By the next big election, I’ll have US citizenship and voting rights, which leads me to ponder from time to time who I would end up voting for, given that there will only be two choices.
I would like to hear some supporting arguments from conservatives that another 8 years of Republican dominance is something I should take part in.
In other words, what are the highlights from 2001-2008? Did government get smaller? Citizens get freer? Taxes for (upper)middle-class get lower? Is the US safer? Were Americans better off during that time?
The problem is that I don’t know/remember much about the Clinton era other than failed health care reform, Kosovo, and a blowjob.
I find that now I’m left remembering two botched wars, increased government, massive run up in deficit spending, Katrina, warrentless wiretaps, all leading to a massive and obvious economic meltdown without any action other than that silly $600 stimulus.
So as an outsider looking in, was this the typical result from Republicans controlling the White House, and both levels of Congress? Was that the best they can do?
Bonus points if you can answer without blaming the Democrats.
One problem you have is that you’re comparing a party to the president. The first president Bush was, by my opinion, one of the best presidents of the 20th century. His son, on the other hand, one of the worst. And yet, both of them were members of the Republican party.
Between Bush II or Clinton, I’d say that you’d probably be happier under Clinton, but that has little to do with one being a Republican and the other a Democrat.
One party says that it’s alright to kill bad people and foreigners, but bad to kill fetuses or old people. The other party says that it’s alright to kill old people and fetuses, but not alright to kill bad people, and you can kill foreigners but only by bombing them.
One party says that we should give more money to the government to distribute for everyone’s prosperity. The other one says that we should give more money to the wealthy to distribute for everyone’s prosperity. Neither one particularly thinks that government spending should have anything to do with government income.
Both parties, ostensibly, support universal health care. However, one wants the central government to do it, while as the other wants the states to handle it. Both parties want to reduce spending, yet neither one knows why the spending is so high.
Ultimately, both parties are based on little-to-do-with anything like logic. You’re best to throw up your hands and accept that party identification is a lost cause and hope that eventually someone intelligent gets a nomination.
It is about money. We now have the top 1 percent with wealth equal to the bottom 90 percent combined. That is good because they are kind and generous people who take care of the little people like they take care of their pets. There are a lot of poor people. If a hurricane strikes, it is just gods way of culling out the chaff. Wait until it all clears out, then rebuild for the chosen people.
America is the strongest country and should exert its power making the world better for capitalism. That is what our mission should be. War is just a tool to achieving that end.
The bankers made a few minor miscalculations. They are highly qualified, well educated people whose judgment should never be questioned. They should have complete control because they are just the best. They can be trusted to make the banking mess just perfect for everyone.
Health care is a joke. God has determined that some people are just lesser beings. They would be rich if they were smart enough or took advantage of all the chances America gives. If they can’t lookout for themselves with all America offers, why should we.?
While stated humorously, so far as I’m aware the descriptors are accurate. My intent was to point out the lack of any sort of underlying logic in what the parties believe and how they are both essentially even so far as any sort of morality is concerned. I know it’s fashionable to say that one is evil and stupid and the other kind and wise, but it’s much easier to say that they’re really about even.
If you feel that my summaries are inaccurate, then go ahead and create your own.
:rolleyes: No, it doesn’t. In fact, neither party even favors cutting back on Social Security benefits. Dems are more likely than Pubs to sympathize with Dr. Kevorkian, but that’s not the same thing at all.
No, I’m actually not concerned at all about the president. The difference, in my mind, between Clinton and Bush 43 was how power was divided. So there was 8 years with a Dem president and Repub congress, followed by 8 years of complete Republican control. What was it like for Bush 41 and Reagan? Was there ever 8 years that the Democrats held both branches?
One would expect that with that much power the US should be several steps closer to a Republican Utopia. And I’m asking, “are we?”
I actually expected that at least one conservative could point to something the Republicans did over the past 8 years that they are proud of, a feather in their cap if you will. Something that would encourage voters to want to do it again. A way for me to gauge what sort of America I would want to live in. Would I be happier with 8 hears of Republican control, or 8 years of Democrat control.
As you, as a Republican, happier after the past 8 years?
Bush had the House for 6 years, and the Senate for only 4.
Clinton had the House and Senate for only his first 2 years.
I am a Republican who would not support any of the idiots currently trying to lead. In the future you might find the need, but there is not a strong party with a unified message at this time. The Fringes have too much influence, and the Party has not decided what it stands for.
If a Gingrich rises up with another Contract - then you can see if would prefer that. However, right now all the Republicans are doing is blocking without making any real recommendations. We are blind, and stumbling in the direction of whoever yells loudest from the edges.
And the accomplishment is made all the more noteworthy by the fact the Bush the Lesses wasn’t even President during the 20th century.
*Well, except for Bush 41 being one of the best, or even particularly good. All he had to do was be better than Reagan and Nixon, and that’s not a very high bar to clear.
And regardless of your statement, Bush I was great. He just came in, listened to what everyone had to say, reviewed all the data, and made sane and boring choices. His crime was that he simply did a good job, not an exciting one.
The best thing about him is that even where his personal ethics disagreed with reality, he’d bluster a bit, but he’d let reality win through. He was against abortion, but squashed a made-up report that abortion was harmful to the mother. The whole nation wanted him to execute Saddam, but it wasn’t feasible, so he desisted. He wanted to lower the deficit, but he couldn’t get a spending cut past so he acceded to raising taxes.
I don’t think you could really make an argument that he backed down easily. He simply was fine to deal in reality. I’d take that over any politician of any belief system in a heartbeat 9 times out of 10.
I understand that in the current political climate this sort of discussion can be difficult.
Right now, the Democrats have the Presidency, the House, and the Senate. With that, they just pushed through massive spending. They are currently trying to implement some sort of UHC, let’s say they succeed. And I believe they want to raise taxes for the rich. I think one could reasonably assume this is what it’s like when the Dems are in full control. In four years, some one could ask this exact question and we’d be able to point to those things as being part of the Dem’s platform, and what they do when they have power.
So can anyone look back on the past 4 or 8 years and say, “This is what it looks like when Republicans are in control. We cut ___, ended ___, increased ___, and as a result life in America is better now than it was before.”
As a lifelong conservative, I would have to say that this statement is not possible. Any Republican that will gain credibility would have to admit, IMHO, that the George W. Bush administration was a total disaster. There is no spin that can save it. He raised spending to levels that would have made Lyndon Johnson wet his pants. He passed tax cuts while doubling federal spending. He modified mortgage rules to create an “ownership society” where people didn’t need downpayments to have a stake in their neighborhoods. Homes were treated like section 8 housing, and we are still seeing the results. He said we had to go to war to rid Iraq of WMDs that it turned out they didn’t have. A SCOTUS spot opens and he wants to appoint his personal lawyer. After Katrina, New Orleans starves for days because his political hack appointee couldn’t get the job done. And Bush told him that he was doing a heckuva job.
I voted for Bush twice. The Republicans will continue to be an afterthought in politics until they repudiate entirely the work of the GOP from 2000-2008.
Do you know a way to fix the banking crisis that does not involve massive spending? Do you know a way to try and save the auto companies and thousands of jobs without spending money? Perhaps he should have just cut more taxes for the rich. There are idiots on this board that think that stimulates jobs. Why not just eliminate taxes to the rich. we would be buried in jobs.
I’m not sure what you’re advocating here, or what you’re accusing me of.
No, I do not know a way to fix the banking crisis without spending money. But I tend to follow Keynesian economics.
But that’s not the question that should be asked, the real question is, “why was there a banking crisis?” Was it the result of Republican/conservative policies?
In contrast with the Katrina fiasco, I don’t blame that on “Republicanism.” That was just a plain and simple, fucked up bit of cronyism. And is more indicative of politics in general.
What I’m seeking here is an “after action report” examining Republicanism. We just wrapped up 8 years of it, 4 of which they controlled both branches. So start by asking, “what was the Republican mantra 9 years ago? What did the promise? What do they stand for?”
Then consider life now. Did they practice any of their core principles? (ie smaller government) Did they enact any of their core policies (pro-life, lower taxes, more individual freedoms, less gun control)?
Then tell me, are you better off now than 9 years ago.
And just to clarify: imagine if what we actually had was a two party system where one stood for absolute socialism, and the other libertarianism. After 8 years of libertarianism, we’d be able to look back and say, “that part worked, that part didn’t, overall we’re better/worse off.”
Actually, I don’t think it’s a good idea for either party to have complete dominance of the government. Every time that happens, it turns out badly.
The best thing for the U.S. would be for Obama to be President, and for the Republicans to control the House and/or Senate. Then all these idiots would be forced to deal with each other again, and some honest legislation which considers the needs of everyone could be drafted.
This is the setup that marked the six best years of the Clinton Presidency. A smart, charismatic, well spoken president who is well liked around the world, backed by a tough House and Senate where the opposition has a majority, but not so large a majority that it can override presidential vetoes.
I’m beginning to think the best form of government for America is to have a Democrat for President and Republicans controlling the House and Senate.
