Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Ripsnort on May 07, 2004, 10:04:59 AM
-
Halfway down the page, after Bush’s poor polling numbers:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/05/06/thu/index.html
Meanwhile, Democrats are being advised to run like hell from the liberal label, and instead recast themselves as "progressives," according to a private report by the liberal think tank The Center for American Progress.
The report, based on extensive voter focus groups and a private national poll, found that the right has succeeded in defining Democrats as liberal. And that, apparently, is very bad. It advised a concerted party effort to adopt a new label, "progressive," which, while still poorly defined, "is overwhelmingly associated with positive attributes."
…"The word liberal is associated closely with a well-meaning, admirable, but ultimately weak, naive, and ineffective approach to politics and governance," said the report, which was presented last week to a closed meeting of Senate Democrats.
:rofl :rofl :rofl
-
That's been true for about 10 years now. They have to remind themselves every election cycle that they aren't liberals.
-
Maybe they should try "neolib"? You heard it here first. ;)
-
libocon?
-
How about "get a real platform other than hating Bush and don't worry about what they are called"
-
Care givers.
-
for many of us the only ones who ever deffined us as libral where republicans.
-
Originally posted by capt. apathy
for many of us the only ones who ever deffined us as libral where republicans.
Can't say that I blame ya for disliking that label.
-
Kerry speaking in Mass. "yes I am a libral"
Kerry speaking to a union: "no I wouldnt define myself as a libral"
Kerry speaking to the ACLU: "I tend to lead towards libral issues but wouldn't call myself that"
Kerry speaking to minoritys: "I would love to be the second black president, but I'm not a libral"
-
How about "get a real platform other than hating Bush and don't worry about what they are called"
The Democrats could use a platform, but it’s not like Bush has just sat around playing middle of the road the past 3 years.
- He has had an activist economic policy with a controversial taxation policy.
- He has had an activist social agenda from abortion to homosexual marriage Constiutional amendments.
- He has had an activist foreign policy centered on unilateral American action including invasion and occupation
- His election was controversial and hardly by a percentage necessary to have a "mandate" of the American people (half of America apparently hated him even before he became president, I guess)
Right or wrong, with a slim (not a mandate level) majority in Congress he has been able to act on things that a great many people have a difference of opinion on, even a very strong difference of opinion in many cases. Maybe they hate him because he has obviously shown no regard for the viewpoints of half of the electorate with many of his actions and knows that he has the handful percentage majority necessary to ignore their wishes. [and in some cases, like Iraq, helped along by cowardly "vote yes now ***** later" Democrats] If Kerry were president, and we still have a Republican majority in Congress, it will be a BS politics as usual corporate money and organized labor rule type of system, but at least there would be some balance restored.
Charon
FWIW, I think he is a genuine person, its his advisors and his ability to be swayed (even kept out of the loop, apparently) by those advisors that I actually hate.
-
That is the thing, Charon, Bush DOES something, wether or not you agree with it. From he Dems of the last 20 years, I see lots of "problem definition" and "what I would do in general", but very little action.
The Dems like to define issues, not solve them.
-
- He has had an activist economic policy with a controversial taxation policy.
Which president hasn't?
- He has had an activist social agenda from abortion to homosexual marriage Constiutional amendments.
Third trimester abortions have been so unpopular that Congress has been trying to outlaw them for years. Only Clinton's vetoes prevented it. Clinton was the abortion activist, not Bush. The anti-gay constitutional amendment talk is a reaction to activist judges who want to impose their definition of marriage onto the entire country. The framers of the Constitution never imagined that marriage and homosexual could ever go together.
- He has had an activist foreign policy centered on unilateral American action including invasion and occupation
Even Kerry and H. Clinton backed the invasion.
ra
-
The Dems like to define issues, not solve them.
I agree, but I have yet to see Bush' policies actually solving anything, and in fact they could end up being far worse than business as usual. If you're an activist you better damm well have your assumptions prove to be correct. It's too early to claim failure, IMO, but I don't like how things are shaping up in Iraq and I wonder if anybody is thinking 10 years down the road as to where the American economy should be instead of the next quarter's report.
The only activist I'm looking for in Washington right now is someone committed to getting all of the special interests out of politics, so that quality leadership, fairness and common sense drive policy. I know... and world peace would be nice too.
Charon
-
liberal fits simply because that is who the democrats pander to... the teachers unions... blacks... gays.. etc. You can hardly find a lefty cause no matter how bizzare that the democrats don't pander to.
Democrats are to be feared, as is kerry because if they have the power they appoint a liberal judicial system... A liberal supreme court is enough to strike fear in the heart of any thinking American and kerry, or any democrat is so beholden to the liberals that he will have to make that happen.
kerry isn't gonna go against the boxers and finestiens when they ask for new bans on anything that might be fun. He is going to help the dems take away more of our 2nd amendment rights.
Further... "progressive" simply means liberal to me.
lazs
-
My point Ra wasn't to debate each factor, just to state that he has pushed through an agenda that, right or wrong or neither, is objected to by about half the country. It's not a competiton for me, yeah my team is winning, go [Bush/Kerry]! However...
Which president hasn't?
IMO, we're at a transition point in the world economy where the basic structure of business is changing. We need to seriously look at how to make America viable in the long term. FWIW, Clinton's easy FTC merger approval went too far, IMO, now there's the whole outsourcing push and too much leverage in the hands of business vs. labor (again, IMO). I seriously want my future children (and myself) to have access to the standard of living my parents enjoyed in the boomer years, without having to be the CEO or major shareholder of a multinational corporation.
Even Kerry and H. Clinton backed the invasion.
Why wouldn't they? It was the safe political thing to do. Bush was able to set the tone and get the "oppose war=traitor" thing going early on. It's easy to support the war, even if you think its going to be a mess, then pick it to pieces later. Add most of the remaining Democrats in Congress to the list while you're at it. They are tools. But then, IMO the Republicans are, by and large, similar tools with some minor differences overall.
Third trimester abortions have been so unpopular that Congress has been trying to outlaw them for years. Only Clinton's vetoes prevented it. Clinton was the abortion activist, not Bush. The anti-gay constitutional amendment talk is a reaction to activist judges who want to impose their definition of marriage onto the entire country. The framers of the Constitution never imagined that marriage and homosexual could ever go together.
Clinton didn't promote late term abortions with a "I think we need a new abortion" platform (I personally disagree with late term abortions except in the case of medical necessity). However, late term abortions were generally not common or casual, and the issue is seen generally as being the first strike in a larger plan of attack. As for homosexual marriage, to me that's something for the individual Church to decide. You may certainly disagree, but I think changing the Constitution for something that trivial (and potentially primarily for political reasons) is disagreeable.
Bush is an evangelical christian, and I think a genuine one at that. All fine and good if he makes those feelings absolutely clear. Frankly, he's not been that quiet about it, which is a positive aspect of his character. I really do think he is genuine... I just think it's been easy for others to set his agenda to match theirs.
Charon
-
As for homosexual marriage, to me that's something for the individual Church to decide.
Marriage laws come from state legislatures, not from churches. The Constitution more or less requires each state to recognize marriages from other states, even if those marriages would be illegal in the home state. So when a Massachusetts judge decides to marry two men, it will only be a matter of time before every other state is forced to recognize it. Homosexuals from Utah can go to Massachusetts to get married, then return home to Utah as a legally married couple, thus bypassing the Utah legislature. States want protection from this loophole and a constitutional amendment is, unfortunately, probably the only way to do it in this age of activist lawyers and judges.
ra
-
Wasnt their a certain, rather unpopular and dare I say 'extreme' left wing political party of years back by the same name?
-
Again Ra, I don't see a need to debate each point since there are multi-hundred post treads on each. Getting back to my initial post, the "Bush haters" may actually disagree with his policies since there is no clear mandate for many of his positions. Even the war with Iraq was built on a WMD-based mandate that has failed to pan out so far.
Right or wrong, there is more than just a "fringe" element that disagrees with many of his specific actions. Reagan and Clinton both had people who hated them for largely ideological reasons. However, they were both able to win over enough moderate support to have some degree of mandate and forgiveness for a variety of sins from Monica gate to Iran Contra, and general policy support even if there were some disagreeable specifics.
I think the country felt it was time for Reagan's activism and Clinton, of course, just stole much of the Republican platform once his "activist" efforts were shot down early in his first administration. Bush came to office with a narrow electoral margin (and not a popular vote margin), a narrow Congressional margin and has acted like he had a much broader mandate with no real concern for getting one. Again, IMO.
Charon
-
Charon, I'm not nit-picking your points, it's just your use of the word "activist" which I question.
-
I agree with that Charon, both your analysis and with the President doing it. There is no need for a mandate from the public; that is why there is an election. You win by 1 vote, your "mandate" is what you say it is. That is also why it is only a four year term, so we can decide if we like that mandate.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
liberal fits simply because that is who the democrats pander to... the teachers unions... blacks... gays.. etc. You can hardly find a lefty cause no matter how bizzare that the democrats don't pander to.
Democrats are to be feared, as is kerry because if they have the power they appoint a liberal judicial system... A liberal supreme court is enough to strike fear in the heart of any thinking American and kerry, or any democrat is so beholden to the liberals that he will have to make that happen.
Interesting, Lazs. When you say "A liberal supreme court" is enough to strike fear ...", you must be talking about Earl Warren's court. No other possibilities really.
And yet Earl Warren was an extremely conservative republican governor. How is that?
The politics of a man (democrat/republican) are a poor predictor of the judicial rulings he will make.
The judicial stance over abortion is a poor predictor of future judicial rulings
curly
-
Originally posted by Charon
......... I wonder if anybody is thinking 10 years down the road.....
Ya, like THATS gonna happen (err...before Nov).
-
I have a personal opinion on these issues RA, but by "activist" I'm not making a specific value judgement in this case (or at least wasn't trying to). Perhaps it would be better just to say he has clearly made specific decisions that people will either disagree with or support, and you can't paint everyone who disagrees with him as just some "Bush Hater."
I can see your point Lizking, and you can't argue against its technical merits. My thought would be that some things (perhaps only a handful) have potentially serious ramifications that extend far beyond the term of a single administration and should have a very high degree of consensus. Of course, had all the cowardly Democratic politicians who now find fault with these actions put their tulips on the line earlier instead of waiting to see how things shook out first, maybe there would be less dictating of policy. And what about that disaster of a perscription drug package that people voted for from both parties (and got their checks I'm sure) and now lament. The whole process just pisses me off more and more these days.
Charon
-
Ya, like THATS gonna happen (err...before Nov).
Hell Tumor, it's not like that's going to happen even in the nine years after the election.
Charon
-
you can find extremist freaks in any party. the main problem (I guess it's the main one, there are so many problems to choose from) is that the majority of America, the working middle class, the people who pay the bills, are almost completely unrepresented.
you have the college student, out of work hippy, welfare mom, board house-wife activists with way too much time on their hands getting involved in the political process. and you have the rich people who pay lobbyists to make sure they get the gov't they are paying for.
meanwhile the majority of us are too damn busy to be out protesting and to short on cash to pay some lobbyist.
would be nice to get the Christians and working class republicans out of that rich-mans party (which doesn't represent their interest so much as just play lip-service to their concerns).
and combine them with your working democrats (basically take the democratic party and throw out all the special interest, granola eaters, and crybabies.
working democrats are by far the largest percentage of the democratic party, working class republicans also are the majority of that party, but neither are getting fair representation from their party. truth be told the groups that control either party are such a minority they would be just an annoying special interest group if it wasn't for the backing they get by people who they fail to represent.
-
And getting back to Rips initial post, defining someone as a liberal or conservative these days is done as part of a standard political tactic to turn an election into a "US vs Them."
A liberal will give all your hard earned money to welfare mothers popping out future terrorist supporters so that they can **** on the flag as part of a NEA grant while shouting "Deeth to Ameerika." A conservative will put welfare mothers into meat grinders for coprorations to sell as dogfood in the local Wal-Mart, while wiping their tulips with special $1 million bills printed on toilet paper rolls for the occasion.
This really pisses me off.
As long as elections are wrestling matches driven by weak emotional generalizations (and hey, they work, we fall for them just like we do when the pad has "wings" or the coors twins shake and jiggle) we will get the government we deserve.
Charon
[edit: well though out post apathy, been a long week here at my end I guess :)]
-
charon... there is no problem with generalizing so far as the parties go.. In general, social programs that increase taxes will be instituted by the democrats.. in general... left wing causes will be embraced by democrats in power... in general, nanny laws like gun bans and seat belt laws and helmet laws and smoking bans on private property will be embraced by democrats.. in general, public schools will be protected from competition by democrats.
In general, every nanny law and liberal PC bit of crapola I have ever seen was foisted on me by democrats.
As for the supreme court.. In general, democrats will appoint liberal judges and republicans will appoint conservative ones... there are a few exceptions to any of these "generalizations" but you would be well guided to just accept them as the fact of the matter 90% of the time.
lazs
-
I agree with most of what you post laz. except this-
in general, nanny laws like gun bans and seat belt laws and helmet laws and smoking bans on private property will be embraced by democrats..
most of these laws are lobbyed for by insurance companies, that are owned and ran by republicans.
-
"The American political system is like a gigantic Mexican Christmas fiesta. Each political party is a huge pinata -- a papier-mache donkey, for example. The donkey is filled with full employment, low interest rates, affordable housing, comprehensive medical benefits, a balanced budge and other goodies. The American voter is blindfoled and given a stick. The voter then swings the stick wildly in every direction, trying to hit a political candidate on the head and knock some sense into the silly bastard." - P.J. O'Rourke, "Parliament of potatos"
-
capt... the bills are allways presented by democrats... well maybe "allways" is too strong a word but.. you will surely be better off not voting for democrats... Unless you feel that you are unable to make such decisions for yourself and long for the simpler times when you lived with mom and she told you what to do.
lazs
-
actually I feel that the Dem's do present many of the stupid laws, helmet laws and gun control for a few examples. I don't much like it.
of course with the republicans you get high unemployment, lower wages, and lax safety regulations. so while the republicans may (and I say may because IMO they don't seem much less controlling than the Dem's) not regulate these things away, when they are in office I can't seem to afford bikes or guns. so the end result is the same.
well, to be honest thats not exactly true, it's worse. the fact that I can't afford a gun is a serious obstacle. while making them illegal is more an inconvenience, since I'm not likely to give them up regardless of want ever Nancey boy regs get passed.
you don't have to make things illegal if you can make them unfordable.
my father said it when I was a kid and it's still true today. "a working man voting republican as like cattle voting pro-butcher"
-
I have to disagree Lazs.
Generally, Republicans want to be reelected just like Democrats, any benefit to you or me is an afterthought. Take the points you raised.
Like it or not, most Americans favor some form of gun control.
Pollsters point out that most Americans favor moderate gun controls, and have for decades. When asked about particular restrictions – such as child-safety locks, or mandatory waiting times for background checks – 80 to 90 percent of Americans say they would support them, says Carroll Doherty, editor of the Pew Research Center in Washington.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0510/p02s02-uspo.html
However…
The power of the NRA comes from its power to influence these relatively few close elections. There, a change in 5% of the vote can make all the difference -- both for winning those races and control of Congress.
http://www.fairvote.org/op_eds/guns_and_moms.htm
and…
Still, some analysts say this overstates the impact. While gun owners may have tipped the scales toward Bush in West Virginia, which usually votes Democratic, Gore might well have lost the more conservative states of Tennessee and Arkansas regardless of his stance. And Gore won Michigan and Pennsylvania – states where the NRA spent heavily, and has high membership.
Moreover, in congressional races, a number of NRA-favored incumbents were ousted in 2000, such as Sen. Slade Gorton (R) in Washington, Sen. Rod Grams (R) in Minnesota, and Sen. John Ashcroft (R) in Missouri.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0510/p02s02-uspo.html
At the point where the gun issues become more of a hindrance than an advantage positions rapidly change.
Some Republican legislators here have become so worried about voter backlash that they are abstaining from key gun control votes. Others facing reelection or representing districts that neither political party has a firm grip on are reversing their positions on some gun measures altogether. Longtime allies of the gun lobby are blinking, too.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/gunfight/gunfight.htm
In fact, many republicans favor gun control and have taken leadership roles (a listing at this site):
It was President George Bush, Sr. who banned the import of "assault weapons" in 1989, and promoted the view that Americans should only be allowed to own weapons suitable for "sporting purposes."
http://reformed-theology.org/html/issue11/dont_blame_liberals.htm
Similarly, many Democrats bend with the political wind:
But elsewhere, Democrats are lifting restrictions. Virginia Gov. Mark Warner (D) – who caught the attention of many Democrats when he won the governor's seat last fall after openly courting the NRA – signed a law overturning Alexandria's ban on concealed weapons in public buildings.
The shift in tone can be traced to the aftermath of the 2000 election, and the pervasive belief that the issue cost Al Gore the presidency. Exit polls from 2000 showed that among gun owners, George W. Bush beat Mr. Gore by 61 to 39 percent. More significant, while 59 percent of union households went for Mr. Gore overall, those homes were just as likely to choose Bush if they contained guns.
A group of Southern Democratic governors recently told reporters that they believed the gun-control issue had hurt Gore in their region. "We like to hunt; we like to fish – and I think there was a perception in the last general election ... that [Gore] was out of step with what most of us thought about that issue," said Gov. Roy Barnes (D) of Georgia.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0510/p02s02-uspo.htm
Of course, the Republicans work very hard to make sure people who would elect a candidate strictly because of 2nd amendment issues continue to buy into the generalization.
What about seat belts? Kind of state by state. Not that hard to find Republican support in a quick search, though generally more of a Democratic issue.
Gov. Jeb Bush called the seat belt law a ''good idea for several reasons,'' primarily because it would boost seat belt usage and convince children to buckle up.
http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/state/8108809.htm?1c
Despite such concerns, the bill has strong backing from some of Ohio's leading interest groups, including insurance companies - and support from Republican Gov. Bob Taft, as well as some of the General Assembly's leading black members. Taft, and House Minority Leader Jack Ford - a black Democrat from Toledo - both said the seat belt bill would help save lives.
http://archive.aclu.org/news/1999/w041399b.html
…even the hated liberal ACLU thinks this is a bad idea.
There’s Missouri -- “Some lawmakers say they also fear the proposal would give too much power to cops.
But the bill sponsor, Republican senator Jon Dolan says his proposal has safeguards.”
http://www.mdn.org/2004/STORIES/BELT1.HTM
“We have had the seat belt law on the books for two decades. It’s high time we enforce it,” Murphy said. He added, “I’m pleased that my bill received bipartisan support. Republicans and Democrats agree that it makes no sense to pass a law and then not let our police officers enforce it.”
http://www.senate.leg.state.mn.us/caucus/dem/membernews/2004/dist28/20040316_Murphy_Seatbelt_Bill.htm
Here’s an all-in-one
The bills include a tougher seat-belt law. A measure to protect consumers against price gouging. A statewide smoking ban. A bill to outlaw bullying in schools. An attempt to regulate wireless telephones. And a requirement that bicyclists younger than 18 wear a helmet.
Legislators also put the brakes on a bill to protect neighborhood leaders from being sued when doing their jobs and a measure that would have kept cities from giving out millions of dollars in sales-tax credits to lure businesses.
Most of those measures appeared at first to have a good chance of becoming law, partly because the main sponsors are Republicans, who control both houses of the Legislature. A bill that would have made it easier for police to enforce the state's mandatory seat-belt law achieved early success before the Senate killed it by a 19-10 vote last week.
http://www.azclean.org/ElectYearStallingbills.htm
Adding corporate money into the “Nanny” seatbelt issue are:
Automakers and insurers also lobby for primary laws because seat-belt usage can save them money. Automakers are sued less because belts reduce injuries that might otherwise be attributed to the car, and insurers pay fewer and lower personal-injury claims. North Carolina insurance data show that drivers there have saved $132 million in premiums since its seat-belt usage jumped from 65% in 1993 to 84% in '95.
Higher belt use would also boost states' bottom lines. Massachusetts pays nearly $40 million a year to care for head- and spinal cord-injury patients who were unbelted, according to a new study for the Air Bag & Seat Belt Safety Campaign, funded by the auto and insurance industries. That's almost six times what Virginia, with 70% belt use, pays.
http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/2003-05-19-belts_x.htm
Interesting OPED on the changing face of Republicans
http://www.baconsrebellion.com/Issues03/06-09/Primary_test.htm
Smoking? Well, that depends upon voter wishes vs, small business lobbies vs. tobacco lobbies more than Republican vs. Democrat
"We passed New York state's strongest public health policy ever," said the bill's chief Senate sponsor, Republican Charles Fuschillo of Nassau County.
Republicans in the state Senate estimated smoking and second-hand smoke cost New York's health care system $6.4 billion every year.
The measure, which takes effect July 23, was approved 57-4 by the Republican-controlled Senate and 96-44 in the Democrat-dominated Assembly.
…Sen. John Sabini, D-Queens, said the state was doing a disservice to New York City bar and restaurant owners who have built separate rooms with dedicated ventilation systems to comply with an exception to the city's impending smoking ban. Under the new state law, smoking will be prohibited in those rooms and those businessmen will have wasted their money, Sabini said.
http://www.dailyfreeman.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=7508994&BRD=1769&PAG=461&dept_id=74969&rfi=6
Substantial efforts were made because the bill didn't get a floor vote in the House. There were real concerns from tobacco farmers, the small number of tobacco farmers that we still have left in the state. We used to have a major Brown and Williamson operation in Macon, Ga. although that operation is now closed. You also had concerns from small business owners who derive substantial sales from the sale of tobacco products. So, all of those forces, it really wasn't Democrat or Republican this was a bipartisan bill, and candidly there was bipartisan opposition. But this bill moved overwhelmingly through the Senate, and I believe that if it had come to an open vote on the floor of the House then it would have passed.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,117170,00.html
cont.
-
Democrats had sharp words Tuesday for Republicans who want to ban smoking in all public places including restaurants.
They're looking to snuff out the plan.
"It's an overreach," said House Rules Chairman Calvin Smyre, a Columbus Democrat. "People are always talking about intrusion by government, and this is another one. It's another way of denying local rule."
The smoking ban, introduced by Republican Sen. Don Thomas on Tuesday, could set up another battle between the Democrat-controlled House and GOP-controlled Senate.
http://216.239.39.104/search?q=cache:LrjeI1Q96qEJ:[url]www.ajc.com/metro/content/metro/legislature/0204/10legsmoking.html+smoking+ban+republican&hl=en[/url]
Des O'Brien, president of the United Restaurant and Tavern Owners Association of New York, told New York Post readers (Feb. 16) that: "In a recent statement by the New York City chapter of the New York State Restaurant Association (NYSRA), Executive Vice President Chuck Hunt noted that the city's bar tavern and night life operations have suffered mightily as a result of the smoking ban.' . . .
If Mr. Bloomberg sincerely believes secondary smoke is dangerous, the Republican mayor should strongly and continually urge GOP senators and representatives in Washington to outlaw cigarettes period.
Whatever the mayor believes, we hope His Honor will refrain from telling New England delegates he's good for small business when he addresses the Republican National Convention this year.
We also hope Vermont legislators take a close look at the situation in New York before opting for a total ban on smoking in bars.
http://www.tobacco.org/news/154123.html
Helmet Laws?
Yeah, that’s pretty much a Republican no, no. I’m really surprised at the laxness of the Insurance companies. Must be fewer dollars than seatbelts or smoking.
Welfare bribes to the poor
Well, there’s no doubt plenty of waste, but we don’t really give all that much of our money to the poor through welfare programs.
One of the most popular myths is that welfare is a serious drag on the economy. Actually, it barely registers on the radar screen. The most vilified form of welfare is Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC), which allegedly gives poor mothers a financial incentive to avoid work and have babies. Yet in 1992, AFDC formed only 1 percent of the combined federal and state budgets. Food stamps also took up 1 percent. Both programs cost $24.9 billion each, comprising 1 percent each of the combined federal, state and local budget of $2,487 billion. (1)
Comparing the size of federal AFDC to other federal programs puts a great deal in perspective:
Federal AFDC Expenditures as Compared to Federal Spending in Other Areas (1993) (2)
Agency $ billions
--------------------------
AFDC 12
Medicaid 76
Medicare 131
Defense 281
Social Security 305
http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-runawaywelfare.htm
In fact, the middle class makes out pretty well
To rescue their point that welfare is responsible for runaway government spending, conservatives must expand the definition of "welfare" as much as possible. Unfortunately, AFDC and food stamps are by far the largest welfare programs for the poor, and any expanded definition is going to include popular middle class programs like Medicaid, student grants, school lunches, and pensions for needy veterans. In other words, conservatives must villainize the middle class if they wish to villainize the poor. But for the moment, let's give them the benefit of the doubt, and accompany their line of argument to the end:
Many conservatives expand "welfare" to include all one-way transfers of cash, goods or services to persons who make no payment and render no service in return. The Library of Congress provides a list of such programs (which will be included in the appendix below). In 1992, these expenditures for combined federal, state and local governments came to $289.9 billion, or 12 percent of the combined budget of $2,487 billion. (3) Keep in mind that this 12 percent includes such popular middle class programs as Medicaid, student grants, school lunches, pensions for needy veterans, etc.
If conservatives are still frustrated that this does not prove their point that government is drowning in welfare, then they might try expanding "welfare" to include all social welfare expenditures, which include every entitlement program under the sun, including Social Security and Medicare. (Forget, for the moment, that the middle class is defending these programs with bazookas and rocket launchers.) In 1992, these expenditures comprised 62 percent of combined government outlays. However, at least at the federal level, these benefits are paid to literally every income bracket, and in a remarkably proportional manner.
http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-runawaywelfare.htm
A drop in the bucket compared to the corporate welfare both parties undertake, but that the Republicans do to a somewhat greater extent judging by campaign dollars (balanced by the Democrats declining ties to organized labor).
"The $150 billion for corporate subsidies and tax benefits eclipses the annual budget deficit of $130 billion. It's more than the $145 billion paid out annually for the core programs of the social welfare state: Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC), student aid, housing, food and nutrition, and all direct public assistance (excluding Social Security and medical care)."
"After World War II, the nation's tax bill was roughly split between corporations and individuals. But after years of changes in the federal tax code and international economy, the corporate share of taxes has declined to a fourth the amount individuals pay, according to the US Office of Management and Budget."
http://www.corporations.org/welfare/
It would be nice if, in return, they were required to make sure jobs were created and stayed in the US, but that’s on the honor system. Your tax dollars at work. And by all means, let’s pay attention to the generalizations that are so very important. Both parties are counting on it.
Charon
-
"a working man voting republican as like cattle voting pro-butcher"
As opposed to what, an anti-butcher stance?
What is the difference, the cow is toast either way, but at least with the butcher, the cattle may be worth something.
-
so you think the butcher is a good thing from a cows standpoint?
if thats the case I guess I can see how you could be enticed into voting republican. of course with that logic I could see where you could be enticed into a swampland purchase also.
-
I dunno, speaking as a working man, I got a decent tax break last year, first time in 10 years. I always feel more butchered, or maybe raped is a better description, when the government has it hands deeper in my pockets.
-
I guess it depends on how far you take the math. I'd rather pay a slightly higher percentage of a larger paycheck. and then theres the not having the gov't run up debt in my name.
the money you 'saved' with the bush administration is about on par with charging $100 a month on a credit card and looking at it as an extra $1200 a year in income.
or to be more acurate. having bush run up $1000 a month in your name, giving $900 of it to his buddies, giving $100 a month to you and calling your $12,000 debt, $1,200 in income.
-
Actually, Captn', there is no analogy there. Credit card debt is voluntary and individually proportioned. Unvoluntary taxes are not.
-
deleted- accidental double post
-
the analogy was pretty clear and accurate. you aren't saving any money, the deficit is going up as you get your break. you didn't gain anything you just borrowed it. basically you are running up a large debt while getting to keep a small chunk for yourself (in the for of slightly lower taxes for the working class. and only on a very temporary basis. while his tax breaks for the wealthy expire much farther down the line)
of course you are right in one aspect. credit card debt is voluntary, while bush just borrowed the money and spent it in his priority's. he just gave you a little taste so you'd think it was a good deal. never asked me if I wanted more nat'l debt to pass on to my kids. did he ask you?
-
Originally posted by capt. apathy
did he ask you?
None of them do.
This is actually a fairly civil discussion of politics. A rarity on thses boards. There have been many good points raised from both sides of the spectrum, and there have been a few stereotypical statements/responses as well.
As far as the answer to the tax thing, one simple solution (http://fairtax.org/) to the whole mess. I could give a few other websites that promote different agendas as far as taxes are concerned, but I think that this is the best answer to our taxayion problems,
-
I can agree with that completely. a sales tax in place of (not in adition to) income tax would be a great thing. something I've been advocating for about 20 years.
we could save a lot of money that now goes to running the IRS and personal record keeping. no longer would you need to keep records to allow the gov't to investigate where your money goes in order to not get screwed over on your tax rates.
people who earn their money illegaly or 'off the books' would still have to pay their share.
it would incourage saving since you would have to pay taxes on your money until you spent it (with out all the regulations of IRA's, 401k's, and the like)
instead of deductions certain things could be tax free. medical care comes imidiately to mind.
I can't imagine getting the people living on gov't handouts to go for it since they would be taxed at a fair rate. of course with medical care and maybe a few other basic necessities non-taxable it might go.
would the wealth go with it? no more tax shelters, and those who inherit their money would have to pay the same taxes as if they earned it themselves, might have a hard time getting them to go for that.
I'd go for the idea though, if it replaced all of the other taxes, with even state taxes being figured as just a percentage that goes on the sales tax.
if you don't require it to replace all other taxes though, it will be just another hand they can stick in your pocket, the other taxes will be right where they are and this would end up just another angle they can hit you from.
-
The simple matter is that the GOP has succeeded in making "liberal" a dirty word - thanks to the RW media machine and the RW hate radio echo chamber.
Modern Liberalism had its origins in the class struggles of the french and american revolutions, and imo represents the struggle of the middle classes to rule.
Progressives have much better defined goals and purpose, and have had significant success in the past. Progressives and liberals have some overlap, but generally progressives are considered more "lefty" in an effort to marginalize them. PRogressives have and always wil be the greteast threat to industrial/corporate excess. Just look at what the progressive movement did for child labor laws and employment in general.
Unfortunately for the RW, progressives are better at bringing into stark contrast the flaws of RW government philosophy and imo represent a far greater threat.
The US is at war with itself and it is a war of ideas. It could be worse - minie balls and grape shot for instance.
-
charon.. on gun control.. if you look at the surveys you will see that while most Americans are in favor of SOME gun control when pressed... it seems that they would want less gun control than we have now. Waiting periods and gun locks seem logical to many people and if they were the only restrictions I would vote for em too... Give me 10 day waiting periods and make me have the ability to lock up my guns and then throw out all the other gun laws and I will be happy.. republicans do not author gun bills.. Plus.. if you like surveys, The NRA puts out a survey that includes ALL people running for office that are democrat or Republican and the democrats make it very obvious how they feel as do the Republican... probly 5% of the democrats will vote against even the worst gun control bills the rest will rubber stamp any bill that comes down the pike no matter how silly.but ...
That is where it gets fuzzy and where I believe you are not looking or you are missdirecting.. Most bills with seat belt or smoking in them that have republicans involved or eve3n authors... did not start out that way same for gun bills and helmet laws and smoking... they were something else and the democrats added the abhorent "riders" onto the bill .. so.... without the democrats involvement the bills would have been much less intrusive.. One example you show is a republican mayor fer chrissakes and he is "urging" fellow republicans to vote fo rsmoking bans... other examples show smoking bans tacked onto a larger public health bill.. plus... New York city?? might as well be moscow or san francisco.
Welfare.. If we keep a company afloat then we get something in return.. if we give welfare to people then we make the problem worse. Allmost all farms are subsidized for instance. I am not for welfare but I certainly like the republican version better than the democrat one.
Point is... if you have a lot of democrats in power you have to appease em.. that means that they will bastardize every bill you present ..like finestien did with the assualt weapons bill... Like the democrats did with the bill that was to do away with lawsuits against gunmakers... If yu vote in democrats and if they have any power they will slip nanny riders on every bill..
You can't simply vote for a few "good" democrats... you have to get rid of em all cause they are in their heart liberal socialists that are beholden to socialist groups.
When it comes to destroying the country by taxing or suing companies out of existence... it is the democrats again who not only take the lead but do it agressively... suing tobacco companies even after the product has warned new users... suing gun manufacturers because their products are safe and work well... social engineering through lawsuit... typical democrat sneeky back door crap...
school system... does anyone think we can ever get out of the mess the teachers union in concert with the democrats have gotten us into? democrats are consistent in protecting the public schools from competition and improvement.
judges... every time you hear of some fruitcake decison or foot dragging nutjob stalling... it is by democrat appointed circuits like the 9th in California... You guys all happy with the way we do stuff here in California right? You wanna be just like us right? Vote democrat then... that's what we did.
now... if you just want to get laid or look cool to the lefty euros on this board... I can understand that.. all you have to do is say that you are going to vote democrat and then go to the polls and vote for republicans like a real man.
lazs
-
Lazs, you seem to see a difference between the parties -- I don't. You do live in California though, which I would hardly call a normal state by any standard. Did the Democrats make the state like it is today, or did they just adapt to the demands of the people who voted for them? None of the current problems seem to have been created in secret. Did the Democrats drive businesses out of the state, or did the people?
About 39 percent of Americans own a gun. That, along with the Second Amendment, is likely enough to prevent any national ban. But, at the local level as soon as the soccer mom and middle class white-collar soccer dad become more important to getting elected than gun owners, you see a shift in Republican priorities. Politicians don’t care about guns, abortion, welfare, gas prices – they care about power and winning elections. It will not be a big bad government that makes it almost impossible to own a gun, but your neighbor who may very well be an upper middle class dentist who thinks that the Republican tax breaks are great but that it wouldn’t hurt to do something about all these guns.
When you look at most nanny laws, seatbelts and smoking for example, the biggest “Nanny” is the insurance industry. Fortunately, Republicans (just like Democrats) are immune to the pressures of big business writing big checks.
As for welfare, given the vastly greater amount spent on corporations, and the fact that they won’t add a new job or keep jobs in the US unless they are going to anyway, just exactly what do you get for your dollar as a working tax payer? Waste is waste, and if I’m wasting a dollar on one program but $10 on another I’m going to be more concerned about the $10, at least until that’s squared away. You mentioned farms.
"Large farms are sitting on wealth created by government programs," John Beghin of the Center for Agricultural and Rural Development at Iowa State University told the HPR. According to United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) statistics, in 1999, 47 percent of subsidy payments went to large commercial farms, or agribusinesses, that had an average household income of $135,000. In contrast, limited-resource farmers, who had an average household income of $9,500, received less than one percent of direct government payments.
…large commercial farmers enjoy a luxury that small farmers do not: they can afford to lobby members of Congress. Eight of the top 20 recipients of agribusiness political contributions served as members of either the House or Senate Agricultural Committees when the 2002 Farm Act, which provides commodity-based subsidies, was passed.
http://www.hpronline.org/news/2003/01/25/Cover/No.Business.Like.Agribusiness-356771.shtml
or,
Despite strong international rhetoric against agricultural subsidies, and equally vocal domestic rhetoric for a “level playing field”, the U.S.’s direct payments to agriculture are at record levels. The findings of this report suggest that these payments are not being directed to those farming operations most in need of support, but have instead gone to already affluent agricultural concerns and banks.
Farm subsidies have been and continue to be inequitably and inefficiently distributed. The report examines a range of subsidy mechanisms. The top 1 percent of beneficiaries from one program collect an average $83,000 per year and those in the top ten percent average $32,000; the typical program participant, however, receive just $1,200 annually. Recipients include fifteen Fortune 500 Companies.
http://www.foodfirst.org/pubs/policy/pb6.html
The good news is that not only will one subsidy help small American farmers like ADM, but it will lead to lower quality highways and higher gas prices to boot.
An ethanol mandate will lead to higher prices at the pump for consumers.
Because an ethanol mandate will require that ethanol be blended in markets far from current production facilities, consumers will have to pay for the significantly higher costs associated with distribution.
The special blendstock for ethanol is more difficult and expensive to produce, thereby adding costs to the retail gallon of gasoline.
While ethanol has some desirable blending properties, it is currently twice as expensive as the gasoline it is intended to replace. This base cost, combined with extra transportation and blendstock production costs, will increase gasoline prices across the nation.
The Environmental Protection Agency recently estimated in their white paper on boutique fuels that an ethanol mandate could increase the cost of ethanol production by up to 15 cents per gallon.
Another study of a proposed ethanol mandate estimated the direct increased cost to consumers at $6.7 billion.
Because ethanol-blended motor fuel is taxed at a substantially lower rate than regular gasoline, a mandatory increase in ethanol use literally will cost billions in lost revenue to the Highway Trust Fund, money which would otherwise be used for road and bridge maintenance.
An ethanol mandate would create a massive income transfer from consumers and highway users across the nation to the very few companies that control almost all of ethanol's productive capacity.
An ethanol mandate, disguised as energy policy, is simply an agricultural subsidy and will not enhance America's energy independence.
http://www.nacsonline.com/NACS/Resource/Government/ethanol.htm
Now, agriculture subsidies tend to be non-partisan (if you live in a farm state you support them), but it is actually more of a Democratic issue nationally (at least today). However, ethanol has been readily accepted as part of the Republican sponsored energy legislation that is in the news so much because of Cheney’s closed door dealings. Why is that? Even the leading industry trade group for the oil industry went along with it. Well, to oppose it would endanger the huge package of welfare for the oil industry that is included in the same legislation. It’s even been rumored that the Alaska drilling proposals were included just to distract attention for the boring pages of subsidies.
Almost every one of the 1,000-plus pages of the bill is dedicated to throwing taxpayer subsidies at politically favored energy industries. Now, it's no surprise that the companies which will receive this kind of gift are all for it -- or that the employees of those companies and the businesses dependent upon them are likewise charmed by the proposal. But with the federal government already a half trillion dollars in the red, can we really afford such generosity, particularly when the recipients of this tax-funded largesse are among the largest and healthiest corporations in the world?
This is not ivory tower theory -- it's hard historical fact. If throwing tax money at "neat-o" technologies that couldn't pull their weight in the marketplace were a worthwhile endeavor, we'd all be driving cars powered by "synfuels," or, alternatively, tooling around in roomy, conventional automobiles getting 75-plus miles per gallon. Meanwhile, we'd be lighting our homes with electricity generated by the neighborhood fusion power plant (or, alternatively, from nuclear power plants delivering electricity that was literally "too cheap to meter"), or would even have unplugged from the power lines completely thanks to ubiquitous, low-cost residential solar energy panels.
http://www.cato.org/dailys/04-16-04.html
The above issues I have direct knowledge of and it's not just some Internet cut and paste. I have spoken to the major industry representative (oil and ethanol), lobbyists, Congressional staffers, etc – the same people you would see on CNN or Fox news. I’ve read through hundreds of pages of the policy proposal and the various bills. Only two items are useful to us as citizens. One will decrease the number of specialty reformulated gasolines mandated in the US (no subsidy required) leading to potentially lower price hikes and maybe lower base gasoline prices (likely not though). The other will fund existing gasoline leaking underground storage tank regulations (money already there but not being spent as an accounting ploy to show a lower federal deficit). The others, as best I could tell, just help shareholders at the oil companies and ADM. They aren’t going to build new refineries or expand existing refineries because they make less money. New jobs aren’t going to be created unless they are needed, subsidy or no subsidy.
I’ll likely vote Democrat this election (at least for President) because I personally don’t appreciate the job Bush has done. I have little faith in him as a leader, and much less in his advisors, but that doesn’t mean I think Democrats are any better in the long run. I’m starting to be concerned that with business as usual in Washington we might be heading down the road of doing to ourselves what we did to the Soviets at the end of the Cold war and not through spending on social programs (unless you count Social Secuity, Medicare and Medicaid which are starting to get real scary, IMO).
And Lazs, I really am touched by your concern over my love life. My wife takes care of that now, but I do appreciate the genuine concern. By the same token, if voting Republican helps you stave off viagra for another year, then I wish you well. But be sure to demand a reach around -- they owe you that much.
Charon
[edit: I left out the voucher issue beacuse I haven't looked at it with any depth. It wouldn't prove anything to me either way other than, "Yep, Democrats just as scrwed up as the Republicans or yep, more Republican self interest at work. As for judges, Is it really worth the time for me to dig up the opposing list of nutbag right wingers who shouldn't be sitting on the bench?]
-
Go Biodiesel!!
-
The reason many 'working' people vote Republican is simply because they identify more with the Republican party than they do the Democratic.
CPT. Apathy, your analogy and your father's statement was probably based upon the Democratic Party of the 1940's and 1950's. The party under FDR, Truman and JFK was a whole lot different than the one today. Looking at their policies you would think they were more Republican than Democrat but that is how much the Democratic Party has changed.
My father was a devoted Democrat for a good part of his life, at least until Jimmy Carter was elected. A very blue collar man, he looked at the Democratic party as the protector of the working man. As the party evolved and his views were marginalized more and more he became disillusioned with the party and left. He isn't really anything anymore but I guess if you had to call him something he would be a little right of center, using today's definitition.
What is driving the 'working class' to the Republican Party is simply the fringe of the Democratic party marginalizing the core's beliefs. Union members get pretty ticked off when their dues are used to support candidates that they disagree with on many issues. It's not just one thing. Many of the working class have strong opinions on abortion, gun control, government interference, taxes, homosexual marriage, etc.
The problem is that the Democratic Party has changed so much over the last 40 years. It isn't the same party your father talks about. I have the honest opinion that the Dem. Elite doesn't dive a hoot about the average American. I am sure the Republican Party doesn't either but I never had any illusions about them.
-
well charon... since they are both the same then I would say it was pretty crafty of the republicans to fool them democrats into autoring all the nanny law riders onto bills... Say what you want but it is more than simply the insurance companies running the government.
The democrats believe in social engineering and nanny laws.
Democrat appointed judges cause untold grief with their leftist rulings.
Farmers are farmers. 47% of the money goes to large farms because most farms are large farms. The subsidies keep the smaller guys in bussiness and... due to the subsidies we don't trash the land. They are essentially being paid to not slash and burn style of agriculture. That is way better than giving money to illegal aliens and 17 year old girls to have a house rent free.. It is also a large percentage of the "corprate welfare" you speak of... plus.. most of us have stock in the companies that you seem to think are getting "welfare" we gain from it not some JP Getty.. They are companies.
methanol? I don't know.. you seem to think it is a bad thing. I am not sure. Cleaner.. little less energy and more expensive. What would you suggest as an alternative tho?
I will not vote for democrats because no matter how much it looks like they are "allmost the same" ... simply watching democrats in a group or watching their appointed judges and the riders they put on bills is enough to make a sensible person shun em like the leftist lepers that they are.
lazs
-
well charon... since they are both the same then I would say it was pretty crafty of the republicans to fool them democrats into autoring all the nanny law riders onto bills... Say what you want but it is more than simply the insurance companies running the government.
Maybe the Republicans that are in office today (as opposed to 10 years ago or more) aren't what you think they are.
Eighteen states let police officers ticket an unbelted driver or front-seat passenger, and the federal government is urging the rest to adopt the same so-called “primary” or mandatory seat belt laws. The Bush administration earlier this month proposed highway programs that included a $100 million-a-year incentive for states to enact mandatory seat belt laws.
http://www.stateline.org/stateline/?pa=story&sa=showStoryInfo&id=307024
With the current group of Republicans you seem to get bigger government, more spending but less taxes to pay for it. Maybe it's time real Republicans took back their party. Or looked for another alternative that supports smaller government and individual rights and responsibilities.
Given a choice between Bush Sr. and Kerry, I'd probably vote for Bush Sr. But that's not the option. All I hope for after November is some degree of gridlock and balance.
Charon
-
well... we at last agree.. gridlock is the very best thing.
The government has too much control over our lives. If they are gridlocked it is best. But... I still say that the republicans are the lesser of two evils when it comes to a lot of things that have to do with socialism and....appointing judges is a big deal. That is where the real balance is.... socialists with leftest judicial system is doom.. the democrats by far appoint more leftest judges.
voting democrat is like voting to move back into your moms house. Some people want that.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Lizking
How about "get a real platform other than hating Bush and don't worry about what they are called"
Wouldnt matter if God himself were a republican and in office they would find a way to hate him too
And if it were the other way around the republicans would do likewise.
THIS is the mindlessness of political affiliation I will never understand.
-
Here in Jersey a local radio station has started a new idea we call "G.R'I'P'"
Get Rid of Incumbent Polititions
The idea is simple. Anyone in office you vote out.
Now you dont haveto vote for the other party as there are many parties to choose from.
Just dont vote for who is currently in office.
The feeling is too many of these people get too comfortable with their jobs
Ted Kennedy would be a good example.
End result is you always end up with the same ol same with them still in office and us bickering over issues that will never be resolved anytime soon reguardless as to who is in the various offices.
the only way things will ever change is if we change them.
-
there are reasons to vote democratic .. I just don't believe in any of them and think most of their ideas have harmed and continue to harm this Nation, holding her and those ensnarled by the dem way of thinking back from their true potential. But that is what the dems want, a Nation of ppl who needs them for just about everything in their life..talk about job security.
(http://www.vfwpost1503.org/animated_us-flag.gif)
-
My veiw of democrats is this:
They think the govt. is the best entity to control/handle your finances.
They think the govt. is knows better on how to raise your kids than you do.
They think the govt. needs to make a new law regulating everything when anything happens.
They think poeple dont kill people guns kill people....they are bad...the people that use them are just victims
I could go on but I hate preaching to the coir
-
the idea of allways voting against the incumbant is not new. Another version is term limits.
People who vote democrat are either women or people who think they will get someone elses money for free. They don't quite realize that ultimately the government will control everything and we will be like the former soviet union where "we pretend to work and they pretend to pay us". Women have an excuse.. they are mothers and act like mothers in everything they do... they feel helpless and seek to be protected at any cost. There is no excuse for men who vote democrat. Even men with the lowest possible self esteem must realize that they may someday be worthwhile and that the government will actually be an impediment to them.
lazs