The Republican Party is the conservative party, whether you like it or not. And Bush’s idea were conservative ideas, whether you like it or not. And Bush was a disaster in no small part because conservatism is a collection of stupid and evil ideas, whether you like it or not.
And since when has disapproval of a political party been bigotry ? Are all the people who have denounced such organizations as the Nazi Party or the Communist Party bigots ?
If we polled the Republicans in Congress and asked them if they are conservative or liberal what answer do you think they’ll most likely give?
If you are going to call me a “bigot” then at least have the courtesy of defining a “conservative” by your definition and why Republican congresscritters are not matched to that (add in Bush and Cheney as well).
Else you calling me a bigot is meaningless if you just hold some private definition of “conservative”.
It’s meaningless anyway, since deriding someone or some group for their political position isn’t bigotry.
What magazines were the ones who depicted Obama with a halo of light? The incredibly conservative Time and Newsweek magazines. Who was it who said “contrary to popular belief, I was not born in a manger.” What presidential nominee received an unprecedented amount of biased coverage during the election? Which president has received an unprecedented amount of postive coverage in the first 100 days of his office, despite not being able to nominate someone who is not a tax cheat, having broken dozens of campaign promises, and having repeatedly flipflop on issues?
Why not blame Clinton instead of Bush? Bush wasn’t the one who deruglated everything. Bush wasn’t the one who created the housing bubble with the poison pill sub prime mortages. Bush wasn’t the one who did absolutely nothing after the WTC bombing to increase our intel on terrorism, nor was he the one who could have taken Osama out but chose not to. Clinton did all that.
Calling every member of a group “stupid” and “evil” is bigotry in my book. Yes, Der Trihs, I’m talking to you.
And to me, a Conservative believes in limited government, which GWB and most of the Republicans in Congress clearly do not.
I think you would be happier substituting “Libertarian” in place of “Republican” in your definition of a party that wants smaller government. Much closer fit.
What magazine depicted Michelle and Barak as a terrorist and a Muslim? That liberal screed the New Yorker.
Read “contrary to popular belief” again. He was panning the right for saying this about him. Unless you care to cite places where his supporters were deifying him…literally.
Cite.
Cite.
They have ALL been tax cheats? Really?
Cite and show it is unusually more than Bush or Clinton or Bush or Reagan did. Fact of life, campaign promises get left by the wayside in the reality of Washington (“Read my lips” ring a bell?). Not surprising. I don’t like it either but if you are going to bust him for it show he is unusual in this regard.
Repeatedly? Cite again and show it was him flip flopping and not a need to compromise as one has to do in a democratic system. Hell, even Greenspan when taken to task for not being Libertarian enough (a philosophy he personally embraces) said there are political realities of compromise that he simply could not avoid.
I’m all for holding politicians’ feet to the fire and some of Obama’s decisions have not made me happy but show me he is an unusually shifty bastard compared to his predecessors if you want me to hold him out as an egregious flip-flopper.
This has been done numerous times around here. Search the archives.
Seriously though. You really need to get your talking points from somewhere else than Rush Limbaugh else you will get busted up on this Board.
I disagree. Judging people by their actions and beliefs is perfectly reasonable.
There are fiscal conservatives, and there are social conservatives. The religious right is the latter, regardless of whether or not they are the former.
Because he’s over eight years out of office ?
He deregulated quite a bit, did his best to keep already existing regulatory agencies from doing their job, and fought against regulation whenever possible. And he was just the latest in a string of Republicans who believe in deregulation at any cost.
Outright garbage. Clinton had no such chance, he CAUGHT the people who actually did the bombing, and one of Bush’s first acts in office was to call the hunt for Osama bin Laden off. Bush has never cared about stopping terrorism.
That’s ridiculous. Calling people who belong to a group that they have to voluntarily join, that follows principles and performs acts that you consider evil or stupid to BE stupid or evil is not bigotry. I noticed that you carefully ignored my question about people who condemned the Nazi and Communist Parties ? WERE they bigots ?
First, you don’t get to define “conservative” as “agrees with Tim R. Mortiss”. Second, the conservatives who say they believe in smaller government are clearly liars. You can’t control every aspect of people’s lives, impose your religion on everyone else, oppress groups you dislike ( such as gays ), impose a quasi-police state, and support a massive military with a small government. THOSE are conservative values, not their lies about wanting a smaller government.
Back off.
If you need to engage in name-calling, take it to the Pit.
[ /Moderating ]
I’d say you’re likely right, Sam, in that these comments are preparatory to some form of new income stream for the federal government. Whether that’s direct taxes or some other form is up in the air.
But where I think your argument falls down is the implicit belief that government services can be significantly cut. To believe that is to display a tin ear to the political reality that the American electorate likes services where they are and will react negatively to any real attempt to cut them. This is why, during years of control of the White House and both houses of Congress, there was no real attempt at controlling the cost of government.
So, if deficits are unsustainable and cutting is politically unfeasible, what is a fiscal conservative (of which I certainly count myself, believe it or not) to do? Find ways in which spending and income for the federal government can balance out.
In short, given the political reality of the situation higher taxes, possibly across the board, is the soi-disant ‘conservative’ thing to do.
I know it sounds weird, but I see no other solution. Federal budgetary policy MUST be seen in the context of the will of the electorate. Medicare and Social Security must be fixed, not abolished. Welfare must be funded and redirected, not done away with. To do otherwise is to invite electoral defeat and that will (excuse the caps again) NOT be an option for any sitting politician.
Conceded, there are some gadfly pols like Ron Paul who are willing to make such arguments, but they come from safe districts in which there would be no punishment for such and they have no chance of actually winning. Had Paul won the Presidency in 2008 my guess is he would not have been either willing to enact most of his plan or capable of getting it through Congress. Oy!
I think you need to look up the definition of “sustainable.”
And “whence.”
Very discouraging how quickly this “debate” descended into name-calling.
But relatively few people plan to go to school indefinitely. Instead, they have a plan to graduate, get a job, and earn money sufficient not only to live but to repay the loan. That would be an excellent example of a sustainable debt.
By contrast, the US government is ratcheting up its ongoing costs significantly. It’s already the case that debt service is a very significant annual expense, likely to see large - possibly huge - increases (which is pretty much what Obama is saying). As compared to the college student, we aren’t putting a definite term on these added costs, and our plan for repaying them is more accurately characterized as an indefinite hope.
I’m disappointed to see the thread degenerate to an argument about Mr Bush.
Mr Bush was a social and religious conservative, a liberal spender, and an unintelligent man, who, among other things, was unable to grasp enough history and geopolitics to make good decisions about how to fight terrorism. Fine. None of that is the current debate, is it?
Mr Obama’s problem is that he and congress have been spending money like drunken sailors. That money does grow on trees (well, cotton and flax plants, anyway), but printing too much of it will eventually result in hyperinflation which can be remarkably disastrous. He must, therefore, begin laying the groundwork to raise taxes. That’s all he’s doing. (Ostensibly he’d like to cut spending as well, but that horse left the barn with the vanished breed of fiscal conservatives–Democrats and Republicans alike.)
Okay, I’m game.
For sustainable, I found: meeting present needs without compromising the ability to meet future needs - that gives my meaning rather well.
For whence, I found: from what place, source or cause - precisely what I meant.
But if - as Obama now seems to be suggesting - that spending sets us on a path that heads over an economic cliff (e.g. skyrocketing interest rates, or heavy inflation), it could well be the case that suffering shorter-term economic pain was a much better choice.
If you’re paying off your college debt, as you proposed in your rejoinder, then you aren’t sustaining it, are you? You’re reducing it.
Which is exactly what Obama is saying that we need to be doing in your link, including altering our manner of spending on health care so that we reduce our costs. So what is your question, then? People have already provided you with a perfectly workable analogy of deficit spending, its function and its lack of sustainability. Has Obama’s point been satisfactorily translated for you?
He wants to raise taxes.
More like needs, really.
Not mine.