There is no way we are going to get a Republican President any time soon. [Archive] - Striper Talk Striped Bass Fishing, Surfcasting, Boating

Jim in CT

03-05-2012, 09:52 AM

Way to many nut bags in the house. Rush, Gingrich, Palin. Too much us against those liberal idiots stuff. Too much hatred, racism, fear mongering. We need a moderate Republican president and we are not going to get one. Romney may be too weird, Santorum too weird and Gingrich too weird. We can't just come up with some normal moderate. why not? This just sucks. Wait till the Bush tax cuts end next year. Ouch! The dems aren't going away anytime soon and the Big O has done a pretty fair job as president, so let the republicans continue to polarize the country and they can sit and bitch and bitch and bitch for another 4 years.

"Way to many nut bags in the house. Rush, Gingrich, Palin."

IMHO, there are far more nutbags on the other side (Anthony Weiner, Deb Washerman-Shultz, Barney Frank, Obama for that matter...and if you don't like Rush (and I'm no fan) take a look at the prime time line up at MSNBC.

Don't give up hope. A Romney-Rubio ticket will be quite formidable. Romney, once he's officially the candidate, will have broad appeal. It will likely come down to the economy. If unemployment keeps improving, and the stock market is up, Obama will be tough. If the market tanks, if gas prices hit $5 a gallon, Obama is very vulnerable.

"We can't just come up with some normal moderate. why not? "

We tried that in 2008 with McCain, didn't we? And again, why don't you consider Romney a moderate? He's a hell of a lot more moderate than Obama, who is probably the most ideologically extreme president we've ever had...

"the Big O has done a pretty fair job as president"

His approval ratings are below 50%. And wait till gas hits $5 a gallon...he's way more vulnerable than you seem to think...I give him an A- on killing terrorists, a resounding F on the economy (at this point, if a president doesn't at least TRY to do anything to address social security and medicare, they get an F).

"The dems aren't going away anytime soon"

Did you forget 2010 already? The GOP absolutely took the Dems out to the woodshed in 2010, and all the polls say that the GOP is only going to pick up more house and Senate seats this year (in 2010, the Dems were lucky in that very few Democratic senators were up for re-election, not so this year). However, the presidential contest will be tight, I think...

"let the republicans continue to polarize the country "

Our country is more divided now than any time since the Civil War, and that all starts with Obama IMHO. He's very, very divisive...When he says that people like me cling to our guns and religion because we are bitter and racist, when he says conservatives have to sit in the back of the bus, when he blames wealthy folks for everything except the Lindburgh baby kidnapping, nothing is more divisive than that. What has Romney said that's as polarizing as those things?

This presidential election, like most, will come down to two things.

(1) who gets the majority of independent voters in the 8 (or so) swing states. Obama is losing independents in droves, particularly in the states that matter (FL, NC, VA, PA, OH, CO, MN, WI). If Rubio is the VP, FL is no longer a swing state, and that's huge.

(2) which side has the more passionate turnout - the youth and black vote was very high in 2008 because of the Obama "cool" factor. Let's see if he can duplicate that. The Tea Party is still a major force in American politics. The Occupy anarchists have all moved back into their parents' basements.

Way too early to call, as it will all depend on the economy. I see this as the most important presidential election in our lifetime. Although if he gets re-elected,. the GOP will control the house and very likely the Senate, so he won't be able to do much.

spence

03-05-2012, 10:55 AM

RIROCKHOUND

03-05-2012, 11:00 AM

-- you have an opponent who we now know actually did advocate for the individual mandate at the Federal level.

07/30/09 - Mr. President, What's the Rush? | Mitt Romney Central (http://mittromneycentral.com/op-eds/2009-op-eds/mr-president-whats-the-rush/)

At least he waited 2.5-years to flip-flop this time, not 2.5 hours (like the blunt amendment)

JohnnyD

03-05-2012, 11:16 AM

"Way to many nut bags in the house. Rush, Gingrich, Palin."

IMHO, there are far more nutbags on the other side (Anthony Weiner, Deb Washerman-Shultz, Barney Frank, Obama for that matter...and if you don't like Rush (and I'm no fan) take a look at the prime time line up at MSNBC.
And the proverbial "my side isn't as bad as that other group" defense. I appreciate the timing.

"We can't just come up with some normal moderate. why not? "

We tried that in 2008 with McCain, didn't we? And again, why don't you consider Romney a moderate? He's a hell of a lot more moderate than Obama, who is probably the most ideologically extreme president we've ever had...
Tried it with McCain, then he chose Palin as his running-mate. A decision that, still to this day, I believe is the sole reason he lost that election. Palin is anything but a moderate. And with regards to Romney, he's so spineless that no one knows where he is any more. He's as moderate or conservative as the group he is pandering to. I've said this before, Romney is the guy in the room that yells "Hey, I can be Conservative too. Let me show you."

"let the republicans continue to polarize the country "

Our country is more divided now than any time since the Civil War, and that all starts with Obama IMHO. He's very, very divisive...When he says that people like me cling to our guns and religion because we are bitter and racist, when he says conservatives have to sit in the back of the bus, when he blames wealthy folks for everything except the Lindburgh baby kidnapping, nothing is more divisive than that. What has Romney said that's as polarizing as those things?
I don't think the polarization all starts with Obama. I think his stance against the Republicans is a product of a polarizing buildup that has been happening since the latter part of Clinton. While their has been some slight decrease lately, there is no denying the obstructionist-agenda the Republicans have been pursuing since taking a majority in the House. At the same time, Obama has been just as unwilling to bend as the Republicans have been.

This presidential election, like most, will come down to two things.

(1) who gets the majority of independent voters in the 8 (or so) swing states. Obama is losing independents in droves, particularly in the states that matter (FL, NC, VA, PA, OH, CO, MN, WI). If Rubio is the VP, FL is no longer a swing state, and that's huge.
While Obama is losing independents in droves, the Republican primary that is focused on "who's the most conservative candidate" isn't doing anything to win those votes.

Way too early to call, as it will all depend on the economy. I see this as the most important presidential election in our lifetime. Although if he gets re-elected,. the GOP will control the house and very likely the Senate, so he won't be able to do much.
At least you subtly admit that the GOP obstruction will continue.

Jim in CT

03-05-2012, 11:22 AM

At about this time Ronald Reagan's approval rating was below 40%...as the economy started to improve so did his favor-ability.

It will all depend on the economy and right now the market is trending up, consumer confidence is trending up, jobs are trending up etc...the timing for Democrats couldn't be better.

This Republican primary might just leave the GOP as damaged goods. Romney will still be the likely nominee and on perhaps their biggest campaign issue -- repealing the Health Care Bill -- you have an opponent who we now know actually did advocate for the individual mandate at the Federal level.

07/30/09 - Mr. President, What's the Rush? | Mitt Romney Central (http://mittromneycentral.com/op-eds/2009-op-eds/mr-president-whats-the-rush/)

I didn't think it could get any worse for them, but it has.

Voter turn out is going to be low and this will help Obama. The vacancy in ME will also help the Democrats hold the Senate. Everything I've read indicates the GOP will lose House Seats.

You're over thinking the gas price issue. If anything people associate Obama as anti-big oil profits.

Independent voters don't see Obama as "the most ideological President ever", that's your fringe position. They look at his actual record which is left-center. Given a left-center Obama vs a right-center Romney and it's a wash...the incumbent wins because they're the devil you know.

The BIG wildcard here is Iran. If the Middle East erupts it could swing the entire election one way or the other based on how it's handled.

-spence

"It will all depend on the economy and right now the market is trending up, consumer confidence is trending up, jobs are trending up etc"

Agreed. You also left out that the debt is trending up, and we should ask ourselves if the benefits we're seeing are worth the bill that we'll be sticking our kids with. The answer to that question may be "yes", by the way. But I'm not sure reducing unemployment to 8% is necessarily a good thing, if we bankrupt ourselves to get there. That's obviously an oversimplification of a complicated issue. But we should be talking about what he spent to get his results, is all I'm saying.

"the timing for Democrats couldn't be better."

Sure it could - the election is 6 months away, in case you didn't know. You don't want to peak too early. I'm not saying that's what's happening, I'm just saying if the market tanks in October, no one will care what it did in February.

"This Republican primary might just leave the GOP as damaged goods."

That's your fringe opinion. Chances are (after super Tuesday), Romney will be the lock, and that's 6 months before the election. Back in 2008, Hilary and Obama were in a brutal slugfest right up until the convention. I don't remember hearing you (or anyone) say then, that the primary would leave the Democrats as "damaged goods". Why the difference in opinion? Why is a bitter contest good for Democrats, but bad for Republicans?

"The vacancy in ME will also help the Democrats hold the Senate."

As of today, there are 33 Senate Democrats that are retiring or up for re-election. Only 10 Republicans are retiring or up for re-election. I'll make you any gentleman's wager you choose that the GOP has a net increase in the House and in the Senate.

'Everything I've read indicates the GOP will lose House Seats."

Given what I imagine your reading list to be, that doesn't surprise me, or worry me, in the least. You just keep believing what you read in The Huffington Post and in The Daily Worker.

"You're over thinking the gas price issue."

We'll see this summer, won't we.

"The BIG wildcard here is Iran. If the Middle East erupts it could swing the entire election one way or the other based on how it's handled."

Agreed. The economy and Iran are 2 huge factors.

zimmy

03-05-2012, 11:23 AM

At about this time Ronald Reagan's approval rating was below 40%...as the economy started to improve so did his favor-ability.

-spence

What were the tax rates back then? They must have been really low, right? :devil2:

Jim in CT

03-05-2012, 11:35 AM

And the proverbial "my side isn't as bad as that other group" defense. I appreciate the timing.

Tried it with McCain, then he chose Palin as his running-mate. A decision that, still to this day, I believe is the sole reason he lost that election. Palin is anything but a moderate. And with regards to Romney, he's so spineless that no one knows where he is any more. He's as moderate or conservative as the group he is pandering to. I've said this before, Romney is the guy in the room that yells "Hey, I can be Conservative too. Let me show you."

I don't think the polarization all starts with Obama. I think his stance against the Republicans is a product of a polarizing buildup that has been happening since the latter part of Clinton. While their has been some slight decrease lately, there is no denying the obstructionist-agenda the Republicans have been pursuing since taking a majority in the House. At the same time, Obama has been just as unwilling to bend as the Republicans have been.

While Obama is losing independents in droves, the Republican primary that is focused on "who's the most conservative candidate" isn't doing anything to win those votes.

At least you subtly admit that the GOP obstruction will continue.

"Tried it with McCain, then he chose Palin as his running-mate. A decision that, still to this day, I believe is the sole reason he lost that election. "

Johnny, I hear this all the time. All the time. And it's demonstrably false. After McCain picked Palin, he surged ahead of Obama in the polls, and he stayed right there until the economy tanked.

I'm not saying I think Palin was qualified, or even that she was a good candidate (in my opinion). I'm saying that the economy, not her selection, doomed McCain. The polls at that time validate my theory, and dispute yours.

"there is no denying the obstructionist-agenda the Republicans have been pursuing since taking a majority in the House."

Agreed. That's also what heppend when there's a Republican president and a Democrat-controlled legislature.

"While Obama is losing independents in droves, the Republican primary that is focused on "who's the most conservative candidate" isn't doing anything to win those votes."

You might be right. Maybe the independents aren't enthralled with Romney. But as they flee Obama, there's only one other realistic place to go. If "choosing the lesser of 2 evils" it what it takes to get this Mao-ist out of the Oval Office, I'm OK with that. I'd rather have a GOP candidate that actually energizes folks. But winning this election is what's important, not how you play.

"At least you subtly admit that the GOP obstruction will continue."

I don't subtly admit, I'll say it explicitly. And furthermore, I say "thank God" for their obstructionism. If one believes in a radically conservative idea (oh, for example, that $60 trillion in debt is a bad thing), is such a person supposed to capitulate to Obama and give him a blank check?

When the Democrats resisted Bush, I kept hearing that "dissent was the highest form of patriotism". Now that Obama wears the crown, those same folks claim that dissent is the lowest form of racism.

My solution is to throw all the bums out (both parties), and elect normal people who actually know how to do things, with very strict term limits. We need true civilian legislators, not career politicians who want to stay in DC their whole lives to show what a big lasagna they are.

Jim in CT

03-05-2012, 11:43 AM

What were the tax rates back then? They must have been really low, right? :devil2:

Taxes were high then. And what did Reagan do? All he did was contribute significantly to the collapse of the Soviet Union, giving hundreds of millions of human beings a shot at freedom.

Lots of folks consider that money well spent.

Obama is spending more than Reagan did, with far less to show. When kids as-yet unborn enter the workplace 25 years from now and face staggering income tax rates, we're going to tell them that Obama spent their money to get unemployment (25 years earlier) down from 9% to 8%. Is that money well spent?

Maybe yes and maybe no. Time will tell.

Zimmy and Spence, how much debt are you comfortable with saddling on the backs of kids not born yet? Obviously there was lots of debt before Obama got elected, it's not all his fault. But he is adding to it more than any president in our history. I'd just liek to know how much debt you're willing to saddle future generations with.

Our current debt is around $15 trillion, and that excludes asocial security and medicare. Throw those in, and the debt is at least $60 trillion. That's $200,000 for every living American. $200,000 on top of what our current tax rates will generate.

Obviously, we cannot take an additional $200,000 from every American, not even close. That means one of two things. Either (1) the Chinese will tell us not to bother re-paying them, or (2) future generation will be burdened with debt they had lkiterally no say in accumulating.

Zimmy and Spence, what do you think?

spence

03-05-2012, 11:56 AM

Agreed. You also left out that the debt is trending up, and we should ask ourselves if the benefits we're seeing are worth the bill that we'll be sticking our kids with. The answer to that question may be "yes", by the way. But I'm not sure reducing unemployment to 8% is necessarily a good thing, if we bankrupt ourselves to get there. That's obviously an oversimplification of a complicated issue. But we should be talking about what he spent to get his results, is all I'm saying.
I think independent voters see the debt problem as bi-partisan.

Sure it could - the election is 6 months away, in case you didn't know. You don't want to peak too early. I'm not saying that's what's happening, I'm just saying if the market tanks in October, no one will care what it did in February.
I think we're trending strong and the economy will continue to gain strength if global instability doesn't disrupt it.

That's your fringe opinion. Chances are (after super Tuesday), Romney will be the lock, and that's 6 months before the election. Back in 2008, Hilary and Obama were in a brutal slugfest right up until the convention. I don't remember hearing you (or anyone) say then, that the primary would leave the Democrats as "damaged goods". Why the difference in opinion? Why is a bitter contest good for Democrats, but bad for Republicans?
No, it's a mainstream opinion. Hell, the biggest critics of the Republican contestants are the leading conservative media outlets.

We've covered this before. With Obama and Clinton the party saw 2 viable options. With the GOP the party doesn't see any viable options.

As of today, there are 33 Senate Democrats that are retiring or up for re-election. Only 10 Republicans are retiring or up for re-election. I'll make you any gentleman's wager you choose that the GOP has a net increase in the House and in the Senate.
Your numbers are wrong. It's 21 Democrat, 2 Independent and 10 Republican. Additionally, the majority of Democrat races are in Blue or Purple states.

I'll take your wager.

Agreed. The economy and Iran are 2 huge factors.

I think they're linked. If Iran blows up it will put a large strain on the economy.

-spence

JohnnyD

03-05-2012, 12:05 PM

"Tried it with McCain, then he chose Palin as his running-mate. A decision that, still to this day, I believe is the sole reason he lost that election. "

Johnny, I hear this all the time. All the time. And it's demonstrably false. After McCain picked Palin, he surged ahead of Obama in the polls, and he stayed right there until the economy tanked.

I'm not saying I think Palin was qualified, or even that she was a good candidate (in my opinion). I'm saying that the economy, not her selection, doomed McCain. The polls at that time validate my theory, and dispute yours.

"there is no denying the obstructionist-agenda the Republicans have been pursuing since taking a majority in the House."

Agreed. That's also what heppend when there's a Republican president and a Democrat-controlled legislature.

"While Obama is losing independents in droves, the Republican primary that is focused on "who's the most conservative candidate" isn't doing anything to win those votes."

You might be right. Maybe the independents aren't enthralled with Romney. But as they flee Obama, there's only one other realistic place to go. If "choosing the lesser of 2 evils" it what it takes to get this Mao-ist out of the Oval Office, I'm OK with that. I'd rather have a GOP candidate that actually energizes folks. But winning this election is what's important, not how you play.

"At least you subtly admit that the GOP obstruction will continue."

I don't subtly admit, I'll say it explicitly. And furthermore, I say "thank God" for their obstructionism. If one believes in a radically conservative idea (oh, for example, that $60 trillion in debt is a bad thing), is such a person supposed to capitulate to Obama and give him a blank check?

When the Democrats resisted Bush, I kept hearing that "dissent was the highest form of patriotism". Now that Obama wears the crown, those same folks claim that dissent is the lowest form of racism.
It almost pains me to say this, but I don't think we're all that far off from each other. :grins: It's pretty much a wait-and-see situation right now. The only thing I don't agree with you on is how much the price of gas will affect Obama. Once he was elected (so, putting aside the hollow campaign promises), Obama has been pretty consistent. Included in that consistency is his drive towards Clean Energy. He took a lot of heat with Solyndra (sp?), but at the same time, he has continually pressed that we need to stop s#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&g oil from Middle East nipples. With that in mind, I think he will be able to *leverage* the high fuel prices and (as I stated in another thread) displace blame for high fuel costs onto the Republicans refusing to vote on energy reform.

My solution is to throw all the bums out (both parties), and elect normal people who actually know how to do things, with very strict term limits. We need true civilian legislators, not career politicians who want to stay in DC their whole lives to show what a big lasagna they are.
Couldn't agree with you more on this one.

Jim in CT

03-05-2012, 12:22 PM

I think independent voters see the debt problem as bi-partisan.

I think we're trending strong and the economy will continue to gain strength if global instability doesn't disrupt it.

No, it's a mainstream opinion. Hell, the biggest critics of the Republican contestants are the leading conservative media outlets.

We've covered this before. With Obama and Clinton the party saw 2 viable options. With the GOP the party doesn't see any viable options.

Your numbers are wrong. It's 21 Democrat, 2 Independent and 10 Republican. Additionally, the majority of Democrat races are in Blue or Purple states.

I'll take your wager.

I think they're linked. If Iran blows up it will put a large strain on the economy.

-spence

"I think independent voters see the debt problem as bi-partisan."

If you think independents don't see a difference on the debt issue between liberals and conservatives, I disagree.

"I think we're trending strong and the economy will continue to gain strength if global instability doesn't disrupt it."

I can't refute that...

"No, it's a mainstream opinion. Hell, the biggest critics of the Republican contestants are the leading conservative media outlets."

Spence, when all you do is look for folks who bash the GGOP, you'll find them...

"Your numbers are wrong. It's 21 Democrat, 2 Independent and 10 Republican."

Sorry, typo on my part, I meant 23 for Dems/independents...

'Additionally, the majority of Democrat races are in Blue or Purple states."

You're missing the point. The races in the purple states are exactly where you are vulnerable, as opposed to CT for example. Democratis seats being contested include the following states...NE, NM, ND, VA, WI, FL, MN, MO, MT, OH, PA).

"I'll take your wager."

$25 to the charity of the loser's choice? I win if the GOP makes gains in both the house and the senate. Otherwise, you win. Aggressively setting the bar for me, but I'm confident. Are you in?

scottw

03-05-2012, 04:46 PM

One of these days, we will hopefully get away from the negative campaigns and people will actually campaign on their own merit, not an implied lack of merit with their opponent.

right... :) don't count on it......

The Election of 1828 Was Marked By Dirty Tactics
The Campaign That Elected Andrew Jackson President Was Brutal

By Robert McNamara

The election of 1828 was significant as it heralded a profound change with the election of a man widely viewed as a champion of the common people. But that year's campaigning was also noteworthy for the intense personal attacks widely employed by the supporters of both candidates.

The incumbent John Quincy Adams and the challenger Andrew Jackson, could not have been more different. And perhaps the one thing they had in common was that they both had long careers of public service, one diplomatic and one military.

By the time the votes were cast, both men would have wild stories circulated about their pasts, with lurid charges of murder, adultery, and procuring of women being plastered across the pages of partisan newspapers.

Background to the Election of 1828

The two opponents in the election of 1828 had faced each other before, in the election of 1824, a peculiar affair which became known as “The Corrupt Bargain.” The 1824 race had to be decided in the House of Representatives, and it was widely believed that Speaker of the House Henry Clay had used his considerable influence to give the victory to John Quincy Adams.

Jackson's furious campaign against Adams essentially resumed as soon as Adams took office in 1825, as "Old Hickory" and his supporters worked diligently to line up support around the country. While Jackson’s natural power base was in the south and among rural voters, he managed to align himself with the New York political power broker Martin Van Buren. With Van Buren’s guidance, Jackson was able to appeal to working people in the north.

The 1828 Campaign Takes Shape

In 1827 supporters in both the Adams and Jackson camps began concerted efforts to undermine the character of the opponent. Even though the two candidates had strong differences on substantial issues, the resulting campaign turned out to be based on personalities and tactics which were outrageously underhanded.

The 1824 election had not been marked with strong party affiliations. But during the Adams administration the defenders of the status quo began calling themselves "National Republicans." Their opponents began calling themselves "Democratic Republicans," which was soon shortened to Democrats.

The 1828 election was thus a return to a two-party system, and was the precursor of the familiar two-party system we know today.

Careers Become Fodder for Attacks

For those who detested Andrew Jackson, there was a goldmine of material, as Jackson was famed for his incendiary temper and had led a life filled with violence and controversy. He had taken part in several duels, killing a man in a notorious one in 1806. When commanding troops in 1815, he had ordered the execution of militia members accused of desertion. Even Jackson’s marriage became fodder for campaign attacks.

Those opposed to John Quincy Adams mocked him as an elitist. The refinement and intelligence of Adams were turned against him. And he was even derided as a “Yankee,” at a time when that connoted shopkeepers reputed to take advantage of consumers.

Coffin Handbills and Adultery Rumors

Andrew Jackson’s reputation as a national hero was based on his military career, as he had been the hero of the Battle of New Orleans, the final action of the War of 1812. His military glory was turned against him when a Philadelphia printer named John Binns published the notorious “coffin handbill,” a poster showing six black coffins and claiming the militiamen Jackson had ordered executed had essentially been murdered.

Jackson's wife Rachel had been married to another man before Jackson, and a question arose about when her first husband had divorced her and when she began living with Jackson. The explanation was that Jackson and his wife believed she had been divorced when they first married, but there was (and still is) some legitimate doubt about the timing.

Jackson’s marriage on the frontier nearly 40 years earlier became a major issue in the 1828 campaign. He was accused of adultery and vilified for running off with another man’s wife. And his wife was accused of bigamy.

Attacks on John Quincy Adams

John Quincy Adams, the son of founding father and second president John Adams, began his career in public service by working as the secretary to the American envoy to Russia when he was still a teenager. He had an illustrious career as a diplomat, which formed the basis for his later career in politics.

The supporters of Andrew Jackson began spreading a rumor that Adams, while serving as American ambassador to Russia, had procured an American girl for the sexual services of the Russian czar. The attack was no doubt baseless, but the Jacksonians delighted in it, even calling Adams a “pimp” and claiming that procuring women explained his great success as a diplomat.

Adams was also attacked for having a billiard table in the White House and allegedly charging the government for it. It was true that Adams played billiards in the White House, but he paid for the table with his own funds.

Adams Recoils, Jackson Participates

As these scurrilous charges appeared in the pages of partisan newspapers, John Quincy Adams reacted by refusing to get involved with the campaign tactics. He was so offended by what was happening that he even refused to write in the pages of his diary from August 1828 until after the election.

Jackson, on the other hand, was so furious about the attacks on himself and his wife that he got more involved. He wrote to newspaper editors giving them guidelines on how attacks should be countered and how their own attacks should proceed.

Jackson Wins the Election of 1828

Jackson's appeal to the "common folk" served him well and he handily won the popular vote and the electoral vote. It came at a price, however. His wife Rachel suffered a heart attack and died before the inauguration, and Jackson always blamed his political enemies for her death.

When Jackson arrived in Washington for his inauguration he refused to pay the customary courtesy call on the outgoing president. And John Quincy Adams reciprocated by refusing to attend the inauguration of Jackson. The 1828 campaign stayed bitter and nasty to the end.

Joe

03-05-2012, 05:22 PM

For sure. Except for this forum, I haven't heard any one say a good thing
about Obama for a over a year, and that includes a discussion as late as last Saturday morning with customers waiting on line at the Bagel Shop.
Republicans are much more vocal with what they believe, and they're a lot more aggressive if you disagree with them. So democrats just shut their mouths and pull the lever.
Reagan pre-dated the rise of Christian Conservatism, and he just destroyed Carter in the debates.
Republicans have to wind in the religious nuts and put somebody out there talking dollars. Think Reagan's, Goldwater's brand of conservatism, not Palin's, Santorum's brand of conservatism.

Nebe

03-05-2012, 05:26 PM

So true
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

striperman36

03-05-2012, 05:31 PM

Those were the days..
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

spence

03-05-2012, 05:38 PM

Spence, when all you do is look for folks who bash the GGOP, you'll find them...
No, I read just about everything.

You're missing the point. The races in the purple states are exactly where you are vulnerable, as opposed to CT for example. Democratis seats being contested include the following states...NE, NM, ND, VA, WI, FL, MN, MO, MT, OH, PA).
The only state you list where the GOP has a great chance is Nebraska, a few like Florida or Maine could go either way.

$25 to the charity of the loser's choice? I win if the GOP makes gains in both the house and the senate. Otherwise, you win. Aggressively setting the bar for me, but I'm confident. Are you in?
Deal, what charity are you going to pick? :devil2: :hihi:

-spence

scottw

03-05-2012, 05:48 PM

Think Reagan's, Goldwater's brand of conservatism, not Palin's, Santorum's brand of conservatism.

please tell us more:uhuh:

Joe

03-05-2012, 06:37 PM

scottw

03-06-2012, 02:17 AM

One of Ronald Regan's first executive orders was to cut the overtime federal withholding tax for hourly workers so it was no greater than their straight time rate.
It used to be, if you worked overtime, your federal withholding was at a higher rate than your straight 40 - and you didn't get back the additional at tax time, regardless of deductions. You effectively were penalized for working o.t..
He reached out to the clock punchers and gave them a bone, and a greater incentive to increase productivity.

that's how you sum up Reagan and Goldwater Conservatism and how it differs from Santorum and Palin Conservatism?

“Mr. Conservative” – Barry Goldwater and the Genesis of the Conservative Movement

In the 1950s, Barry Morris Goldwater emerged as the nation’s leading conservative politician. It was Goldwater, along with his growing legion of “Goldwater Conservatives,” who brought the concepts of small government, free enterprise and a strong national defense into the national public debate. These were the original planks of the conservative movement and remain the heart of the movement today. In the late 1950s, Goldwater became closely associated with the anti-Communist movement, and was an avid supporter of Sen. Joseph McCarthy. Goldwater stuck with McCarthy until the bitter end and was one of only 22 members of Congress who refused to censure him. Goldwater supported desegregation and civil rights to varying degrees. He got himself into political hot water, however, with his opposition to legislation that would eventually turn into the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Goldwater was a passionate Constitutionalist, who had supported the NAACP and had backed previous versions of civil rights legislation, but he opposed the 1964 bill because he believed it violated states’ rights to self-govern. During the Republican National Convention in 1964, Goldwater gave perhaps the most conservative acceptance speech ever uttered when he said, “I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.”

I don't think Reagan varied much from Goldwater on issues of smaller government, states rights, individual liberty, free enterprise and national defense....nor do Palin or Santorum as far as I know...

from Kengor's book....Mr. Kengor wrote, “[Reagan’s] belief in God was a key source of his optimism and his boldness, his daring and self-security, and his confidence; these essential intangibles carried him throughout his presidency — and career as a whole — and enabled him to achieve what he did.”

Reagan’s words "Those who created our country — the Founding Fathers and Mothers — understood that there is a divine order which transcends the human order. They saw the state, in fact, as a form of moral order and felt that the bedrock of moral order is religion. ... The truth is, politics and morality are inseparable. And as morality’s foundation is religion, religion and politics are necessarily related. We need religion as a guide. We need it because we are imperfect, and our government needs the church, because only those humble enough to admit they’re sinners can bring to democracy the tolerance it requires in order to survive."

"Without God, there is no virtue, because there’s no prompting of the conscience. Without God, we’re mired in the material, that flat world that tells us only what the senses perceive. Without God, there is a coarsening of the society. And without God, democracy will not and cannot long endure. If we ever forget that we’re one nation under God, then we will be a nation gone under."
Mr. Reagan was a loyal supporter of the unborn and spoke of the need for a constitutional amendment to permit voluntary school prayer.

where Goldwater differs from Reagan, Palin and Santorum politically and what some would like to include in their version of "Goldwater Conservatism" is his later libertarian views on pot, abortion and gay marriage...they don't embrace his Conservative views but rather, his moderation on these issues.......Goldwater and Reagan had a little problem with Communism and Socialism...get yourself to and democrat or leftist rally and notice how much Communist and Socialist literature is being handed out...the democrat party is the home to America's socialist and communists...still waiting for Spence to name a Democrat Constitutionalist in Congress:uhuh:

Joe....if you long for the Reagan and Goldwater Conservatism based on small government, Constitutional governance, free enterprise, state's rights, individual liberty.... I'd suggest to you that the only place where this still resides is among the "nuts" that you appear to have a problem with...these principles are completely absent in the current democrat party...

so Joe...who do you vote for???

Joe

03-06-2012, 03:42 AM

Your lead is one sentence. That's why my reply was short. Yet your retort is about 900 words? I'm familiar with Goldwater Conservatism, but I prefer the Objectivism of Ayn Rand that influenced Goldwater considerably. Moreover, what you've done here is bad form; you should bait fish, not people.

I cited one Reagan policy. But it was that policy which did more for working Americans to dispel the idea that republicans "are all for the rich" than all the talk that never improved a working person's life.

I did not cite Goldwater policy because there is none. He lost. Goldwater is regarded as a conservative theorist. Theorist is a charitable term they designate to losing politicians who influence other politicians. Whatever the loser does later when his marbles start to go is amusing or disturbing, but not policy.

Reagan pulled from Goldwater, but was astute enough not to go too far. "Morning in America," was a better approach to the people than Goldwater's failed, scary warnings. I voted for Reagan.

Communism failed worldwide in 1989, with the exception of North Korea, Cuba, and China (which has moderated considerably) - and it's not making a comeback.

Reagan won the Cold War by engaging in an arms race that bankrupted the USSR when they tried to keep up. Sure, it ratcheted up debt, but the nukes were never launched. The Cold War was won through diplomacy, and by outspending the Russians - the best formula for victory we could reasonably hope for. It's behind us now. Regan possibly saved the world.

America is not going socialist regardless of how much leftist literature is handed out by the Occupy Movement. We simply can't afford it.

scottw

03-06-2012, 03:56 AM

Your lead is one sentence. That's why my reply was short. Yet your retort is about 900 words? I'm familiar with Goldwater Conservatism, but I prefer the Objectivism of Ayn Rand specifics? that influenced Goldwater considerably. Moreover, what you've done here is bad form; you should bait fish, not people. I don't baitfish....much....not sure how you feel I've baited you..just looking for some context to your statement

I cited one Reagan policy. But it was that policy which did more for working Americans to dispel the idea that republicans "are all for the rich" than all the talk that never improved a working person's life. so putting a little more money in your pocket as a result of policy guided by the Conservative Principle that you shouldn't be punished with higher taxes/rates as a result of working harder was enough to dispel the myth that republicans "are all for the rich"?...who coined that phrase anyway?

I did not cite Goldwater policy because there is none. ?? He lost. Goldwater is regarded as a conservative theorist. Theorist is a charitable term they designate to losing politicians who influence other politicians. Whatever the loser does later when his marbles start to go is amusing or disturbing, but not policy. I don't recall Ayn Rand(talk about theorist) ever winning an election whereas Goldwater was elected and served for quite some time practicing his "Conservative Theory"...many on the left were happy to jump on board the Goldwater train after he "lost his marbles"...I think Rand later "lost her marbles" too

Reagan pulled from Goldwater, but was astute enough not to go too far. "Morning in America," was a better approach to the people than Goldwater's failed, scary warnings. I voted for Reagan. both times?

Communism failed worldwide in 1989, with the exception of North Korea, Cuba, and China (which has moderated considerably)??? - and it's not making a comeback.

Reagan won the Cold War by engaging in an arms race that bankrupted the USSR when they tried to keep up. Sure, it ratcheted up debt, but the nukes were never launched. The Cold War was won through diplomacy, and by outspending the Russians - the best formula for victory we could reasonably hope for. It's behind us now. Regan possibly saved the world. possibly

America is not going socialist regardless of how much leftist literature is handed out by the Occupy Movement. We simply can't afford it. I bet a lot of democrats said the same thing about their party just a short time ago

you said "think Goldwater/Reagan Conservatism....not Santorum/Palin's brand of"......I asked for more regarding your take on the differences....you've not offered anything so far....I was just wondering as you threw that out there...... as though the differences were obvious:confused:

glad to see someone else gets up early too:)

Jim in CT

03-06-2012, 07:54 AM

Republicans are much more vocal with what they believe, and they're a lot more aggressive if you disagree with them. So democrats just shut their mouths and pull the lever.
.
.

That might well be the most stunningly inaccurate thing I've ever heard. Anarchy has become almost synonymous with the word "liberal".

"democrats just shut their mouths and pull the lever". Yeah, we never hear a peep from Democrats like Al Sharpton, or the Hollywood crowd...

Democrats are peaceful in their dissent? You mean those same Occupiers who took over the Brooklyn Bridge?

When was the last time you ever heard of a right-wing riot? Earth to Joe...it almost never happens.

When was the last time a liberal tried to speak, at say a college, and the stage was stormed by conservative protesters? Why is it always the liberals who storm the stage to keep conservatives from speaking?

I've heard some strange things here. I've never heard anyone suggest that conservatives are more feral or anarchist than liberals.

Jim in CT

03-06-2012, 07:57 AM

No, I read just about everything.

The only state you list where the GOP has a great chance is Nebraska, a few like Florida or Maine could go either way.
Deal, what charity are you going to pick? :devil2: :hihi:

-spence

"a few like Florida or Maine could go either way."

We're saying the same thing, I think. My point is, very few of the seats are in guaranteed blue states like CT. Many will be in play. Spence, do you know why so many Democrats are retiring (like Ben Nelson - NE and Kent Contrad - ND)? Because these guys see that they are polling at less than zero, and they don't have the character to face the music. The GOP is going to open up a serious can of whoop-ass in the Senate elections.

I'll pick Wounded Warriors. It's a great charity that makes it possible for families of wonded vets to be with, and care for, the wounded when they return. A great charity.

What's yours? Free Abu Mumia Jamal? Kidding...

I like this bet Spence, if I lose, at least I know some good will come out of it, so thanks. And remember, I only win if the GOP makes gains in BOTH the Senate and the House. No way we fail to make gains in the Senate, the House could go either way. I should've asked for odds, but I am a man of my word as you will see...

Jim in CT

03-06-2012, 08:01 AM

America is not going socialist regardless of how much leftist literature is handed out by the Occupy Movement. We simply can't afford it.

You're right that we can't afford it. You're wrong if you say that's not where we're headed. When Obama explicitly tells a church that it must abandon its beliefs and provide a service which it teaches is immoral, that's at least socialistic, if not outright totalitarian.

Our 2 largest entitlement programs are social security and Medicare. Those programs are currently underfunded by at least $50 trillion, possibly as much as $100 trillion - that's trillion with a "t". There are 300 million Americans. You do the math to figure out how much more we need. Many states are in the same boat, with insane peomises made to public labor unions.

We sure cannot afford it, but for some reason, that's not stopping us from pursuing it. That's what Obama, and most liberals, cannot grasp.

Joe

03-06-2012, 09:47 AM

Kind of a tough neighborhood over here.

scottw

03-06-2012, 10:40 AM

Kind of a tough neighborhood over here.

not really...maybe a lot of passion....you don't learn much about people if you don't engage them, you really learn about people when you challenge their views....it's not a bad thing...actually a pretty good learning experience for everyone ......usually:)

Jim in CT

03-06-2012, 11:02 AM

Kind of a tough neighborhood over here.

I assume you're referring to me, if not, you can ignore.

I'm sorry if I offended you, really I am. But (1) if you say that liberals protest by voting silently, and conservatives are the ones who aggressively yell at those they disagree with, you have to admit, that's a provocative statement (and one that I happen to think is demonstrably false). And (2) email language often conveys a tone that is harsher than intended, at least in my case.

RIJIMMY

03-06-2012, 11:46 AM

That might well be the most stunningly inaccurate thing I've ever heard. Anarchy has become almost synonymous with the word "liberal".

"democrats just shut their mouths and pull the lever". Yeah, we never hear a peep from Democrats like Al Sharpton, or the Hollywood crowd...

Democrats are peaceful in their dissent? You mean those same Occupiers who took over the Brooklyn Bridge?

When was the last time you ever heard of a right-wing riot? Earth to Joe...it almost never happens.

When was the last time a liberal tried to speak, at say a college, and the stage was stormed by conservative protesters? Why is it always the liberals who storm the stage to keep conservatives from speaking?

I've heard some strange things here. I've never heard anyone suggest that conservatives are more feral or anarchist than liberals.

Joe, I was going to reply but Jim basically covered it. Most liberals I know are very vocal. Do you remember all the anti - bush bumper stickers? How about the unions? Media? Look at the aderserial language Obama has used! I dont recall that with other presidents. I feel I've spent years defending my beliefs from loons.

RIJIMMY

03-06-2012, 12:25 PM

the angry right????
Love the free education part.......

SACRAMENTO, California (Reuters) - Dozens of protesters angry over fee hikes and budget cuts at California's public universities were arrested on Monday night during a boisterous but peaceful demonstration inside the state Capitol building.

The arrests capped a day in which hundreds of students and others marched on the statehouse and rallied outside the Capitol before many of the activists moved the demonstration inside the building, clogging hallways in and around the rotunda.

One group chanted, "No cuts, no fees. Education must be free," as they sat crossed-legged on the black-and-white tiled floor of the statehouse.

Jim in CT

03-06-2012, 12:48 PM

Joe, I was going to reply but Jim basically covered it. Most liberals I know are very vocal. Do you remember all the anti - bush bumper stickers? How about the unions? Media? Look at the aderserial language Obama has used! I dont recall that with other presidents. I feel I've spent years defending my beliefs from loons.

How could I foeget about my favorite bunch, public labor unions. Remember what they did at the Ohio state capital recently? Their governor wanted public employees to contribute 5 cents a month to their bloated pensions, and they went berserk (Zimmy, this is hyperbole).

Jim in CT

03-06-2012, 12:55 PM

One group chanted, "No cuts, no fees. Education must be free," as they sat crossed-legged on the black-and-white tiled floor of the statehouse.

This is liberalism sumed up in one sentence, thusly...

"gimme, gimme, gimme..."

"Education must be free"...

Education will be free when teachers are unpaid volunteers. These protesters should go to the next Board of Education meeting in their towns, and watch what happens when they suggest that we don't spend a cent on education. I was on my town's board of education, and when I suggested that teachers switch from pensions to 401(k)s like the rest of the planet, they told me that clearly I hate children.

Obviously, these idiots don't mean that education should be "free" - they know that education costs money. They just don't feel like they themselves should bear any of that cost. Rather, others - preferably mean, white, male conservatives - should pick up the tab for them to go to college.

Gimme, gimme, gimme...

What a way to go through life. And here in my state of CT, I lose to these people every single year. The only question is the magnitude of the rout.

Education should be free. These same kooks are the ones who want to give teachers guaranteed jobs for life, ridiculously bloated pensions, and Cadillac healthcare benefits. That's what liberals want. Oh, and one more thing...THEY don't want to have to pay for it.

Calgon, take me away...RIJIMMY and ScottW, how exactly, do we lose to these people??

Duke41

03-06-2012, 01:28 PM

You know who really sucked as president Busch and who really sucked as Speaker of the House Gingrich and what do they have in common???:no2: Both of those jackasses are Republicans. :fury:

The Dad Fisherman

03-06-2012, 01:55 PM

:lurk:

spence

03-06-2012, 02:16 PM

The problem is people throw around words that don't have a lot of meaning.

Very few people in this country are self described liberals. The majority of Democrats in the US are still way to the Right of moderates in the EU or Australia.

Few who call themselves Republicans actually behave like Republicans say they should behave. Many Republicans will quite often behave like Democrats.

The problem with the GOP today is that since they don't often behave like they say they should...nobody believes them.

The problem with the DNC today is that they say they believe in a lot of what Republicans stand for but then don't actually do it...so nobody believes them.

The majority of voters are really independents and will vote for character above anything else, knowing that it probably doesn't really make a difference if the president is a D or a R.

-spence

MarshCappa

03-06-2012, 02:44 PM

I learn more from reading threads like this than watching the news. Good stuff.

scottw

03-06-2012, 04:36 PM

The problem is people throw around words that don't have a lot of meaning.

-spence

most experts, most economists, most people, very few, moderates, nobody, the majority :)

detbuch

03-06-2012, 09:14 PM

The majority of voters are really independents and will vote for character above anything else, knowing that it probably doesn't really make a difference if the president is a D or a R.

-spence

How is this voting "for character above anything else" thing been working?

Maybe "independents" are poor judges of character?

Or, maybe, "character," which is in the eye of the beholder, and which is usually manufactured by political and media spin (which is why half the folks love the same guy that half the folks hate), is as irrelevent as the D or the R?

It seems, by your formula, that the "independents" might just as well not vote since "liberals" are not liberals and Republicans are not Republicans and they are all going to do the same thing anyway and the character thing is phony.

willdave

03-07-2012, 04:14 AM

Barack Hussein Obama is the single biggest threat to the future of our country.

Maybe some people fear the unfamiliar and unknown. I support the health care reform for example. What you said there sounds like something I would hear on the republican propaganda network
I mean FOX NEWS :D

detbuch

03-07-2012, 10:18 AM

Maybe some people fear the unfamiliar and unknown. I support the health care reform for example. What you said there sounds like something I would hear on the republican propaganda network
I mean FOX NEWS :D

Being new to the forum, you are not familiar with Spence's posts. He is being sarcastic (throwing chum as he might put it), he is more on your side than not.

So, you're all in for the Federal Government having the power to require you to buy something?

The Dad Fisherman

03-07-2012, 10:29 AM

Jim in CT

03-07-2012, 10:41 AM

So, you're all in for the Federal Government having the power to require you to buy something?

Detbuch, on one hand, it seems awfully totalitarian for the feds to require us to buy something, doesn't it?

On the other hand, hear me out here...some folks are born healthy (thanks to nothing but good luck), some are born sick (through no fault of theirs). It seems to me, and I bet most folks agree, that folks who are born sick, or get sick by bad luck, shou'dn't have to suffer financial hardship because of something they had no control over. Meaning, we should all be required to pitch in to help them out. And one way to do this is to require healthy people to buy insurance, and this will help create the funds to help pay for sick folks.

Maybe there's another way to fund what I'm talking about, without requiring everyone to buy insurance. But I have no problem saying to healthy people "look, you are only healthy by blind luck, so we all have the responsibility to help those who were not as lucky".

As for people who smoke, and choose to be overweight...they should have to pay a huge premium for healthcare.

What do you think?

justplugit

03-07-2012, 11:47 AM

This is liberalism sumed up in one sentence, thusly...

"gimme, gimme, gimme..."

True,and it all started with Franklin D Roosevelt's second Bill of Rights.

The Founding Fathers Bill of Rights included the following:

Right to equal freedom, independent of other human beings.
Right to aquire property.
Right to Relegion according to the dictates of conscience.
Right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Roosevelt's Second Bill of Rights in 1944 were:

Employment with a living wage.
Freedom from unfair competition and monopoly.
Housing
Medical care
Education
Social Security

So therefore we have this huge Government who conrols close to
50% of our economy and now THEY want Gimme -Gimme -Gimme.

JohnnyD

03-07-2012, 12:17 PM

True,and it all started with Franklin D Roosevelt's second Bill of Rights.
FDR's "New Deal" was a nice idea, but was the beginning of the demise in this country. It helped create what I call the "Career Welfare" class - people on welfare that have no desire to get off.

Jim in CT

03-07-2012, 01:54 PM

FDR's "New Deal" was a nice idea, but was the beginning of the demise in this country. It helped create what I call the "Career Welfare" class - people on welfare that have no desire to get off.

Agreed, to a point. I could be wrong, but from what I know, at least FDR wasn't in the habit of giving checks to people for doing nothing. Back in his day, in order to get government relief, able-bodied folks had to do something to earn that money, through things like the Civilian Conservation Corps.

No one (without extenuating circumstances) should get a check just for sitting on their couch. You should either have to be in school, or doing some work for somebody.

You're dead-on about crippling these people by making them addicted to welfare, which provides zero economic upward mobility. The ironic thing is that (in my opinion) a tea party-type economic plan (stimulating job growth by nurturing the free market) is exactly what these folks need to get on the path to prosperity, but they've become addicted to welfare, and Obama is now telling them that wealthy people are the reason they are poor...a despicable tactic. One person's wealth does not create someone else's poverty (except for criminals obviously).

detbuch

03-07-2012, 02:37 PM

Detbuch, on one hand, it seems awfully totalitarian for the feds to require us to buy something, doesn't it?

On the other hand, hear me out here...some folks are born healthy (thanks to nothing but good luck), some are born sick (through no fault of theirs). It seems to me, and I bet most folks agree, that folks who are born sick, or get sick by bad luck, shou'dn't have to suffer financial hardship because of something they had no control over. Meaning, we should all be required to pitch in to help them out. And one way to do this is to require healthy people to buy insurance, and this will help create the funds to help pay for sick folks.

Maybe there's another way to fund what I'm talking about, without requiring everyone to buy insurance. But I have no problem saying to healthy people "look, you are only healthy by blind luck, so we all have the responsibility to help those who were not as lucky".

As for people who smoke, and choose to be overweight...they should have to pay a huge premium for healthcare.

What do you think?

There is a lot to what you say. But, going from the general idea of helping the needy to the specific of how to do it, my first concern is that we don't automatically look to the Federal Government everytime there is a problem. As you may have noted by now, I believe that straying from the Constitution is the main reason the Federal Government has become as large, nearly if not all-powerful, and out of the control of the citizens. We The People are supposed to be the sovereign from which power is granted to our governments. It is, now, late in the process of turning this upside down so that Government is the supreme sovereign which grants to we the people whatever rights and oblligations that it deems necessary and proper.

The Constitution mainly intended that the States and their citizens were to grapple with the bulk of how we govern our lives including ALL things not granted to the Federal Government. If the People of every State want a Massachussets style health insurance plan, they can choose that. The Constitution does not grant that power to the Federal government. There is a FUNDAMENTAL reason that it is so. If you believe in individual freedom, you will understand that reason. Individual freedom thrives in smaller units of local government. A large, all-powerful, central government that can dictate at will is the enemy of individual freedom. The irony is that large government over small people is actually weaker than smaller government under a strong people. The latter is stronger in almost every way, including, and especially, economically. It is the freest, most innovative, most evolutionary and adaptable form of society, and as such, the most capable of providing for all, including the unfortunate. If you reduce the power of the People and transfer that power to government, the freedom, innovation, adaptability, all diminish, and, though the government is great and all-powerful, the people and their creativity are diminished, and society gradually, and then ,eventually, quickly withers.

As for insurance, in general, I have a probably oversimplistic view. My perception is that as more than some minor percentage of a population is enrolled in insurance, the less beneficial it is to them. When a small percentage of a population is in an insurance plan, the cost of what is insured is based on the ability of the large percentage of the population that is uninsured and must pay out of pocket. So the insurance company pays out much less in claims and the insured can pay less in premiums. In such a situation, there is an ADVANTAGE to being insured. But when the great percentage of the population is insured, the cost of medical care, for instance, is based on what the third party (the insurance company) can pay, which is much greater than what most can pay out of pocket. So the cost to reimburse claims is much higher, and the premiums are much higher, and a point is reached where a universal coverage gives no advantage to being insured. And if the Government is the third party, you not only have the "wealthiest" third party, but loss of market forces and all the corruption the government can provide to its lobbyists and cronies.

Out of pocket with catastrophic coverage and private charity with various State safety nets might be the best way. Federally mandated is probably the worst, and it chips away at the few remaining glimpses of Constitutional self-government remaining.

justplugit

03-07-2012, 03:24 PM

FDR's "New Deal" was a nice idea, but was the beginning of the demise in this country. It helped create what I call the "Career Welfare" class - people on welfare that have no desire to get off.

Bingo JD, the "Nice to Have" has now become "the expected" and "I'm entitled."

I am all for helping the truly needy, as I think most American's are,
but we are now at a point with the spending and borrowing we will eventually
all be needy and looking for the Gov't to bail us out.
There will be nothing left except the burden of it all on our kids to try and survive.
The American Mind used to want the American Dream, to leave a better life for our children.
Now it looks like the Dream is done and there's very little left of the American Mind.

zimmy

03-07-2012, 03:26 PM

FDR's "New Deal" was a nice idea, but was the beginning of the demise in this country.

Yeah, you are right. I would have much preferred the standard of living before the new deal.

justplugit

03-07-2012, 03:36 PM

[QUOTE=detbuch;925773]

The Constitution mainly intended that the States and their citizens were to grapple with the bulk of how we govern our lives including ALL things not granted to the Federal Government. If the People of every State want a Massachussets style health insurance plan, they can choose that. The Constitution does not grant that power to the Federal government. There is a FUNDAMENTAL reason that is so. If you believe in individual freedom, you will understand that reason. Individual freedom thrives in smaller units of local government. A large, all-powerful, central government that can dictate at will is the enemy of individual freedom. The irony is that large government over small people is actually weaker than smaller government under a strong people. The latter is stronger in almost every way, including, and especially, economically. It is the freest, most innovative, most evolutionary and adaptable form of society, and as such, the most capable of providing for all, including the unfortunate. If you reduce the power of the People and transfer that power to government, the freedom, innovation, adaptability, all diminish, and, though the government is great and all-powerful, the people and their creativity are diminished, and society gradually, and then ,eventually, quickly withers.

[QUOTE]

Perfect explanation of the purpose of the Constitution and Home Rule.

RIJIMMY

03-07-2012, 03:46 PM

Yeah, you are right. I would have much preferred the standard of living before the new deal.

During FDRs terms every single center of industry and technology across the entire globe was destroyed except one. The United States. The new deal didnt raise the standard of living, having the US as the only country that could produce anything was.

Duke41

03-07-2012, 04:33 PM

China can you imagine. 50 years ago they were getting massacared by Japan. If they become a Global military power, Japan better look out.

JohnnyD

03-07-2012, 04:35 PM

Yeah, you are right. I would have much preferred the standard of living before the new deal.
Correlation does not imply causation.

During FDRs terms every single center of industry and technology across the entire globe was destroyed except one. The United States. The new deal didnt raise the standard of living, having the US as the only country that could produce anything was.
Beat me to it. The US was a manufacturing powerhouse.

scottw

03-07-2012, 05:35 PM

Agreed, to a point. I could be wrong, but from what I know, at least FDR wasn't in the habit of giving checks to people for doing nothing. .

haven't you ever wondered how it was that FDR managed to get re-elected while presiding over a depression? do a little reading...notice that Obama is routinely announcing more and bigger government handouts and help...each day something new...this will accelerate, FDR engaged in massive government handouts to "buy" votes in order to get re-elected...Obama is doing and will continue to do the same....

Buying Votes

In this madness, the New Dealers had a method. Despite its economic illogic and incoherence, the New Deal served as a massive vote-buying scheme. Coming into power at a time of widespread destitution, high unemployment, and business failures, the Roosevelt administration recognized that the president and his Democratic allies in Congress could appropriate unprecedented sums of money and channel them into the hands of recipients who would respond by giving political support to their benefactors. As John T. Flynn said of FDR, “it was always easy to interest him in a plan which would confer some special benefit upon some special class in the population in exchange for their votes,” and eventually “no political boss could compete with him in any county in America in the distribution of money and jobs.”

In buying votes, the relief programs for the unemployed, especially the Federal Emergency Relief Administration, the Civilian Conservation Corps, and the Works Progress Administration, loomed largest, though many other programs promoted the same end. Farm subsidies, price supports, credit programs, and related measures won over much of the rural middle class. The labor provisions of the National Industrial Recovery Act and later the National Labor Relations Act and the Fair Labor Standards Act purchased support from the burgeoning ranks of the labor unions. Homeowners supported the New Deal out of gratitude for the government’s refinancing of their mortgages and its provision of home-loan guarantees. Even blacks, loyal to the Republican Party ever since the Civil War, abandoned the GOP in exchange for the pittances of relief payments and the tag ends of employment in the federal work-relief programs. Put it all together and you have what political scientists call the New Deal Coalition—a potent political force that remained intact until the 1970s.

creepy huh?

justplugit

03-07-2012, 06:22 PM

China can you imagine. 50 years ago they were getting massacared by Japan. If they become a Global military power, Japan better look out.

Forget Japan, if we keep borrowing from China at this rate they will
take us over without a shot fired.

detbuch

03-07-2012, 08:26 PM

Yeah, you are right. I would have much preferred the standard of living before the new deal.

Actually, the standard of living before The New Deal was better than during the heyday of The New Deal before FDR's death. Just about all his policies failed to rectify the depression, prolonging it well beyond those of the past. Not only were his policies counter-productive, they were punitive toward business and created the uncertainty that dissuaded investors and kept business from expanding. And prices were intentionally and artificially raised, making it even more difficult for consumers. FDR's passing and the beginning of a rollback of some New Deal policies and the friendlier face of new administrations toward business was the ticket to renewed prosperity, as well as the fact that, as RIJimmy and JohnnyD said, our infrastructure and manufacturing facilities had not been destroyed by the War as they had been in the rest of the advanced world. There have been a few new books on FDR and The New Deal which have revised perspectives from a more objective view than the panegyrics of historians such as Schlesinger, Commager, Morris, and Leucthtenburg.

I've just finished reading NEW DEAL OR RAW DEAL, by Burton Folsom, Jr. It's an easy, very interesting and very informative read. I highly reccommend it for an alternative insight to the accepted orthodoxy. And it has parallels to our current economy and to some of the administration's solutions and methods. It is also interesting to note that FDR was the main facilitator and creator of our current "fourth branch of government," the massive, bureaucratic, administrative State which essentially replaces the Consitution as the process by which we are governed.