” such as Halliburton - which Dick Cheney still has unexercised Preferred Stock Options for (in violation of the statute demanding “no impropriety or appearance thereof).”

Get Real. “Human Rights” causes? These thugs? Give me a break!

These vultures didn’r even give a damn about Human Rights in New Orleans - an American city!

Posted by: Betty Burke at May 17, 2006 6:00 AM
Comment #148879

If the Republicans are the Democrats of old; then, the Democrats are the (Western) European socialists of today. I don’t like what the Repubs are doing (especially with spending), yet, there’s (just) no way that the dems proved they can do any better. In fact, they haven’t been proving anything except that they can go after Bush and other Republicans. Uhh, that’s just not going to cut it.

Now, to start a “conservative” movement in gov’t, we need to start with the Republicans (most of them anyway) in the House of Representatives. They are the only ones coming up with the right strategies (securing the border, drilling in the Artic, etc.); the Senate is just absolutely worthless.

Posted by: rahdigly at May 17, 2006 7:39 AM
Comment #148901

We don’t need more conservatives, liberals, or anything else of the sort.

We simply to do what we were supposed to be doing all along. We simply need a little common sense to vote out all the irresponsible incumbents. That would be most (if not all) of them.
If you think government is responsible, look at the growing list of problems they continually ignore, as they grow worse in number and severity.
We’re not even remotely getting our $2.2 trillion dollars worth.
Politicians are ignoring the voters, and the voters keep re-electing those very same incumbent politicians that use and abuse them.
Or, voters simply let the two main parties take turns. Voters voted out the Democrats in 1992 and 1994. It looks like Voters will vote out Republicans in 2006 and 2008. And we wonder why nothing gets better? Even when there are minor improvements, it is 1 step forward, and 5 steps backwards.
Otherwise, we deserve what we got, since we keep re-electing the very same bought-and-paid-for incumbent politicians (puppets), who are too beholding to their big-money-donor-puppeteers.

Posted by: d.a.n at May 17, 2006 9:37 AM
Comment #148933

j2t2

You said “Randall I like the concept of helping people by teaching them to fish. Hopefully this applies to welfare and to corporate welfare alike”

I stated that I believe we should cut all government subsidies to any corporation. If they can’t make it on there own they wont make it.

I think that some regulation is needed. we have become obese with regulation. when they deregulated the utilities in California they still kept their hands tied behind there back by not allowing them to build any more place to produce electricty. that was not deregulation. the end result was a major power failure as well as having to import most of there power just so that society can make it. there are to many special interest who are getting there agenda added to the regulations with out any hard science to back it up.

I really dont want to get into the great depression here it is to big a topic. I will say this though (since you brought it up) it was not caused all by big business. there were multiple things that conveged to bring this about.

Now I will say this that this nation is not built off of business nor off of government social agenda’s. If we rely on this to make our future we will fail. This country was built on freedom. From the foundation of this country people have been free to start business, build a home, worship who they will or not, own a gun or not, get in a fist fight (with out going to jail) or not, say what ever i want to. this is what makes our nation great. the more we curb this the less great we are.

Posted by: Randall Jeremiah at May 17, 2006 12:04 PM
Comment #148939

I agree that the Repubs need to take a hard look at the next 2 elections and decide if they are going to stay with their supporters or continue to kowtow to the mythical moderates. My support for the administration has gone from strong to conditional. GWB has done well in prosecuting the war on terror and he has put in place tax cuts - albeit, temporary ones, which are positives. He wants open borders with citizenship for lawbreakers, spends like a drunken senator and wants more - not less- government. On balance, he does not get a passing grade from me. Also he made no points with his base with his latest softball thrown at Mexico. Only temporary measures, together with blanket pardon for illegal aliens, does not get it.

Posted by: Seminole 6 at May 17, 2006 12:20 PM
Comment #148942

j2t2

You make a strong assumption that the last six years has been all bad. I say it has not. we have disposed a tyrant that killed tens of thousands of his own people regularly. We disposed of a government who made women of less value then animals and who planned and orchestrated an attack on our soil. That was the first time since the American Mexican war if I remember right. Last year we collect more taxes then any time in our history (yes even with our tax cuts) The tax cuts created more taxable income through the money being reinvested in our economy which created jobs.

We created a homeland security department to help organize all our investigative agencies so that they can work together more readily. It is not all negative at all. I know the mantra bush Lied. well then so did every democrat on the commitee that oversees the CIA and FBI they saw the same information he did and they supported the decisions made. I realize that Democrats say that the tax cuts did not help the poorest of the poor. this may be true but for a different reason. they dont work. It helped any one who actually pays taxes. It lowered the minimum income tax level by about 30% for those in the lowest bracket. Those whos income is low hard a larger savings then those who make more money. Someone in the top bracket only save about 12% so that is a large difference. Ofcourse the hard dollar is different but that is because the amount they make is different.

AP

I not sure I agree that as a conservative foriegn policy. Now that I said that I will say that I think it is in our long term interest to see the disappearence of all tyranny what ever shape it takes. We need to first focus on those who are most dangerous such as Islamic Facism.

Posted by: Randall Jeremiah at May 17, 2006 12:29 PM
Comment #148945

Repubicn conservaties are ajoke just se how much the past 20 years of republicn administration have raised the national debt all they know is borow and spend.

Posted by: Earl at May 17, 2006 12:46 PM
Comment #148949

This is what is great about our country. We allow people to espouse anything they want and they don’t even have to back it up with fact.

Earl did you forget that Clinton had almost half of the last twenty years.

I think the fact that the Republicans gained complete control for the last few years is because the general public was very tired of the liberal agenda. These next two elections will tell us what the general public thinks

Posted by: Randall Jeremiah at May 17, 2006 12:56 PM
Comment #148968

I was referiing to the Reagan Bush years and remainder of the curent Bush. About Clintn Left ofice whith a budget surpluse and GW squander it away.

Posted by: Earl at May 17, 2006 2:17 PM
Comment #148975

Earl
Once again your math is wrong. Even Reagan Bush was only 12 years. Then they did not even have control of both house and senate. The Reagomics that Reagan instituted is what caused the surplus that Clinton enjoyed. He came into office with that benefit and just a couple months when he was out of office it was all gone. I realize that some how you will see GW as responsible after only being in office for a couple of months but it is still not accurate. It was the tax cuts he implemented that helped bring the economy back and will strengthen it. It will also create actually more taxes then we had before.

Posted by: Randall Jeremiah at May 17, 2006 2:29 PM
Comment #148978

All Iam saying is Reagan Bush1 and Bush2 will add up to 20 years of raising the debt more than all other adminiastratin combined!

Posted by: Earl at May 17, 2006 2:38 PM
Comment #148981

Please back up your claim with some real statistics as well as where you get the numbers from.

Posted by: Randall Jeremiah at May 17, 2006 2:48 PM
Comment #149020

As far as the total of 20 years Reagan for 8 GH Bush for 4 and Gw for another 8 unless you know something eles. Information on national debt gov web site.

Posted by: earl at May 17, 2006 5:28 PM
Comment #149026

Earl

I understand why you do not want to actually put the work into the numbers you are claiming because you will find out your premise is incorrect.

I do realize that when you skip Clinton that then the Republicans have had the executive office for 20 years. Once you clarified it I understood that you were not meaning a straight 20 years.

Posted by: Randall Jeremiah at May 17, 2006 5:53 PM
Comment #149028

jeremiad

Posted by: Mental Wimp at May 17, 2006 5:57 PM
Comment #149032

rahdigly, Democrats have been proponents of Pay as You Go, since he 1990’s. Republicans departed from that sound and sane policy to arrive where we are today, 8.4 Trillion in national debt, record deficits, and no end to spending or growing government in sight.

Sorry, Democrats have it all over you guys on fiscal responsibility. Pay as you Go is precisely how Clintion eliminated deficits with reluctant help from Congress. Remember, Clinton used that long forgot tool of government, the veto pen. Bush threw it out the window when he arrived, and Republicans in Congress applauded loudly.

Posted by: David R. Remer at May 17, 2006 6:04 PM
Comment #149052

“get rid of the education department (definately a huge waste of money)?”
“Schools use to be better prior the the federal government putting there hands on them.”

I truly don’t like to be pedantic, but doesn’t it just kill you how people on the right are always ragging on about education in America, and yet they themselves can’t even spell and are constantly and repeatedly making mistakes with words like: their, there, and they’re? Randall, the correct spelling is: “definitely a huge waste of money”. And it would be “the federal government putting their hands on them.”
Btw, I happen to be product of that federally funded public education all you righties so hate, and I’ve done quite well with mine, thanks.

Aldous, Novenge, j2t2, spot on posts.

AP:
“The world has turned upside down. Democrats are the fiscal hawks with a conservative foreign policy, and Republicans are the irresponsible spenders who send US troops all over the world in pursuit of every hare-brained liberal human rights cause that comes their way.”

It’s true, the Democrats have finally learned the lesson of fiscal responsibility, though I’d argue we were always good with our ideas regarding foreign policy. As for the Republicans, sadly, I think they’ve become irresponsible spenders who (despite all the lip service) honestly don’t give a damn about human rights. Their new stance seems to be all about having America become World Cop — because the Neocons have managed to convince them that the military should always get a truly enormous share of our tax dollars, and that the idea of Perpetual War is somehow a very good thing that everyone should want.

Posted by: Adrienne at May 17, 2006 7:33 PM
Comment #149057

where I found my information go to zfacts.com and click on national debt history.It all comes from whitehouse omb office.

Posted by: Earl at May 17, 2006 7:49 PM
Comment #149099

“Teach a man to fish and he eats for a lifetime.”

A great saying, but meaningless unless you also teach the man the rules of fishing.

1)two fish= 1 fish for the land holder/boss and 1 fish for the man.

2)1 fish = 1 fish for the lh/b and 0 fish for the man.

3)0 fish = fishing priviledges revoked due to lack of productivity.

The land holder/boss that has a million men fishing for him is truely blessed by God.


the rules are found in The Conservative Handbook of Economics-Chapter three-page 27.

I think that the conservative dissolutionment with the President and the republicans controlling the congress is either a ruse or a misunderstanding of the game plan.

Although the neocons in the executive branch may not have known, the republicans in Congress certainly knew that getting rid of the social contract between the government and the people would not be easy. These programs are very popular with the people. While many of the programs benefit the lower class, Quite a few benefit the middle class, especially S.S. and those written into the tax code. The republicans know full well that the democrats used these programs to maintain control of the Congress for decades.

Therefor, to rid the nation of the socialist programs, the conservatives had to devise a new plan. The plan they have devised is called shift the burden and it includes the following:

1) Reduce the tax burden on the wealth so that they are assured that their taxes are not being spent on social programs.

2) Increase spending beyond the ability of the government to pay for everything.

3) Shift the burden for current government spending on to the backs of the children and grandchildren of the workers By borrowing from other nations and thus driving our nation towards bankruptcy.

Although this plan may seem drastic, it is necessary, in the thinking of many of the conservatives in power, if the nation is to be saved from Socialism.

Meanwhile, the neocons in the Executive Branch have been busy doing their part. With the acquiescence of the republican Congress, they have been taking power from the Congress and the Judiciary and consolidating it in the Executive for the time when a all powerful leader will be needed (to make the decisions that will be necessary to save the nation in our time of economic distress.)

I know, just another liberal conspiracy theory.

Posted by: jlw at May 17, 2006 10:25 PM
Comment #149100

Randall, I think the department of homeland security sounds as if if was created during the third reich. I think it is unnecessary and doesnt increase the freedom of this country let alone the security of this country. The Patriot Act should have had every true conservative up in arms, instead they meekly role over and suck up to W and his corporatist administration. Being in the middle class I really cant think of 1 good thing W and the conservatives have done. The tax cuts , while so deeply in debt disgusted me, Why do I want to pass this debt along to mykids and grandkids? If W and his administartion would have been honest about the reason for going into Iraq and running up such massive debt perhaps I would not be against the war effort in Iraq. And Randall I wasnt upset when Bush “won” in 2k but Im upset now because the contract with America turned out to be fraudlent.

Posted by: j2t2 at May 17, 2006 10:26 PM
Comment #149106

Return to conservative values?

Change the rhetoric, it’s over used, boring and says nothing.

After 6 yrs of watching this country go to hell we need to return to Bill Clinton.

Posted by: Aeon Flux at May 17, 2006 10:53 PM
Comment #149110

jlw, wow good post. It sure explains a lot of things that have been happeningin our county. Why would the true conservatives of this country buy into this strategy. They speak of freedom and liberty yet they work with the neo cons blindly.

Posted by: j2t2 at May 17, 2006 11:02 PM
Comment #149115

Craig,

Ohh, that’s right…all’s that he had to do to was tax the life out of the private sector, leaving the US with a recession as a nice parting gift.
Ahh, the “he started it” excuse. I stopped letting my son use that when he was seven. How lame can you get?


rahdigly,

Democrats are the (Western) European socialists of today
Right. What a cheap shot, and how expected. You’d be screaming bloody murder if someone came in here and called Republicans the Nazis of today.


Randall,

We disposed of a government who made women of less value then animals and who planned and orchestrated an attack on our soil.
What government would that be? Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11, even Bush admitted it. Do you know something he doesn’t?

Posted by: ElliottBay at May 17, 2006 11:28 PM
Comment #149117

Randall,

you are confusing these liberals with facts and common sense. you know they only function on the warm and fuzzies. now let’s all have a group hug and remember that nobody looses; we all are winners, no right or wrong we are all ok!

gee can’t we all just get along?

Posted by: lm at May 17, 2006 11:44 PM
Comment #149133

just a word to all those saying reagan and bush 1 created the surplus that clinton enjoyed, and clinton then left bush 2 with a recession. i would just like to add that reagan “created” reaganomics with a democratic congress, and clinton “created” clintonomics with a republican congress. so really, no matter what, both parties had something to do with both matters. so i dont know what the hell you guys are talking about.

Posted by: edw at May 18, 2006 12:35 AM
Comment #149137
All Iam saying is Reagan Bush1 and Bush2 will add up to 20 years of raising the debt more than all other adminiastratin combined! Posted by: Earl at May 17, 2006 02:38 PM
Please back up your claim with some real statistics as well as where you get the numbers from. Posted by: Randall Jeremiah at May 17, 2006 02:48 PM

Earl, you are correct and then some. The last 3 Republicans have added 1.8 times the amount of all other administrations combined after adjusting for inflation.

At the end of 1948 we had a National Debt of approximately $1,804,394 million left over from WWII (all figures in 2000 dollars). Since that time the National Debt has increased by approx. $5,399,633m. Reagan added approx. $1,963,499m, Bush 41 added approx. $1,145,636m and Bush 43 added approx. $1,541,811m with 3 years to go.

Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter and Clinton combined, added a total of approx. $748,687m to the National Debt.

Each of the last 3 Republican administrations has added more to the 1948 National Debt than all other administrations, both Democrat and Republican, combined.

Randall
You can find the figures for the National Debt at:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2005/pdf/hist.pdf
or:
http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opd.htm

You can use the information at either of these web sites to create a deflator to adjust for inflation:
http://www.bls.gov (Click on Inflation Calculator)
or:
http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/surveymost (Select Series ID CUUR0000SAO)

Posted by: Arm Hayseed at May 18, 2006 12:41 AM
Comment #149140

Almost all regulation was created to protect one party from irresponsible actions of another party passed by a lazy congress only under threat of losing their job.
Corporations don”t like regulation because it cuts into their profits. If a few people die its regrettable but let the free market decide. Unless some of the victim”s family file a frivolous lawsuit, then the corporations run to their Monicas in congress for a law limiting their liability.

A short list of regulations to be grateful for: asbestos, lead based paint, car seats for children, exhaust emissions, dumping of industrial waste, microwave emissions, zoning laws, laws regulating the purchase of dynamite, insider trading, concealed carry, etc.

Without regulation your mantra would have to change to:

Teach a man to fish and he will die of mercury poisoning.

Posted by: Arm Hayseed at May 18, 2006 1:28 AM
Comment #149143
Last year we collect more taxes then any time in our history (yes even with our tax cuts) Posted by: Randall Jeremiah at May 17, 2006 12:29 PM
Please back up your claim with some real statistics as well as where you get the numbers from. Posted by: Randall Jeremiah at May 17, 2006 02:48 PM

Please back up your claim with some real statistics as well as where you get the numbers from.

Just the link to the IRS or Treasury web site will do.

Posted by: Arm Hayseed at May 18, 2006 1:52 AM
Comment #149147

That was the most outrageous lot of twaddle I’ve read in many a day. It is no wonder that everyone complains that there is no difference between the Republicans and Democrats any longer.Now the biggest complaint is that most of the senators are bought and paid for by business,animal rights,etc. Any concern with enough cash can have them. What powers this attitude is the ridiculous pandering to Mexico,one of the most corrupt countries on the face of the earth,and its illegal alien army. The proper response to these criminals who dare to demonstrate in our very streets is “Fence,Fines (Am. Business) and Farewell!” Until our Republican senators serve the electorate instead of who makes the most noise in the streets or slips them the most cash, we have no faith in them and will vote for anyone who is the LEAST traitorous to the American worker. We don’t want any more whining or puling by either party or our clownish president. We want the fence up,the traitorous businesses fined heavily,and the door held open for illegal aliens to get the hell out so our prisons have some breathing space for our own homegrown criminals!

Posted by: reddogs at May 18, 2006 3:46 AM
Comment #149182

Does anyone read all this flapdoodle,including my comment? My God, what was the point of the article at the beginning of all this? It certainly was badly written! I could scarcely read it….probably some horrible deficiency on my part?

Posted by: reddogs at May 18, 2006 9:36 AM
Comment #149194

Randall,

I also think that Government should allow business to be handled by the market not regulations.

Say hello to Sex Slaves (kids included) market.
Human Body parts? Solo fortune soldiers?
Heroin unregulated market, anyone?

Yeah, let allow the business (un)regulates itself.
And alone. After all, we all know how humanist business is.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at May 18, 2006 10:31 AM
Comment #149222

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2007/tables.html
that web site will show you how much we collected.

Elliot the country I was refering to was Afghanistan. You are correct I also referred to Iraq in that statement sorry for the confusion.

Now did Bush lie only if those on the intelligence commitee did as well. they see the same things he does.

Arm

I will say this. If you read my later post I clarified that I do not want to get rid of all regulation but that the current regulatory climate is rather byzantine. I would agree that some regulation, though very minimal, is needed.


Posted by: Randall Jeremiah at May 18, 2006 12:52 PM
Comment #149228

Reddog sorry for my lack of skill in writing. I put my thoughts on paper (so to say) and put them here for everyone to critique and argue for or against. I do doubt I am that good of a writer. I will hopefully be improving over time.

Posted by: Randall Jeremiah at May 18, 2006 1:06 PM
Comment #149231

Arm, your, numbers are a little off, while being a deficit hawk myself, i am appalled by the last three republican presidents, you have to be fair, clinton added 1.607 trillion to the national debt! yes there was a slurplus of 290 billion. but the fact is the debt rose 1.607 trillion dollars while he was president,i would not brag about that.

Posted by: Mb at May 18, 2006 1:26 PM
Comment #149271

Well,Randall, I really shouldn’t complain about your writing style or spelling. I should be glad you write in English or a good approximation thereof, considering how this country’s rulers have decided to cater to Mexico. I refer to them as “rulers” since they answer to nobody and certainly not the electorate. I should also keep in mind that trial lawyers have endowed students in our schools with so many rights that they are so busy exercising them that they don’t have time to learn to be properly housebroken,let alone write a coherent paragraph. I apologize for what this country has subjected you to in the name of God knows what “flavor of the day” cause.

Posted by: reddogs at May 18, 2006 5:04 PM
Comment #149276

Randall

The site you provided give the budget receipts, not the taxes collected. To compare one year to another you can compare receipts as a percent of the GDP, which the OMB provides in this matrix.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2004/sheets/hist01z3.xls
The OMB has apparently adjust their estimated percent of GDP downward on the table you provided.

The OMB expects the receipts to be 17.5% of GDP for year 2005. The highest percent of GDP was 20.8% for year 2000.

From 1940 to 2005 ( 66 years ) revenue collections have exceeded 17.5% of GDP 41 times. The average for the 66 years is 17.5%, so the budget receipts for year 2005 are just average.

You can find the gross tax receipts at:
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/05db07co.xls
Notice that the individual income taxes were higher in 2000 and 2001, even in current dollars, in spite of the market down turn, the recession of 2001 and the attacks of 9/11.

Mb

I appreciate you catching my errors in calculation but you neglected to show me where the errors were and how to correct them.

As with all things in this area it matters where you get your numbers and whether or not they are adjusted for inflation and how. I used the summary for the National Debt for the end of the January of their inauguration to the end of the January the President left office, adjusted for inflation using the Inflation Calculator on the BLS web site.

The original point of discussion was whether or not, as Earl claimed, the last three Republican Presidents added more to the national debt than all other administrations combined. The debt at the end of January of 2006 was 8.2 trillion of that amount Reagan added 1.764 trillion over his 8 years, Bush 41 added 1.469 trillion over 4 years and Bush 43 added 2.480 trillion over the last 5 years for a total of 5.713 trillion. The total for the last 3 Republicans is well over half of the total national debt so Earls claim is true.

Posted by: Arm Hayseed at May 18, 2006 5:58 PM
Comment #149286

Arm thanks for correcting my false information. I did not adjust for inflation. I also gave the incorrect link thank you for fixing that.

Posted by: Randall Jeremiah at May 18, 2006 6:19 PM
Comment #149287

Arm

the chart shows that total revenue collected was highest in 2005. Even more then 2000 and 2001. Now adjusted for inflation i am not sure for i have yet to do that calculation.

Posted by: Randall Jeremiah at May 18, 2006 6:22 PM
Comment #149289

Here i am again I noticed, in the fine print, that all the dollars have already been adjusted. It states that all dollars are in current dollars. which means that my first statement that we collected more money then ever prior even with our tax cuts is accurate.

Posted by: Randall Jeremiah at May 18, 2006 6:24 PM
Comment #149308

Arm,thanks for showing mr clintons 1.607 trillion to the national debt, on your may 18th post at 12.41 am post. you lumped eight presidents together, clinton was included!funny, you stated they all added 748,687m. to the national debt. this is false when everyone knows mr clinton added 1.607 trillion to the national debt himself. don,t look through a political prism! then on your may 18th post at 5.58pm post. you added another 938 billion for bush #43. i would like to believe you, but the way you fly numbers around, i can’t Mb.

Posted by: Mb at May 18, 2006 8:25 PM
Comment #149324

Randall

Check this site again:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2004/sheets/hist01z3.xls
Notice columns B,C & D are headed In Current Dollars and columns E, F & G are headed In Constant (FY 1996 Dollars). Current Dollars have not been adjusted for inflation whereas Constant Dollars have.

Mb

In the 12:41 AM post I specified in the second paragraph that (all figures in 2000 dollars). In the 05:58 PM post I did not state that the figures had been adjusted in any way so I just assumed that you would realize that they were in current dollars. In the future I will try to remember to specify whether or not the figures are adjusted for inflation.

Sorry for the confusion.

Posted by: Arm Hayseed at May 18, 2006 9:56 PM
Comment #149397

I am embarrassed that you were able to post that. Doesn’t anyone edit for you?

Posted by: huh at May 19, 2006 8:03 AM
Comment #149625

thank you for the information. I will do some research and come up with another article that gets very indepth in this. I think this is one of the most important domestic issues we have. I am very big in fiscal responsibility.

Posted by: Randall Jeremiah at May 19, 2006 10:42 PM
Post a comment