Re: Let's impeach the president.
 

[quote=Beemnseven;320194]Beemnseven's definition of Neo-co:

"Neo" meaning 'new'; con, short for conservative. I believe it represents a recent shift in the philosophy of conservatism, specifically in the area of foreign policy. It used to be that conservatives were against foreign entanglements (Bob Taft was against the formation of NATO), intervening in foreign affairs (it was Wilson and the Democrats who were in favor of getting into WWI). Now, they seem content with interventionism of virtually any kind, and some go so far as to call it American Imperialism. In any case, they have dropped the isolationist banner that used to belong to them. There could be shifts in philosophy in some domestic issues as well, but it's my belief that the Republican Party and the country as a whole is slowly tilting towards Socialism.[/quote]

This is a lot better than many definitions I've heard. You could certainly teach certain television commentators a thing or two.

The term seems to have been coined by a British socialist named Micheal Harrington in the mid 1970s to describe what was then a newish phenomenon- the conversion of ex leftists (mainly Trotskyists) to Conservatism. He was thinking of people like Irving Kristol, Norman Podhoretz and too a lesser degree, Milton Friedman. I think they were the driving force behind Commentary Magazine, but I'm just riffing here and could be wrong. This was somewhat alarming to the left because these guys gave Conservatism a kind of urbane, intellectual heft that it had been lacking. The Jewish ethnicity of most of these folks seems to have contributed to the faulty notion that Israel is the primary motivating consideration in the formulation of their worldview. Not so. They were primarily anti-communist and anti-Soviet Union, although there support for Israel which is easily understood, did reveal a gap between them and the "paleo-conservatives" like Taft, William F. Buckley, and more recently, Pat Buchanan. This was the context in which I first heard the phrase in 1985.

But I think terms and concepts evolve and certainly in the absence of an overriding threat from the Soviet Union, which glossed over a lot of these distinctions, your definition is fair enough for the current debate. Interestingly, it seems that it was the incesant use of the term, by Chris Matthews, in connection with certain Jewish last names combined with the insinuation that Israel was calling the shots behind the scenes that got Scooter Libby fired up to the point that he called Tim Russert to bitch. I watch Hardball fairly regularly and I do recall that Chris was on something of a tangent in the summer of 2003 in this regard.

I don't know why I waste the energy when it's stated much better here:

[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-conservative]Neoconservatism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/url]

Re: Let's impeach the president.
 

[QUOTE=FRPLG;320198]Wow...I don't see that at all.[/QUOTE]

Here are just a few of my reasons for that statement...

-- Polls suggest that somewhere between 65-70% of the American people believe there should be a nationalized health care in some form.

-- Bush's call for the privatization of a portion of everyone's Social Security in an investment account went absolutely nowhere. Most Americans want the government to handle their retirement account. I find that unbelievable.

-- An apparent zeal from the American public to call for price controls or taxes on "windfall profits" from oil companies. When the People think it's just fine and dandy for someone to be called in front of Congress to answer for their profits, that's pretty scary -- and very socialistic.

Since the Republicans are in the business of getting elected, it's hard for them to hold true to their conservative-libertarian philosophies (assuming they ever truly existed in the GOP) when the people are leaning the way they are. So now, they are forced to follow suit.

Re: Let's impeach the president.
 

[QUOTE=firstdown;320197]The problem with your def is that you have conservative and the Rep as one in the same and they are not. Thats one of the reasons they lost so many seats last election is that the conservative base is ticked and wanted to make a statement. Consevatives feel that the Rep party has moved to far to the left and the party has abanded them. Also people get conservatives and the far right religous people mixed together as they may share some basic ideas main stream conservatives don't go that far to the right.[/QUOTE]

Certainly conservative does not equal Republican, particularly today. But I think it's fair to say that there were more conservatives in the Republican Party 50 - 100 years ago than there are today.

And I agree, the 'Religious Right' are not conservatives, at least in the traditional sense, even though they like to call themselves that. I prefer to call them big-government, nanny-state authoritarian thugs.

Re: Let's impeach the president.
 

[QUOTE=70Chip;320199]This is a lot better than many definitions I've heard. You could certainly teach certain television commentators a thing or two.

The term seems to have been coined by a British socialist named Micheal Harrington in the mid 1970s to describe what was then a newish phenomenon- the conversion of ex leftists (mainly Trotskyists) to Conservatism. He was thinking of people like Irving Kristol, Norman Podhoretz and too a lesser degree, Milton Friedman. I think they were the driving force behind Commentary Magazine, but I'm just riffing here and could be wrong. This was somewhat alarming to the left because these guys gave Conservatism a kind of urbane, intellectual heft that it had been lacking. The Jewish ethnicity of most of these folks seems to have contributed to the faulty notion that Israel is the primary motivating consideration in the formulation of their worldview. Not so. They were primarily anti-communist and anti-Soviet Union, although there support for Israel which is easily understood, did reveal a gap between them and the "paleo-conservatives" like Taft, William F. Buckley, and more recently, Pat Buchanan. This was the context in which I first heard the phrase in 1985.

But I think terms and concepts evolve and certainly in the absence of an overriding threat from the Soviet Union, which glossed over a lot of these distinctions, your definition is fair enough for the current debate. Interestingly, it seems that it was the incesant use of the term, by Chris Matthews, in connection with certain Jewish last names combined with the insinuation that Israel was calling the shots behind the scenes that got Scooter Libby fired up to the point that he called Tim Russert to bitch. I watch Hardball fairly regularly and I do recall that Chris was on something of a tangent in the summer of 2003 in this regard.

I don't know why I waste the energy when it's stated much better here:

[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-conservative]Neoconservatism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/url][/QUOTE]

Yeah, that's definitely more intricate than my definition. The only point I would argue is the assertion that Milton Friedman was an "ex-leftist". Admittedly, I haven't done a whole lot of research on him. If I'm wrong on that though, I have certainly learned something new.

How do you describe yourself politically, 70Chip?

Re: Let's impeach the president.
 

[quote=Beemnseven;320203] But I think it's fair to say that there were more conservatives in the Republican Party 50 - 100 years ago than there are today.
[/quote]


I'm going ot have to go ahead and disagree with you a little here. I suppose it depends on how you define "Conservative", but if you apply the generally accepted usage, conservatives were not considered mainstream in the GOP until at least the Carter Admin.

Lincoln, not a conservative. Ditto T.R. and Milhouse. Ike worked very hard behind the scenes to destroy Joe McCarthy. I would say conservative ascendency began with the founding of National Review in the 50's and did not crest until 1980. But, again, it depends on your defenition.

Re: Let's impeach the president.
 

[quote=Beemnseven;320204]Yeah, that's definitely more intricate than my definition. The only point I would argue is the assertion that Milton Friedman was an "ex-leftist". Admittedly, I haven't done a whole lot of research on him. If I'm wrong on that though, I have certainly learned something new.

How do you describe yourself politically, 70Chip?[/quote]


Friedman is not , you're right. Again I was riffing. Friedman is a disciple of Hayek who I thought the neo-cons revered but according to Wiki, they do not.

I became a conservative in reaction to disco music. I'm thoroughly anti-disco. Seriously, politics is for me a lot like the NFL. I like to root for my team but I've come to realization that it doesn't really affect my life that much, or at least it shouldn't. I think most people understand this instinctively and show it by not paying attention. People always bemoan the apathy of the American people, but I prefer it to the activism that often finds expression in other countries. I think it's actually sophistication in disguise.

Re: Let's impeach the president.
 

[quote=Beemnseven;320202]Polls suggest that somewhere between 65-70% of the American people believe there should be a nationalized health care in some form.[/quote]

Yes, and for a good reason too. Health care in this country is very expensive and for what? It's certainly not because we have the best health care, especially when [URL="http://www.commonwealthfund.org/usr_doc/Davis_mirrormirrorinternationalpdate_1027.pdf?section=4039"]compared[/URL] with developed nations that do have national health care. Yes, we have the best doctors in the world but not everyone can afford them. Certainly not your average Joe. Anyone who has health problem in this nation will most certainly go into a [URL="http://www.nchc.org/facts/cost.shtml"]financial hole[/URL]. Someone declaring [URL="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A9447-2005Feb8.html"]bankruptcy[/URL] because they can't cover their health care costs doesn't sound right to me.


[quote=Beemnseven;320202] -- Bush's call for the privatization of a portion of everyone's Social Security in an investment account went absolutely nowhere. Most Americans want the government to handle their retirement account. I find that unbelievable.[/quote]

Social Security is a safety net not an investment program. There is a reason why as you get older you move your money to safer investments. This money is primarily intended for the old and disabled. It is intended for those who have the least and those can not generate (livable) income. If you want to privatize social security, why not get rid of it all together? I mean, you might as well have people manage their own funds. Of course there are issues like what happens to your employer's SS match? I'm sorry but privatization is not the answer. The gap between the haves and havenots will only grow.

[quote=Beemnseven;320202] -- An apparent zeal from the American public to call for price controls or taxes on "windfall profits" from oil companies. When the People think it's just fine and dandy for someone to be called in front of Congress to answer for their profits, that's pretty scary -- and very socialistic.

Since the Republicans are in the business of getting elected, it's hard for them to hold true to their conservative-libertarian philosophies (assuming they ever truly existed in the GOP) when the people are leaning the way they are. So now, they are forced to follow suit.[/quote]

What's wrong with price control, or rather examining excessive profits? The United States successfully utilize price and wage [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incomes_policy"]control during war time[/URL]. Left to their own devices corporations will seek to maximize profits at the expense of consumers and the competition. For that reason there are valid economic motivation for outlawing cartels and monopolies. It's simply isn't good for the economy in the long run. Looking at the profits generated by the oil companies, it pretty clear they are taking advantage of the public.

Finlay, the role of the government is to administrate the nation's affairs, this includes looking out for the people first and foremost.

Re: Let's impeach the president.
 

[QUOTE=70Chip;320208] Seriously, politics is for me a lot like the NFL. I like to root for my team but I've come to realization that it doesn't really affect my life that much, or at least it shouldn't. I think most people understand this instinctively and show it by not paying attention. [/QUOTE]

??????
We are at war. However you feel about that, the idea that politics doesn't affect our lives directly seems to me to be pretty nuts.

[QUOTE=70Chip;320208]People always bemoan the apathy of the American people, but I prefer it to the activism that often finds expression in other countries. I think it's actually sophistication in disguise. [/QUOTE]

This has got to be sarcasm right?

Re: Let's impeach the president.
 

[QUOTE=saden1;320210]Yes, and for a good reason too. Health care in this country is very expensive and for what? It's certainly not because we have the best health care, especially when [URL="http://www.commonwealthfund.org/usr_doc/Davis_mirrormirrorinternationalpdate_1027.pdf?section=4039"]compared[/URL] with developed nations that do have national health care. Yes, we have the best doctors in the world but not everyone can afford them. Certainly not your average Joe. Anyone who has health problem in this nation will most certainly go into a [URL="http://www.nchc.org/facts/cost.shtml"]financial hole[/URL]. Someone declaring [URL="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A9447-2005Feb8.html"]bankruptcy[/URL] because they can't cover their health care costs doesn't sound right to me.




Social Security is a safety net not an investment program. There is a reason why as you get older you move your money to safer investments. This money is primarily intended for the old and disabled. It is intended for those who have the least and those can not generate (livable) income. If you want to privatize social security, why not get rid of it all together? I mean, you might as well have people manage their own funds. Of course there are issues like what happens to your employer's SS match? I'm sorry but privatization is not the answer. The gap between the haves and havenots will only grow.



What's wrong with price control, or rather examining excessive profits? The United States successfully utilize price and wage [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incomes_policy"]control during war time[/URL]. Left to their own devices corporations will seek to maximize profits at the expense of consumers and the competition. For that reason there are valid economic motivation for outlawing cartels and monopolies. It's simply isn't good for the economy in the long run. Looking at the profits generated by the oil companies, it pretty clear they are taking advantage of the public.

Finlay, the role of the government is to administrate the nation's affairs, this includes looking out for the people first and foremost.[/QUOTE]

See this is outstanding. I totally disgaree with you on about everything you said in response to Beem but I think it is great discussion now because it really highlights the difference between liberalism and conservatism. Liberalism by it's nature wants society to rely upon each other. It espouses a sort of "it takes a village" mentality. True conservatives want none of that. They want every person to stand on their own and rely only upon themselves. I might add that the "it takes a village mentality" is a sort of socialism and history has shown that socialism does not work. Socialsim may work on paper but when applied empirically it has always led to poverty, apathy an eventually totalitarianism.

Re: Let's impeach the president.
 

Again..everyone here has a legitimate take on politics. It still doesn't take away from the fact that Bush sucks donkey. One of the principal dangers of vesting power in a leader who is convinced of his own righteousness -- who believes that, by virtue of his ascension to political power, he has been called to a crusade against Evil -- is that the moral imperative driving the mission will justify any and all means used to achieve it. Those who have become convinced that they are waging an epic and all-consuming existential war against Evil cannot, by the very premises of their belief system, accept any limitations -- moral, pragmatic, or otherwise -- on the methods adopted to triumph in this battle. These principles illuminate a central, and tragic, paradox at the heart of the Bush presidency. The president who vowed to lead America in a moral crusade to win hearts and minds around the world has so inflamed anti-American sentiment that America's moral standing in the world is at an all-time low. The president who vowed to defend the Good in the world from the forces of Evil has caused the United States to be held in deep contempt by large segments of virtually every country on every continent of the world, including large portions of nations with which the U.S. has historically been allied.

Re: Let's impeach the president.
 

[QUOTE=dblanch66;320241]Again..everyone here has a legitimate take on politics. It still doesn't take away from the fact that Bush sucks donkey. One of the principal dangers of vesting power in a leader who is convinced of his own righteousness -- who believes that, by virtue of his ascension to political power, he has been called to a crusade against Evil -- is that the moral imperative driving the mission will justify any and all means used to achieve it. Those who have become convinced that they are waging an epic and all-consuming existential war against Evil cannot, by the very premises of their belief system, accept any limitations -- moral, pragmatic, or otherwise -- on the methods adopted to triumph in this battle. These principles illuminate a central, and tragic, paradox at the heart of the Bush presidency. The president who vowed to lead America in a moral crusade to win hearts and minds around the world has so inflamed anti-American sentiment that America's moral standing in the world is at an all-time low. The president who vowed to defend the Good in the world from the forces of Evil has caused the United States to be held in deep contempt by large segments of virtually every country on every continent of the world, including large portions of nations with which the U.S. has historically been allied.[/QUOTE]

nice post. bush's ineptitude goes beyond party lines (and international waters).

Re: Let's impeach the president.
 

[quote=FRPLG;320227]See this is outstanding. I totally disgaree with you on about everything you said in response to Beem but I think it is great discussion now because it really highlights the difference between liberalism and conservatism. Liberalism by it's nature wants society to rely upon each other. It espouses a sort of "it takes a village" mentality. True conservatives want none of that. They want every person to stand on their own and rely only upon themselves. I might add that the "it takes a village mentality" is a sort of socialism and history has shown that socialism does not work. Socialsim may work on paper but when applied empirically it has always led to poverty, apathy an eventually totalitarianism.[/quote]

Is providing "free" [URL="http://etext.virginia.edu/jefferson/quotations/jeff1370.htm"]public schooling[/URL] socialism?

Re: Let's impeach the president.
 

[QUOTE=FRPLG;320227]See this is outstanding. I totally disgaree with you on about everything you said in response to Beem but I think it is great discussion now because it really highlights the difference between liberalism and conservatism. Liberalism by it's nature wants society to rely upon each other. It espouses a sort of "it takes a village" mentality. True conservatives want none of that. They want every person to stand on their own and rely only upon themselves. I might add that the "it takes a village mentality" is a sort of socialism and history has shown that socialism does not work. Socialsim may work on paper but when applied empirically it has always led to poverty, apathy an eventually totalitarianism.[/QUOTE]

Well, I would argue there has never been a truly succesful libertarian state in history. The world's most succesful societies have managed to balance market based capitalism within a government sponsored socialistic framework - this country is no exception. I know people from Sweden and they are not poor, not apathetical, and not subject to totalitarianism.

I would say that pretty much all of northern Europe belies your final point as well.

Re: Let's impeach the president.
 

[QUOTE=dmek25;320043]i hope this is sarcasm. bush will go down as one of the worst presidents the free world has ever had[/QUOTE]

Actually it's not, I'm just being the anti bush hater. You guys claim he is so bad because you focus 100% on the negative. He's not a bad president...you're just too busy being a typical democrat...if you look for nothing but negative, guess what you'll find?

Re: Let's impeach the president.
 

[QUOTE=jsarno;320284]Actually it's not, I'm just being the anti bush hater. You guys claim he is so bad because you focus 100% on the negative. He's not a bad president...you're just too busy being a typical democrat...if you look for nothing but negative, guess what you'll find?[/QUOTE]

Jsarno, this would be a good time to substantiate your argument.

Re: Let's impeach the president.
 

[QUOTE=djnemo65;320291]Jsarno, this would be a good time to substantiate your argument.[/QUOTE]

Umm what? I said I was just being the anti bush hater, the anti negative person when it comes to Bush...how do I substantiate that?
Too many people bash him as the worst ever, to substantiate this, feel free to go back and read posts on this thread.

Re: Let's impeach the president.
 

[QUOTE=jsarno;320293]Umm what? I said I was just being the anti bush hater, the anti negative person when it comes to Bush...how do I substantiate that?
Too many people bash him as the worst ever, to substantiate this, feel free to go back and read posts on this thread.[/QUOTE]

Sorry, my post wasn't clear. What I meant was use what you believe to be Bush's accomplishments to construct an argument explaining why liberals are wrong in suggesting he is a historically bad president. Obviously you think that's the case, I am just curious specifically why.

Re: Let's impeach the president.
 

[QUOTE=jsarno;320284]Actually it's not, I'm just being the anti bush hater. You guys claim he is so bad because you focus 100% on the negative. He's not a bad president...you're just too busy being a typical democrat...if you look for nothing but negative, guess what you'll find?[/QUOTE]

Name 3 things he has accomplished that are positive.

Re: Let's impeach the president.
 

[QUOTE=dblanch66;320316]Name 3 things he has accomplished that are positive.[/QUOTE]

That's very subjective isn't it, and (like most presidents) his accomplishments can't truly be measured until quite a while after he leaves office.

Re: Let's impeach the president.
 

[QUOTE=SmootSmack;320317]That's very subjective isn't it, and (like most presidents) his accomplishments can't truly be measured until quite a while after he leaves office.[/QUOTE]

Come on Smootsmack, it's not unfair to ask someone to point to policy successes when arguing that a president will be judged favoribly by history. By your logic we can't even talk about the efficacy of a current president because we lack appropriate historical perspective. I think that's bogus, and I think the fact that so many people struggle to point to concrete things that this president has accomplished is a problem.

Some liberals aren't very smart or articulate, but when they are smart and articulate they do an excellent job breaking down in detail how the Bush agenda has failed. Jsarno argued twice in this thread that Bush will go down well in history, and I don't think it's unfair to ask why.

Re: Let's impeach the president.
 

[QUOTE=djnemo65;320318]Come on Smootsmack, it's not unfair to ask someone to point to policy successes when arguing that a president will be judged favoribly by history. By your logic we can't even talk about the efficacy of a current president because we lack appropriate historical perspective. I think that's bogus, and I think the fact that so many people struggle to point to concrete things that this president has accomplished is a problem.

Some liberals aren't very smart or articulate, but when they are smart and articulate they do an excellent job breaking down in detail how the Bush agenda has failed. Jsarno argued twice in this thread that Bush will go down well in history, and I don't think it's unfair to ask why.[/QUOTE]

Look, I don't doubt that W will be judged as one of the worst presidents ever. He's a modern day James Buchanan. Difference of course is that Buchanan did nothing to stop the impending Civil War because he said (rightfully) that the Constituation didn't allow him to really step in. Whereas Bush has essentially said "Damn the Constitution, I have to get shit done"

I'm just saying in overall terms when talking about Presidents in terms of where they rank all-time, it's often difficult to measure their accomplishments until long after. This is mainly because most Presidents aren't in office long enough to see their policies go through. Take Harry Truman, for example. He set the ball rolling on civil rights legislation but nothing truly happened until LBJ. So that's a notch on LBJ's belt, not Truman's. Only now are we starting to see Truman's impact on that issue, and his historical value has gone up.

Re: Let's impeach the president.
 

[QUOTE=SmootSmack;320322]Look, I don't doubt that W will be judged as one of the worst presidents ever. He's a modern day James Buchanan. Difference of course is that Buchanan did nothing to stop the impending Civil War because he said (rightfully) that the Constituation didn't allow him to really step in. Whereas Bush has essentially said "Damn the Constitution, I have to get shit done"

I'm just saying in overall terms when talking about Presidents in terms of where they rank all-time, it's often difficult to measure their accomplishments until long after. This is mainly because most Presidents aren't in office long enough to see their policies go through. Take Harry Truman, for example. He set the ball rolling on civil rights legislation but nothing truly happened until LBJ. So that's a notch on LBJ's belt, not Truman's. Only now are we starting to see Truman's impact on that issue, and his historical value has gone up.[/QUOTE]

Not entirely true. Kennedy had a hand in pushing for social and civil rights. LBJ was his VP and picked up where Kennedy left off after his assasination. In all fairness, Truman never got the chance to finish what he started. Eisenhower pretty much dropped the ball on it and then Kennedy picked it up. This is a very rudimentary explanation, I know. LBJ would have probably been an excellent president had it not been for the whole Vietnam thing. A little wrinkle. He was an expert on domestic issues and got bogged down with foreign affairs, of which he had absolutely no experience hence leading to the ouster of the one man in his cabinet that did: McNamara.
Nixon was very flawed but even DURING his tenure, there were positives that could be isolated. Where are they with GW?

Re: Let's impeach the president.
 

[QUOTE=SmootSmack;320317]That's very subjective isn't it, and (like most presidents) his accomplishments can't truly be measured until quite a while after he leaves office.[/QUOTE]

Didn't answer my question. Who are you? Alberto Gonzalez? jk ;)

Re: Let's impeach the president.
 

[QUOTE=SmootSmack;320322]Look, I don't doubt that W will be judged as one of the worst presidents ever. He's a modern day James Buchanan. Difference of course is that Buchanan did nothing to stop the impending Civil War because he said (rightfully) that the Constituation didn't allow him to really step in. Whereas Bush has essentially said "Damn the Constitution, I have to get shit done"

I'm just saying in overall terms when talking about Presidents in terms of where they rank all-time, it's often difficult to measure their accomplishments until long after. This is mainly because most Presidents aren't in office long enough to see their policies go through. Take Harry Truman, for example. He set the ball rolling on civil rights legislation but nothing truly happened until LBJ. So that's a notch on LBJ's belt, not Truman's. Only now are we starting to see Truman's impact on that issue, and his historical value has gone up.[/QUOTE]

Fair take. I just don't think it's too much to ask a Bush supporter to discuss what it is about his legacy that will be positively remembered.

Re: Let's impeach the president.
 

Of course, when talking in historical terms history has a way of coloring itself. If we were living during Lincoln's time we'd probably say "How dare our President suspend habeas corpus" Yet today he's one of the greatest president of all time, during FDR "How dare he put Japanese Americans in internment camps" Yet today, he's one of the greatest ever, "How dare Truman bomb millions of civilians" Yet today he's one of the greatest ever.

Re: Let's impeach the president.
 

[QUOTE=saden1;320210]Yes, and for a good reason too. Health care in this country is very expensive and for what? It's certainly not because we have the best health care, especially when [URL="http://www.commonwealthfund.org/usr_doc/Davis_mirrormirrorinternationalpdate_1027.pdf?section=4039"]compared[/URL] with developed nations that do have national health care. Yes, we have the best doctors in the world but not everyone can afford them. Certainly not your average Joe. Anyone who has health problem in this nation will most certainly go into a [URL="http://www.nchc.org/facts/cost.shtml"]financial hole[/URL]. Someone declaring [URL="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A9447-2005Feb8.html"]bankruptcy[/URL] because they can't cover their health care costs doesn't sound right to me.




Social Security is a safety net not an investment program. There is a reason why as you get older you move your money to safer investments. This money is primarily intended for the old and disabled. It is intended for those who have the least and those can not generate (livable) income. If you want to privatize social security, why not get rid of it all together? I mean, you might as well have people manage their own funds. Of course there are issues like what happens to your employer's SS match? I'm sorry but privatization is not the answer. The gap between the haves and havenots will only grow.



What's wrong with price control, or rather examining excessive profits? The United States successfully utilize price and wage [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incomes_policy"]control during war time[/URL]. Left to their own devices corporations will seek to maximize profits at the expense of consumers and the competition. For that reason there are valid economic motivation for outlawing cartels and monopolies. It's simply isn't good for the economy in the long run. Looking at the profits generated by the oil companies, it pretty clear they are taking advantage of the public.

Finlay, the role of the government is to administrate the nation's affairs, this includes looking out for the people first and foremost.[/QUOTE]

[B]On health care[/B], there is no doubt the system we have in the United States isn't perfect. But if your only solution is for the government to assume control of it, it will get far worse, not better. Don't believe me? Ask just about any veteran about VA hospitals. Didn't we learn anything about the fiasco at Walter Reed? That's just the latest example of what can happen with government-run health care.

Go to your local post office and ask yourself if that's the environment you'd like to find yourself in when it's time to visit the doctor. With nationalized health care, you should expect all the compassion of the IRS, and the efficiency of FEMA.

[B]Social Security [/B]-- all it has ever done is create dependency. Over the long haul, private investments through the stock market have consistently out-performed the return on social security. And the government gets to decide at what age your entitled to it, the rate at which they can send it to you, and thanks to Clinton/Gore, they can tax you AGAIN on the payments you receive. Then when you die, all the money you've paid into it for your whole life goes to the government, not your family. Sure, it's a safety net. But a really bad one. If the people had that money to save and invest as they saw fit, they'd be in an infinitely better situation.

[B]Price controls/windfall profits tax[/B] -- what do you think will happen with the price of gas when the government takes more of the profits from oil companies and their shareholders? The price will go up. There is no better economic system than when a business owner or corporation is motivated by seeking maximum profits on the products or services they provide. When that happens the consumers get better quality. As an aside, do you believe the quality of a product is better when it's free? Or when the person behind that product is motivated by getting as much money as they can for creating the best product they can?

Price controls do nothing but create scarcity of goods and services. When the government steps in to dictate how much anyone can make on a product, the incentive for the creation of that product declines.

Free markets work, Saden. Government control does not.

Re: Let's impeach the president.
 

I do wonder if in 20 or 30 years our current approach to combating terrorism will be viewed as misguided, as it is widley viewed now, or prophetic. Smott mentioned that a lot of things we look at historically were very unpopular in their day.

Re: Let's impeach the president.
 

I heard an interesting survey today. To paraphrase:
About 30% of Americans support GW's current war effort in Iraq.
About 65% of Americans support GW's current effort to combat terrorism against the US.

No connection between the two? Interesting...........

Re: Let's impeach the president.
 

[quote=dblanch66;320316]Name 3 things he has accomplished that are positive.[/quote]
Tax cuts
The enconomy
War on terror
no child left behind
Unemployment is very low
This after everything tanked after 9/11

Re: Let's impeach the president.
 

[QUOTE=firstdown;320384]Tax cuts
The [B]enconomy [/B]
War on terror
no child left behind
Unemployment is very low
This after everything tanked after 9/11[/QUOTE]

I guess the question is "Is our children learning how to spell?"

:)

Re: Let's impeach the president.
 

[QUOTE=firstdown;320384]Tax cuts
The enconomy
War on terror
no child left behind
Unemployment is very low
This after everything tanked after 9/11[/QUOTE]

There are aspects of NCLB that are an abomination.

Re: Let's impeach the president.
 

[quote=SmootSmack;320390]I guess the question is "Is our children learning how to spell?"

:)[/quote]
I hop they can spel beter than me. I always find it somewhat amusing and kind of sad that all of the wonners of the spelling B are either home schooled or from private schools.

Re: Let's impeach the president.
 

mee two

Re: Let's impeach the president.
 

[quote=FRPLG;320394]There are aspects of NCLB that are an abomination.[/quote]
I'll agree with you on that. I feel the federal gov. should get totally out of the education system and give the money back to the states to decide what is best for the children.

Re: Let's impeach the president.
 

[quote=djnemo65;320222]??????

This has got to be sarcasm right?[/quote]

Not at all. I was thinking of the political apathy of some Americans contrasted with, for example, the Palestinians who run out into the street and demonstrate at the drop of a hat. Look what political activism has gotten them. It's forever 1968 for them and they're miserable. A society that keeps the importance of government in perspective, that understands that politics is a means and not an end, is a happy society. It's all just fun and games.

Re: Let's impeach the president.
 

[QUOTE=dblanch66;320316]Name 3 things he has accomplished that are positive.[/QUOTE]

It looks like someone beat me to them.
I for one am happy that our economy is in better shape than it has been in MANY YEARS...oddly enough we have the highest deficit, but it doesn't seem to matter.
My ONLY real beef with Bush is that he doesn't seem to care about alternative fuels and have a high enough emphasis on the environment.
Other than those two things, he has been good for us, and I am sick and tired of people complaining about the war...has our country been attacked? NO! Why? Cause of what Bush has done.

Re: Let's impeach the president.
 

[QUOTE=jsarno;320574]It looks like someone beat me to them.
I for one am happy that our economy is in better shape than it has been in MANY YEARS...oddly enough we have the highest deficit, but it doesn't seem to matter.
My ONLY real beef with Bush is that he doesn't seem to care about alternative fuels and have a high enough emphasis on the environment.
Other than those two things, he has been good for us, and I am sick and tired of people complaining about the war...has our country been attacked? NO! Why? Cause of what Bush has done.[/QUOTE]

I can't even respond to this. You win.

Re: Let's impeach the president.
 

[QUOTE=firstdown;320384]Tax cuts
The enconomy
War on terror
no child left behind
Unemployment is very low
This after everything tanked after 9/11[/QUOTE]

This all sounds good but with no factual basis to back any of it up.
Economy: what about it?
war on terror: what does that mean? and where oh where IS Osama???
no child left behind: take a good look at the public school system. you obviously have no children.
unemployment: ask middle to lower middle class folk about jobs.
I can get a great deal more detailed here, but you guys are exhausting. No matter what, you'll call a pig a sheep.
I'm done. Go Skins.

Re: Let's impeach the president.
 

[quote=jsarno;320574]It looks like someone beat me to them.
I for one am happy that our economy is in better shape than it has been in MANY YEARS...oddly enough we have the highest deficit, but it doesn't seem to matter.
My ONLY real beef with Bush is that he doesn't seem to care about alternative fuels and have a high enough emphasis on the environment.
Other than those two things, he has been good for us, and I am sick and tired of people complaining about the war...has our country been attacked? [B]NO! Why? Cause of what Bush has done[/B].[/quote]
there will be another attack here. its only a matter of time. and then what will you say? and job after job gets shipped over seas, either to china or Mexico. the working class stiff like me, finds it harder and harder to make ends meet. Kanye West only had it half right. its not that Bush is prejudice against the blacks, he is prejudice against everyone that isn't rich

Re: Let's impeach the president.
 

[QUOTE=dmek25;320589]there will be another attack here. its only a matter of time. and then what will you say? and job after job gets shipped over seas, either to china or Mexico. the working class stiff like me, finds it harder and harder to make ends meet. Kanye West only had it half right. its not that Bush is prejudice against the blacks, he is prejudice against everyone that isn't rich[/QUOTE]

I'm no fan of Bush either, but some of the things you've mentioned here have nothing to do with him. For instance...

Jobs going overseas -- most of those are jobs that can be done by less skilled workers for less money. Call center jobs, jobs in the textile industry. If you owned a business producing something that costs you $10 an hour in the United States, but only $4 an hour in Indonesia, where would YOU choose to make your product?

When the internal combustion engine really started taking off, and automobiles became the standard in this country, what happened to the horse and buggy industry? And was that Pres. William McKinley's fault?

Without delving too much into your personal life, how exactly are having trouble making ends meet? And what kind of position are you in that only the President of the United States can bail you out?