Republican train wreck resorts to fear

4. An energy policy. Hellooo. So you don't like Kyoto. Nice. Good for you. What's your answer? Drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge? That's your answer? Conservation? Nope. Nada. What about getting other forms of energy going? Number of nuclear power plants built since the past 7 years = none.

Yes and you can thank both the democrats and the green weenies for that directly! Between the 2 they have shot down "every" proposed nuke plant. And I "really" think you should re-evaluate your statement, "after" you read this:
Link

1. I'd be curious to see the effect to this cause. I hear this kind of empty rhetoric all the time, then I look around and wonder what the fuss is about. I'm at the low end of the economic ladder in the US, and I'm not seeing the reality of your dismal view.

If you are concerned that the government might not have enough money to spend, remember that most Republicans would be overjoyed if they decided to spend a lot less. The problem is closet socialists on the left and right of congress keep writing bouncing checks regardless of whether the money is there or not.

So, like most people who define their argument by what it opposes, you don't really address the problem, you address the symptom, and suggest we feed the problem. If your kid spends all your money frivolously, you don't get a second job. If your government spends all your money frivolously, you don't lobby to send them more unless you are an idiot.

2. Had a Gore won we would have never even considered invading Afghanistan. Kerry didn't even want to militarily address Hussein's invasion of Kuwait, rather he wanted to "contain" Hussein and his prize collectively. There wouldn't have been expanded intelligence, and unless there was a whitewater or blue dress to distract people from probably wouldn't have been any response at all.

3. Wow, politicians lie? REALLY!!??!? So Dem politicians operate under those rules? Really? Oddly enough from what I read of their hijinks I don't think there's any preponderance of honesty or intent to be forthright on the Left, thanks.

4. We need more oil, so... we want to drill for more oil. Surprise. If we had some sort of infrastructure in place to use lots of new sources of energy maybe we'd do something different. We don't though, so any energy policy has to be based upon the reality of our energy needs. Granted, some people think deserted wasteland that probably won't be adversely effected is somehow more important than the economy they WHINE constantly about...

5. Baited question. Anything I'd put forth as a success you'd call a failure. If I say the economy, you'll continue the myth that it is in bad shape. If I say Iraq you'll make it out to be a failure. If I say our diplomatic stance you'll cry that the people I WANT to distance ourselves from are now distant. Your opinion of the administration colors anything they do, so of course you see nothing of benefit. You're walking around with crap-colored glasses.

Boy, do I miss the trolling button in the forums...

Republicans would be overjoyed if they decided to spend a lot less. - bakerstreet

*ahem*

Rrrrr-ight.

Anyone here overjoyed with the prospect of spending less money? Even while in debt?
How about if it's somebody else's money? What if you were more likely to have your tenure extended by spending someone else's money via down-home pork barrel expenditures?

The problem is closet socialists on the left and right of congress keep writing bouncing checks regardless of whether the money is there or not. - bakerstreet

Probably, but they don't hold the majority in the House, the Senate, or have a guy in the White House. Guess who keeps pushing through spending bill after spending bill and guess who doesn't veto it? You know the answer, and it's not the closet socialists on the left and right - how much domestic spending have you seen rise lately?

"Probably, but they don't hold the majority in the House, the Senate, or have a guy in the White House. Guess who keeps pushing through spending bill after spending bill and guess who doesn't veto it? You know the answer."

Odd then that they can keep "pushing" through all this junk, frankly. If our friends who feel our money is better spent by the government weren't the majority in both parties, the spending bills that pass OVERWHELMINGLY on both sides of the house wouldn't get passed.

You aren't addressing Republicans, Deference, you're addressing Congress. You're spinning it deftly to be about neo-republicanism, but it isn't. It's the same old stealing the taxpayer dollar that's been going on since the beginning. The only problem is when they aren't stealing enough to pay their bills, you support them stealing even more.

If you want to talk about political philosophy, I'm all for it. You can't say that based upon their political philosophy Republicans want to spend our money. If you want to talk about lying politicians though, don't specify a party unless you are brainwashed or blind.

The blogger here says people should fear my political philosophy, when in reality it is just dishonest politics on both sides to blame. It is just the standard election year rhetoric that is sadly swallowed by people who don't remember that it was all the same in previous administrations and congressional majorities.

The only problem is when they aren't stealing enough to pay their bills, you support them stealing even more. - Bakerstreet

Well, I don't. A good man will pass onto his children surplus, not debt. Don't think I'm referencing Bush v. Clinton - Clinton most certainly did not have a 'surplus'; that administration simply paid the deficet down a bit - as you probably know.

I'm certainly not dovetailing anything ejihad has said or joining his chorus, I'm only addressing what you've had to say, Bakerstreet.

[edited previous post]



The only problem is when they aren't stealing enough to pay their bills, you support them stealing even more. - Bakerstreet


Well, I don't. A good man will pass onto his children surplus, not debt. Don't think I'm referencing Bush Admin. Economy v. Clinton - Clinton most certainly did not have a 'surplus'; that administration simply paid the deficet down a bit - as you probably know.I'm certainly not dovetailing anything Calor has said or joining his chorus, I'm only addressing what you've had to say, Bakerstreet.





Odd then that they can keep "pushing" through all this junk, frankly. - Bakerstreet



Not at all. This government relies upon audience participation, citizens have been apathetic enough to diminish their hand on the levers of governmental action(s) such as spending.



Our current foreign policy makes fiscal conservativism unattainable. The people to blame are all of those that have voted for military appropriations for the last seven years. To what degree they will be held accountable should and will contribute to their constitution; possibly suffering eligibility for re-election.



It is just the standard election year rhetoric that is sadly swallowed by people who don't remember that it was all the same in previous administrations and congressional majorities.



Then let's make this the best throw-away-vote election ever and vote against the status quo. All of 'em.

"Then let's make this the best throw-away-vote election ever and vote against the status quo. All of 'em."

With that I can agree. People who make our political brainfreeze about Republicanism or their polar opposites are either deluded, or actively perpetuating the delusion. The problem is ineffectual and self-serving government out of control.

One wonders, in that light, why people would have a problem with cutting taxes and removing all the fuel for that fire that we can. Oddly, the people with the biggest beef about our government seem to be the ones who constantly rally voters to elect people who will steal more fuel for the fire.

With that I can agree. People who make our political brainfreeze about Republicanism or their polar opposites are either deluded, or actively perpetuating the delusion. The problem is ineffectual and self-serving government out of control. - Bakerstreet

I haven't seen much 'Republicansim' goin' on lately. I'm anti-tax-and-spend, pro-life, pro-conservative social values, pro-defense, pro-limited-government, but I don't see any of that being offered excepting empty pandering.

Of course, you are correct about it not being a single party issue. I mostly blame 'Republicans' because they are the majority, but, you know, Democrats have voted with them most of the time.


One wonders, in that light, why people would have a problem with cutting taxes and removing all the fuel for that fire that we can. Oddly, the people with the biggest beef about our government seem to be the ones who constantly rally voters to elect people who will steal more fuel for the fire. - Bakerstreet

I'm guessing it is a part of that 'detachment' from voter to elected official. But, no, you're talking about 'starving the beast' (maybe) - killing government spenditures by removing funding in the most concrete fashion - cutting funding of it by limiting citizen donation. This is the wrong way to tame the beast - we must first petition our representatives and make them understand their space and title is always temporary to allow ourselves the leverage currently lacking.

A vigilant public can tame the beast. Starving the beast just drives us into more national debt, as is evident by the Reagan administration, devoid of all positive opinion concerning the effects of Voodoo Economics. I really believe we only see a dull response to public whim today, and yesterday, and any day previous to the early 1900's. I also think that argument grows stronger the closer one gets to the present date.

1... While the deficit boomed, Republicans provided the wealthiest 1% with a massive tax cut. Yes, it was technically across the board. But the richest who pay the most got a huge windfall even as the deficit grows. Who gives tax cuts in a time of war? The rich did well in the 90s with the "high" tax rates.

Having read reports recently that tax revenue was significantly up and that the 'rich' were actually paying more in taxes as a result of the lowered rates, I'm curious how that translates to a 'massive tax cut'.

Although the tax rate was cut, the taxes collected were not reduced. More taxes paid does not equal "massive tax cut".

wtf is up with posts like #11? It's odd that these cut-and-pasters seemed to suddenly show up about the same time the new forums appeared. Are more of the forums like 'politics', etc., showing up on other Stardock sites now, instead of just 'internet', etc.?

I don't know Baker, but some of these posters have been a thorn in my side for the last few weeks. Most of the cut'n'paste kiddies are anonymous posters.


Get Rid of Anonymous Posters
Link

When your income does not equal your spending only a FOOL cuts their income while increasing spending. That has been the policy of Bush and the GOP. They have increased spending more then the Democrats and then have cut taxes for those that did not need a tax cut and made the deficit larger.

Had Bush listened to Buffet and Gates when they told Bush not to cut taxes for the Rich because the country needed the tax revenue FAR more then the Rich needed a tax cut, we would NOT be passing as much debt to our children.

Tax the rich....tax successful people. Just admit what you really want col.

"When your income does not equal your spending only a FOOL cuts their income while increasing spending."

And an equally foolish person blames their lack of income when they waste a great deal of what they make. A smart person cuts their spending to match their income. Unfortunately 60 years of closet socialism on the part of Democrats has left us with a large percent of the population we have to support.

1. That tax cut is being credited with contributing significantly to the economic recovery. Also, regardless of how big the deficit is, it's still wrong to cover it by finding people with money and taking it from them. You yourself acknowledge that the rich paid most (they still do, by the way). How is that fair, war or no war?

2. Why does everything have to be about U.S. interests, and the U.S. scoring brownie points in the popularity contest of world affairs? Can't we sacrifice our blood and treasure on behalf of people oppressed by tyrants, without everybody turning it into a hatefest of anti-American sentiment? And I don't recall anybody being happier when American didn't use its great power in the service of the downtrodden. Besides, the entire point of hitting Saddam now was to nip his shenanigans in the bud, before he turned Iraq into another Iran, or North Korea. If only Carter, Reagan, GHW Bush, or Clinton had shut down Iran twenty years ago the way we shut down Iraq. If only the same had been done with North Korea. If only Chamberlain had done the same with Nazi Germany.

3. Politicians are corrupt and incompetent. This has always been so. It's not like Democrats are any less corrupt, or any less eager to fix the corruption. The behavior of Republican politicians is not always something to be proud of. But it's almost never something the Democrats should complain about, for obvious and damning pot/kettle reasons.

4. Kyoto is a bad idea. It destroys economies and creates suffering and has a negligible effect on global warming. Meanwhile, the U.S. leads the world in developing clean technologies for industry, and has shown more progress in reducing emissions than any of the Kyoto signatories. And 7 years is not nearly enough time to initiate new nuclear plant construction. If you have a problem with the rate of new nuke plant construction, talk to the environmentalists and the NIMBYs. You know: the ones who work tirelessly to obstruct such alternatives.

5. a. Tax cuts that have revitalized the economy. b. Removal of a hateful dictator. c. Prevention of additional terorr attacks on U.S. soil. d. Advancement of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Initiative, an international alliance of security forces, to track and control the movement of nuclear weapons and nuclear weapons technology. e. Development of a working missile defense system, a necessary long-term project that looks beyond the immediate threats to the potential threats of a world with constantly-advancing weapons technology. f. A bold and challenging new vision of manned space exploration, looking beyond Low Earth Orbit for the first time in a generation. g. When the tsunami hit, the U.S. Navy was first on the scene with helicopters, emergency supplies, and water purification plants. h. Brave attempt at much-needed Social Security reform, which was sadly aborted by the opposition faction. Which reminds me: what have the Democrats done in the past 7 years, either to give Bush's policies a real chance of succeeding to the benefit of us all, or else to offer in a spirit of peace and understanding, a real, compelling, and positive alternative policy? What, exactly, have the Democrats done besides complain and obstruct?

excellent article...i went and reread the contrat, going into some of the more detailed proposals. in their defense proposals, there is all kinds of talk about getting us further away, if not out of the UN. Not respecting any UN authority. All kinds of talk about building anti ballistic missles to fight a cold war that was over by many years by 1995. and not one mention of terrorists, terrorism, Osama Bin Laden (even tho he had already oversaw the 1st WTC bombing) or anything that looking back, was a "good plan" for America.

people forget these days that the contract really wasn't public till after all those guys got elected. they won the election on a democratic backlash, the n broke out the contract to the masses.

i think some network needs to rerun the old twilight zone episode,,,"the monsters of maple street" on national TV, primetime...hell of a lot of truth in that old show.

Keith Olbermann said it best....

And long ago, a series called "The Twilight Zone" broadcast a riveting episode entitled "The Monsters Are Due On Maple Street." In brief: a meteor sparks rumors of an invasion by extra-terrestrials disguised as humans. The electricity goes out. A neighbor pleads for calm. Suddenly his car -- and only his car -- starts. Someone suggests he must be the alien. Then another man's lights go on. As charges and suspicion and panic overtake the street, guns are inevitably produced. An "alien" is shot -- but he turns out to be just another neighbor, returning from going for help. The camera pulls back to a near-by hill, where two extra-terrestrials are seen manipulating a small device that can jam electricity. The veteran tells his novice that there's no need to actually attack, that you just turn off a few of the human machines and then, "they pick the most dangerous enemy they can find, and it's themselves."And then, in perhaps his finest piece of writing, Rod Serling sums it up with words of remarkable prescience, given where we find ourselves tonight: "The tools of conquest do not necessarily come with bombs and explosions and fallout. There are weapons that are simply thoughts, attitudes, prejudices, to be found only in the minds of men."For the record, prejudices can kill and suspicion can destroy, and a thoughtless, frightened search for a scapegoat has a fallout all its own -- for the children, and the children yet unborn."When those who dissent are told time and time again -- as we will be, if not tonight by the President, then tomorrow by his portable public chorus -- that he is preserving our freedom, but that if we use any of it, we are somehow un-American...When we are scolded, that if we merely question, we have "forgotten the lessons of 9/11"... look into this empty space behind me and the bi-partisanship upon which this administration also did not build, and tell me:Who has left this hole in the ground?We have not forgotten, Mr. President. You have.

The Comptroller General of the U.S. has documented that the Bush tax cuts have only produced NEW revenue equal to 1/2 the lost revenue from the tax cuts. Thus the tax cuts NET have ADDED to the deficit and we are borrowing money to give the wealthy, who do not need a tax cut, a tax cut. That is the surest way to create a financial problem!!!