Reply With Quote
I concur. Like or not, there are many who vote or support who they like. Bush was simply liked more than Kerry.
Hmmm...hate to do it (because of the fact it's been so overused in this campaign) but you have to go back to JFK. Yes, you can make the case that JFK was much more experienced by the time of the '60 campaign than Obama. But what was the perception? JFK the relative novice, the idealistic left of center telegenic Senator against the tough as nails grizzled Vice President.
, Reagan could give a good speech and he was running against one of the most unpopular presidents of all time. Yes, I know, experience as governor of one of the largest states in the Union. 70 years old.
It's not a bad move to nominate someone who's likable. Had the '04 Demo candidate not been a total the outcome might have been much different.
I think the grand Demo mistake would be taking an intelligent, glib, telegenic candidate with Obama's poise and command and throwing him to the curb in favor of a stone cold selfish who a majority of the country hates. Look at what's happening in the primary currently. Once people figured out that there was a real choice and not a bad choice at that they are abandoning her in droves.
I think Obama has the stones to take on McCain, that's John McCain who spent 5 years in the Hanoi Hilton and however many years in this nation's military before decades in the Congress. A conservative Republican who's not been afraid to stand up to whoever pisses him off. Obama's ready to take him on. So it's not a bad move.
I concur. Like or not, there are many who vote or support who they like. Bush was simply liked more than Kerry.
Far be it for me to defend the GOP's growth of the scale and scope of the federal government over the last 7 years or so, but one big component of that on the domestic side was the Medicare drug prescription benefit. I'm not so sure that the Democratic party is opposed to that in principle (quibbles about the actual policy notwithstanding). The two major Democratic candidates currently want the government to take on the provision of health insurance for roughly 45 million Americans (in one candidate's case, irregardless of whether individuals actually want health insurance coverage, yet can afford to pay for it). How much is that going to cost? Not to mention that roughly half to two-thirds of the federal budget are the massive redistribution schemes which are part of the Holy Book of Democratic Party Politics.
Sure, the GOP sucks as of late when it comes to any notion of fiscal restraint. At least Reagan could rightfully point to the fact that he had to work with a Democratic-controlled Congress with its hands on the federal purse strings. Now that's not the case. We had a supposedly conservative Republican president ram through a supposedly conservative Republican-controlled Congress the largest expansion of an en lement program since Medicare itself was created.
But what's the fiscal solution? Total Democratic control of the federal government? The last time we had that they tried to nationalize our nation's health care industry.
Both parties are Tweedledee and Tweedledum when it comes to fiscal restraint. The only hope we have is gridlock, with conservative GOP congressman actually acting like conservative Republicans on fiscal matters in response to a Democratic president. I've seen no other combination that will balance the federal budget in my lifetime. Of course, that means a Democratic president who is willing to work with a GOP controlled Congress.
Couldnt have dreamed a better way to put it my self.
I don't know what the answer is, but it sure as ain't more Republicans. I wish we could wash the slime out of the Senate, at least, on both sides. What a bunch of spineless ghouls. As for immediate problems, Bush and crew have put us in such an untenable position that some kind of fiscal measure is necessary to pull things back together. Hopefully we can find the right concoction of tax raises -- and I'd suggest rolling back some targetted cuts on the upper brackets -- and cutting massive military spending, which is absolutely through the roof. Iraq is a millstone around our necks, and that's only speaking in terms of money. This is going to be tough for a while.
Of course you would.
Now, you could roll back ALL of the Bush tax cuts, and then the upper brackets would get a MUCH bigger increase in taxes than the lower brackets..right?
Bottom line, unless you do it to the upper brackets; raises or decreases, you aren't doing anything; because the UPPER BRACKETS PAY ALL THE TAXES!!!
Well, not all. To me there's an inherent unfairness about taxing people making minimum wage or in the general vicinity so that payments can be made to retirees who don't need the money. And those taxes are regressive.
I know, they paid into the system, they were told, blah blah blah. It's your government. Your government lies to you. They're taxes, not "contributions".
It's time we had some politicians who can find their nuts and stand up to the old people and their political pimps. Social Security is supposed to guarantee that retirees have some support in retirement. Well, what if that's already taken care of? Why should we continue to tax the working poor to pay benefits to the wealthy and retired?
Why can't someone call it what it is? Welfare. Plain and simple. Instead the solutions these courageous politicians come up with are ultimately centered around increasing the payroll tax rates and increasing the eligibility age. Why not address something more fundamental?
What a breath of fresh air. Wonder where you have
been the last eight years? Cut the defense budget, now
there is an original idea. We wouldn't want to cut
into the social programs, no sirree.
Mr. Body. Hang in there. You got Obama on your
side.
Cutting the defense budget is an absolute must, but probably won't happen. It's insane we spend billions on boondoggles like the Osprey and other bull like missle defense shields that never work, but seem to excel at lining the pockets of defense contractors and lobbyists. All those choads have to say is "tough on defense!" and the defense budget goes up. Then we rush into idiotic wars like Iraq.
Look, because of moronic policies and the morons who voted for Bush, we need to tighten the belts. Sure, cut social programs, trim around. But that's not the real problem here. The problem is irresponsible ideologies that try to destroy the balance government can give by making it spend to outrageous extremes. It's this Reaganite/Bu e policy that has weakened us. Government is a great tool, in moderation, but instead it's been used as a donor kitty for special interests, for corporate welfare, and pork. That's all stupid. We need the political will to stop it.
Here's an idea: leave Iraq, burn down K Street, and look into our crumbling infrastructure. Hey, maybe we'll save some money in the long run - ounce of prevention. Won't that appeal to the so-called 'fiscal conservatives' out there? Or do you think GE is going to spontaneously repair our electricity grids? How about we start funding R&D again instead of spending all our money on faith based initiatives that, again, are just boondoggles to get money into well-connected hands?
I think term limits would be a good place to start. Career politicians create more problems than they solve. Both parties are neither republican or democrat but more like separate groups of moderates who are to stubborn to realize they've become more like each other.
That is why both McCain and Obama are creating havoc.
The blame for the growing deficits and debt in the 80s falls as much on the Democrat leadership in Congress as on the Reagan administration.The problem is irresponsible ideologies that try to destroy the balance government can give by making it spend to outrageous extremes. It's this Reaganite/Bu e policy that has weakened us.
As for Bush, yeah, the GOP lost its way and went against the purported limited government ideology.
That didn't exactly start with Reagan and Bush. To the extent that the GOP has embraced Keynesian economic policies and planning it has severely deviated from accepted conservative economic ideology.Government is a great tool, in moderation, but instead it's been used as a donor kitty for special interests, for corporate welfare, and pork. That's all stupid. We need the political will to stop it.
You think?
Social Security (21%), Medicare, Medicaid and SCHIP (19%) and the remaining en lement programs (9%) make up nearly 50 ING PERCENT of the U.S. budget. Add interest on the debt (9%) - AND what YOU see as the real problem is contained in that other roughly 40% - which includes the ENTIRE defense budget (21%), all road and bridge spending (2%), NASA, you name it.
The problem with the growth of the Federal Budget is Social En lement Programs. THEY are growing at a rate faster than GNP - defense; has shrunk dramatically relative to GNP - and relative to the overall budget (over 45% in the '60's to just 21% today). En lement programs, on the other hand; keep growing. As the baby boomers retire - just look at Social ing Security, and do the math.
Now you have people that want to means test people who saved during there lives right out of Social Security. Sure, why the not!!! It's not like they paid 13% of their income into that pig forever with the meager promise they would get a pittance of that back when they didn't work anymore, after-all. NO - give it to the bas s who spent all their money and didn't save any. While your at it, take away the ing cap; if they're getting the strap on anyway, shove it in to the hilt!
Stupid government; stupid people who support its stupid, bloated, can't keep under control programs.
yeah, I want a big ass defense budget. If I get nothing else out of my tax dollars (my 401K guarantees no SS for me), I want to watch some kick ass video from a Apache pit blow the out of some rag heads.
There it is in all its glory.
Look at that slice from Social Security around to the interenst on the debt. THAT is the part growing the fastest. No matter what you do with the other stuff - the red and the gray - WE ARE COOKED if we can't get the en lements under control.
Oh, and that budget already was a quarter of a TRILLION dollars in the red. -
Bush and Congressional Republicans had a chance to reform SS, but between the Dems and the rest of the old people fearmongering industry plus the Bush administration's own desire to try to benefit some of his financial service industry donors what should have been a wise move to change the system now before the Baby Boomers started slamming the system instead resulted in naught.
Not to mention that the en lement part of the budget is pretty damn automatic. Domestic discretionary spending is a fraction of that budget. I'm not sure how Bush gets the blame for that. We can thank all of those great Democrat politicians and their Republican enablers who created that genius work back in the day.
THERE'S the breakdown of the remaining 21%. That 5% must be where all the earmarks, discretionary, etc. are piled on. Meh. They can caterwall about that all day long, but looking at the big picture, again, meh.
, even the biggest part of this is, ultimately, healthcare for the elderly, and en lement albeit earned. We spend more on "Education" than we do on R&D, huh? We've all heard of the powerfull Teacher's Unions, what's that one the scientists have? Oh yeah, they don't. Strange coincidence.
We're screwed.
Something's got to give.
an even more detailed acc't of budgets past & present can be found here..
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/index.php
So in 1960 defense spending was 10% of GDP, now 4.7%
That's obviously where growth is out of control.
Great site (now I'm going to spend the rest of the night finding more reasons to find an island to buy).
Find one, let me know. You can have your side, Ill take mine.
Fair?
Will it be a U.S. property so we can make sure you pay your fair share of property tax?
just for the of it, go back and look at defense spending as a % of GDP during the war and post-war years (41-56 or so).
I wonder too.
I would like to say president Reagan. Remember the televised speech where he is reading a script, then tosses the papers aside, and starts speaking without any? I would like to believe that was real, but being the actor he was, and memory for script. It might have been part of the show.
Still, president Reagan was real. the above aside, I think he at least did some of his own speeches.
I also heard the "Tear Down This Wall" part of that famous speech was a spur of the moment change on president Reagans part.
That was in a draft of the speech, but the State Department thought it was too aggressive/would ruffle some diplomatic feathers/whatever. Reagan said it anyway.
True, now that you say so, I do remember that. Looks like my memory needed a kick-start.
Still, it shows others did not own president Reagan.
a more likely scenario is that "conservatives" break from the GOP
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
