Author Topic: Failures At Home  (Read 561 times)

Offline Hap

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3908
Failures At Home
« on: January 11, 2008, 03:46:53 PM »
Read some of the comments left at the end of a Fox News story about Fred Thompson.  Made me want to go back and review the Republican criticisms of the state of American domestic policy in 1964.  Quite a few words, but I think some might find themselves reading on:

Failures at Home

Inability to Create Jobs

This Administration has failed to honor its pledges to assure good jobs, full prosperity and a rapidly growing economy for all the American people:

—failing to reduce unemployment to four percent, falling far short of its announced goal every single month of its tenure in office; and

—despite glowing promises, allowing a disheartening increase in long-term and youth unemployment.

This Administration has failed to apply Republican-initiated retraining programs where most needed particularly where they could afford new economic opportunities to Negro citizens. It has preferred, instead, divisive political proposals.

It has demonstrated its inability to measure up to the challenge of automation which, wisely guided, will enrich the lives of all people. Administration approaches have been negative and unproductive, as for example the proposed penalties upon the use of overtime. Such penalties would serve only to spread existing unemployment and injure those who create jobs.

It has failed to perform its responsibility under Republican amendments to the Manpower Training Act. It has neglected, for example, the basic requirement of developing a dictionary of labor skills which are locally, regionally and nationally in short supply, even though many thousands of jobs are unfilled today for lack of qualified applicants.

Failing the Poor

This Administration has refused to take practical free enterprise measures to help the poor. Under the last Republican Administration, the percentage of poor in the country dropped encouragingly from 28% to 21%. By contrast, the present Administration, despite a massive increase in the Federal bureaucracy, has managed a mere two percentage point reduction.

This Administration has proposed a so-called war on poverty which characteristically overlaps, and often contradicts, the 42 existing Federal poverty programs. It would dangerously centralize Federal controls and bypass effective state, local and private programs.

It has demonstrated little concern for the acute problems created for the poor by inflation. Consumer prices have increased in the past three and a half years by almost 5%, amounting in effect to a 5% national sales tax on the purchases of a family living on fixed income.

Under housing and urban renewal programs, notably in the Nation's Capital, it has created new slums by forcing the poor from their homes to make room for luxury apartments, while neglecting the vital need for adequate relocation assistance.

Retarding Enterprises

This Administration has violently thrust Federal power into the free market in such areas as steel prices, thus establishing precedents which in future years could critically wound free enterprise in the United States.

It has so discouraged private enterprise that the annual increase in the number of businesses has plummeted from the Republican level of 70,000 a year to 47,000 a year.

It has allowed the rate of business failures to rise higher under its leadership than in any period since depression days.

It has aggravated the problems of small business by multiplying Federal record-keeping requirements and has hurt thousands of small businessmen by forcing up their costs.

This Administration has curtailed, through such agencies as the National Labor Relations Board, the simple, basic right of Americans voluntarily to go into or to go out of business.

It has failed to stimulate new housing and attract more private capital into the field. In the past three years it has fallen short by 1,500,000 units of meeting its pledge of 2,000,000 new homes each year.

It has sought to weaken the patent system which is so largely responsible for America's progress in technology, medicine and science.

It has required private electric power companies to submit to unreasonable Federal controls as a condition to the utilization of rights-of-way over public lands. It has sought to advance, without Congressional authorization, a vastly expensive nationwide electrical transmission grid.

Betrayal of the Farmer

This Administration has refused, incredibly, to honor the clear mandate of American wheat farmers, in the largest farm referendum ever held, to free them of rigid Federal controls and to restore their birthright to make their own management decisions.

It has strangled the Republican rural development program with red tape and neglected its most essential ingredient, local initiative.

It has broken its major promises to farm people, dropping the parity ratio to its lowest level since 1939. It has dumped surplus stocks so as to lower farm income and increase the vicious cost-price squeeze on the farmer.

It has evidenced hostility toward American livestock producers by proposals to establish mandatory marketing quotas on all livestock, to fine and imprison dairy farmers failing to maintain Federally-acceptable records, and to establish a subsidized grazing cropland conversion program. It has allowed imports of beef and other meat products to rise to an all-time high during a slump in cattle prices which was aggravated by government grain sales.

Neglect of Natural Resources

This Administration has delayed the expeditious handling of oil shale patent applications and the early development of a domestic oil shale industry. It has allowed the deterioration of the domestic mining and petroleum industries including displacement of domestic markets by foreign imports. It has failed to protect the American fishing industry and has retreated from policies providing equitable sharing of international fishing grounds.

Fiscal Irresponsibility

This Administration has misled the American people by such budget manipulations as crowding spending into the previous fiscal year, presenting a proposal to sell off $2.3 billion in government assets as a cot in spending, and using bookkeeping devices to make expenditures seem smaller than they actually are.

It has, despite pledges of economy, burdened this nation with four unbalanced budgets in a row, creating deficits totaling $26 billion, with still more debt to come, reflecting a rate of sustained deficit spending unmatched in peacetime.

It has failed to establish sensible priorities for Federal fluids. In consequence, it has undertaken needlessly expensive crash programs, as for example accelerating a trip to the moon, to the neglect of other critical needs such as research into health and the increasingly serious problems of air and water pollution and urban crowding.

This Administration has continued to endanger retirement under Social Security for millions of citizens; it has attempted to overload the System with costly, unrelated programs which ignore the dangers of overly regressive taxation and the unfairness of forcing the poor to finance such programs for the rich.

It has demanded the elimination of a substantial portion of personal income tax deductions for charitable and church contributions, for real property taxes paid by home owners, and for interest payments. The elimination of these deductions would impose great hardship upon millions of our citizens and discourage the growth of some of the finest organizations in America.

This Administration has impeded investigations of suspected wrongdoing which might implicate public officials in the highest offices in the land. It has thus aroused justifiable resentment against those who use the high road of public service as the low road to illicitly acquired wealth.

It has permitted the quality and morale of the postal system to deteriorate and drastically restricted its services. It has made the Post Office almost inaccessible to millions of working people, reduced the once admired Parcel Post System to a national laughing stock—and yet it is intimated that Americans may soon have to pay 8ў for a first-class postage stamp.

It has resisted personal income tax credits for education, always preferring the route leading to Federal control over our schools. Some leading Democrats have even campaigned politically in favor of such tax credits while voting against them in Congress.

Contrary to the intent of the Manpower Training Act, it has sought to extend Department of Labor influence over vocational education.

Offline Airscrew

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4808
Failures At Home
« Reply #1 on: January 11, 2008, 04:01:23 PM »
The problems remain the same, only the names change from year to year

Offline FrodeMk3

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2481
Failures At Home
« Reply #2 on: January 11, 2008, 04:34:34 PM »
Hap, could you give us some links' to the comments, please?

And, are these comments' about the state of affairs circa @ 1964?

Offline Hap

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3908
Failures At Home
« Reply #3 on: January 12, 2008, 12:55:44 AM »
Frode, it's the Republican Platform from 1964.  If you google it, you'll find it.  

Oh, you mean the Fox article . . .http://youdecide08.foxnews.com/2008/01/11/fred-thompson-looks-for-a-bounce-in-south-carolina-on-heels-of-debate/

Offline lazs2

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 24886
Failures At Home
« Reply #4 on: January 12, 2008, 10:46:50 AM »
hap.. so you feel that raising taxes on everyone and making things cost more and giving people less choice in education, transportation and living is the answer?

socialism is the answer?  bigger government and higher taxes is the answer?

yep.. the republicans are spending like democrats of the past but..  soon as the democrats got in... what did they do?  propose billions in new taxes and go to take away tax breaks in place.    move to regulate everything and make it more expensive.

it is a matter of degree.. the republicans are terrible.. the democrats are lening incarnate.

lazs

Offline Hap

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3908
Failures At Home
« Reply #5 on: January 12, 2008, 11:04:35 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by lazs2
hap.. so you feel that raising taxes on everyone
 Nope.  Had not decided that raising taxes on everyone is the or an answer.

Quote
and making things cost more
nope here too.  Had not decided that making things cost more is either the or an answer.

Quote
and giving people less choice in education, transportation and living is the answer?
nope to that third bunch too.

Quote
socialism is the answer?
nope.  

Quote
bigger government and higher taxes is the answer?
don't think so.

I think the "answer" is to turn the interests of people like you away from selfish things to things that are more important.  

Bigger government cannot accomplish that.  Taxing you more won't create the change either.  Neither will making things cost more or less.  

And lastly, there's no route from fewer transportation and living choices to selflessness.  

As to education, sure, I'd like to see a ton of changes there.  

Lazs, you mind trying to hold court on what we owe the other guy?  How neighborliness constrains our wants and liberties.  I'd like to hear what you have to say if it's sincere.  I've got the "don't fiddle with me and mine" part.

Offline Maverick

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 13958
Failures At Home
« Reply #6 on: January 12, 2008, 11:22:42 AM »
So who decides what "things are more important"? Is it your choice or simply a choice you agree with that's "more important"? The criteria for these "more important" things is what?
DEFINITION OF A VETERAN
A Veteran - whether active duty, retired, national guard or reserve - is someone who, at one point in their life, wrote a check made payable to "The United States of America", for an amount of "up to and including my life."
Author Unknown

Offline Hap

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3908
Failures At Home
« Reply #7 on: January 12, 2008, 11:35:56 AM »
You're jumping the gun Maverick.

How about starting with "do they exist or not?"

Offline lazs2

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 24886
Failures At Home
« Reply #8 on: January 12, 2008, 01:57:46 PM »
hap.. I think it is you that owes the explanation not me.   I don't feel that I owe anyone anything.    I feel that if we were allowed to use our own money most of us would not need to take from others.

You on the other hand..  tell me that you think individuality or at least free choice is good and that socialism is bad or.. at least more socialism is bad.. that more tax is bad..

What do you think I owe someone who I don't even know?   I bet I give more to charity than most...  I bet more would give if they didn't have their concience soothed by saying "I give through my taxes"   and..   if they didn't have to pay the taxes then they would BE ABLE to give more.

Schools?   the people have spoken.. they think it is worthwhile to have an educated populace.. I say.. if we have to then give everyone vouchers to do as they please for their kids or.. just cut their taxes by 5k a year or so.

You are the one who needs to explain what you think I should pay for..  for me..to the government.. that would be.. to raise an army and to support the courts and the legeslative brances.. everything else is a waste and unconstitutional and immoral.

What you are saying is that you decide what I pay for.. If I resist you feel it is fine to take everything I want and/or put me in prison.. If I resist that... you say It is fine to kill me to get me to comply.

Who is immoral here?


lazs

Offline Masherbrum

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 22416
Failures At Home
« Reply #9 on: January 12, 2008, 02:45:13 PM »
Wyoming has swooned MANY Skilled Trade jobs from Michigan.    

Only failure has been the elected officials who rape this country wholesale and turn the public against each other.    Diversionary tactic is all that it is.  

Both parties suck.
FSO Squad 412th FNVG
http://worldfamousfridaynighters.com/
Co-Founder of DFC

Offline Hap

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3908
Failures At Home
« Reply #10 on: January 12, 2008, 03:37:57 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by lazs2 I don't feel that I owe anyone anything.
[/b]  Yes, you and I disagree.

Quote
tell me that you think individuality or at least free choice is good and that socialism is bad or.. at least more socialism is bad.. that more tax is bad.
"Choice" is a thing that breeds consequences.  I don't want to think that you're advocating "choosing" divorced from ethics.  Such as, "I'll do what I want.  Don't interfere.  And it's all good because all individually initiated choice is good."  Versus, checking whether the choice is virtuous and the consequence good.  

You've obviously given some thought to all this.  

Quote
What do you think I owe someone who I don't even know?
[/b]  Thats it in a nutshell.  John Donne's 17th Meditation is worth reading.  Don't do the Wiki/Google thing.  It'll rob you of what good may come of the few minutes it takes to really slow down and look it.  If your answer be the same afterwards then you can rail at me.  Do realize Donne is thinking that he might not be long for this world when he penned it.  Don't we sort have a couple different "faces" when it comes to that sort of thing?

Quote
You are the one who needs to explain what you think I should pay for.
 If I were King, I'd exempt you from any expenses other than those you enter into voluntarily.  

Quote
What you are saying is that you decide what I pay for.
[/b]  I sure did not mean to.  If I did, I take it back.  It was an error on my part.  Don't think I did at all.  You need not read between the lines.  It's okay to take what I say at face value.

Quote
Who is immoral here?
[/b]  Best to stop asking that.  We'll be on the same side then :D

I want to lump together what I consider your most important statements.  Not to try to make you look bad at all.  And as you wrote them, they do stand on their own:

I don't feel I own anyone anything (don't know if you put conditions on this or not)
What do you think I own someone whom I don't even know?
Who is immoral here?

And for each of those, if I've not caught your sense properly, it being very difficult to communicate especially by words alone, I apologize.  

How your 2 questions and 1 statement bear on my doings follows:

I owe others more than I can repay.
To treat them better than they deserve.
I have been during most of my life.
« Last Edit: January 12, 2008, 03:49:10 PM by Hap »

Offline lazs2

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 24886
Failures At Home
« Reply #11 on: January 13, 2008, 10:25:22 AM »
hap... perhaps it is I who do not understand you... If you say that you would not have me pay for anything unless I entered into it voluntarily..  I would have not problem with that... but...

I will go farther.  I believe in the constitution.. we should all pay for an army and the courts.  

I don't think a broad discussion of morals would fit here.   I think it best to just take specific examples and discuss them..   say...  public school or socialized medicine or social security or welfare..  whatever.    

I simply think that we have extorted too much from the individual and in an unfair and uneven manner and that if anything we should be looking for ways to roll back the extortion.  

Governments can only rule by force.. anyone who resists must be clubbed down until he submits.. even to the point of death.    It behooves us to have less government so that we have less chance of doing this.  so that this does not happen any more than is absolutely necessary.

I too help people.   I would probly help even more if the government did not take so much from me and sooth my concience with their "programs"

lazs

Offline Maverick

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 13958
Failures At Home
« Reply #12 on: January 13, 2008, 11:23:35 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Hap
You're jumping the gun Maverick.

How about starting with "do they exist or not?"


No I don't think I'm jumping the gun here a bit. I'm really not overly concerned with a "wall of text" from over 40 years ago.

This is specifically what I am referring to. Please note that this is not a copied wall of text on your part it, is your opinion apparently since you stated it came from you. I take it that even you will not dispute whether or not you "exist".

Quote
Originally posted by Hap
I think the "answer" is to turn the interests of people like you away from selfish things to things that are more important.  



Since you think that this is the "answer", who determines what is selfish and what is not? Who determines what is "important" and what is not? What gives you the right to determine an "answer" for other folks or to determine what is or is not selfish? What standards is your "answer" using?
DEFINITION OF A VETERAN
A Veteran - whether active duty, retired, national guard or reserve - is someone who, at one point in their life, wrote a check made payable to "The United States of America", for an amount of "up to and including my life."
Author Unknown

Offline Captain Virgil Hilts

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6128
Failures At Home
« Reply #13 on: January 13, 2008, 12:16:05 PM »
Just WHO is it that people think we OWE? I'd REALLY like to know.
"I haven't seen Berlin yet, from the ground or the air, and I plan on doing both, BEFORE the war is over."

SaVaGe


Offline lazs2

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 24886
Failures At Home
« Reply #14 on: January 13, 2008, 12:36:11 PM »
yes.. when it comes to what you think I "owe" then we need to get specific.

I don't owe the medical premiums that some person sitting on their butt smoking and doing doing drugs is unwilling to pay for instance.. nor... do I need to raise the kids of a mother who has no income but has 5 kids from 5 different fathers.

I feel that what I "owe" them is to let them suffer enough so that they will give some thought to their choices.   To simply allow them to continue to make poor... even life threatening choices with no consequence (me bail em out) is doing more harm than good.  

lazs