« It's the "Yes We Can" can | Main | Vast Majority Say No to Higher Taxes to Lower Deficit; Only 18% in Favor »

Dereliction Of Duty

There's a running gag among political pundits about how the Libertarians plan to take over the government -- and then forcibly leave you alone. It's amusing, but -- like all jests -- there's a grain of truth to it. Libertarians tend to seek power so they will NOT exercise it, taking it to deprive others of it.

And oddly enough, the Democrats in power today seem to be, in some ways, trying to fulfill that. But, being Democrats, they are failing miserably.

Even the staunchest libertarians recognize that there are legitimate functions for the federal government. They aren't anti-government, they're anti-big government nosing its way into matters where it has no Constitutionally-mandated interest. But that acknowledges that there are areas where the government does have interests and responsibilities.

And it seems in those areas that the Democrats are abandoning their responsibilities, as the reigning party.

For example, by federal law, Congress is supposed to introduce its budget by April 15 each year. The president usually tosses out his plan, then Congress goes to work and the end product bears almost no resemblance to how it started.

But over two months past that deadline, President Obama hasn't submitted a budget, and Congress hasn't put forth its own.

In Arizona, the biggest fight is over the securing of their southern border. "Provide for the common defense" is right there in the preamble of the Constitution, and there are few obligations upon the federal government greater than the security of the nation. But the Obama administration (like several of its predecessors) is willing to ignore that obligation. But unlike those preceding administrations, the Obama administration is willing and eager to fight not only for their right to do nothing, but to deny anyone else the right to fix the problem.

With the Gulf oil spill, the Obama administration has plenty of resources to fight the disaster, either at its fingertips or there for the asking. Other nations have offered us skimmers, booms, and their expertise and know-how. Volunteers want to go to the Gulf and help with the cleanup. But they are being ignored -- not even turned away, but utterly ignored -- while the Obama administration focuses instead on fixing the blame, arranging financing for future "reparations," demonizing BP (and, by extension, Big Oil), and talking about lofty, pie-in-the-sky, long-term, future energy plans.

There's another political aphorism that I find largely true: "conservatives think liberals are stupid. Liberals think conservatives are evil." It tends to go a long way towards explaining some of the political fights we have.

But in the above cases, the actions don't seem to fit into the "stupid" or "evil" model. They aren't unrealistically idealistic, or morally reprehensible. They lack the coherence of either paradigm.

No, the only term that unifies them seems to be a complete separation from reality. A total disconnect from cause and effect.

Or to use a simpler term, insane.


TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/39425.

Comments (62)

Best and smartest administr... (Below threshold)
GarandFan:

Best and smartest administration, evah! They told us so themselves.

Barak insane Obama, ummm um... (Below threshold)
914:

Barak insane Obama, ummm ummm ummm.

I don't think liberals are ... (Below threshold)
WildWillie:

I don't think liberals are stupid. I think they are not realistic. They believe eutopia can be achieved but the realist in me knows that cannot happen. Bad will always be around. Corruption will always be around. We just need to minimize it. Even Jesus said the poor will be with us always. Who am I to question that? ww

On the one hand, I can't be... (Below threshold)
Hank:

On the one hand, I can't believe they won't submit a budget. I don't recall that ever happening before.

But I think this is by design.
They need to keep the real figures buried.
If the american public found out how bankrupt we really are......

Im not surpised Barry has n... (Below threshold)
914:

Im not surpised Barry has not submitted a budget.

Just like he plays golf to hide from the economy, his 'slick' problem, unemployment, plummeting job approval. Barry is suffering from LDDS ( lame duck denial syndrome ), Its only known cure, 2012'.

Barry does what Barry does ... (Below threshold)
GarandFan:

Barry does what Barry does best. If he can't blame someone else for a problem, he ignores it, hoping it will either resolve itself (and he can claim credit) or it will disappear down the black hole of the non-reporting MSM. After all, if the MSM doesn't report it, it obviously did not happen. Therefore, problem solved.

I think Nihilism is the org... (Below threshold)
gary gulrud:

I think Nihilism is the organizing 'ideology'. With Nietschze the West has decided to remake the world(and humankind) in an image of our choosing.

First order of business, however, is to destroy that world posterity handed to us, the received God, customs and mores, birthrights, etc.

Jughead was weaned on Marxism, raised in Unitarianism and entered manhood in Chicago politics with all its attendant influences. All these left their applique but at bottom he's pissed at the received God for those damn ears and we're here for the music.

As a liberal, for the recor... (Below threshold)

As a liberal, for the record, I don't think conservatives are evil or stupid. I just think self-called conservatives tend to follow an ideology which is inconsistent and out of step with historical fact, because it is emotionally appealing. The downside to this, it allows them to be easily manipulated against their own best interests - by people who look down on them and would never admit them to their private country clubs.

But that's just me.

And the notion that Obama i... (Below threshold)

And the notion that Obama is some sort of rabid Marxist always blows my mind. The guy is, if anything, even more of a corporate centrist than Bill Clinton.

I would love to see an actual socialist like Bernie Sanders get into the White House, just so you can see what an actual socialist looks like. Here's one hint: he would have pushed single-payer health care from the beginning.

Re: "I would love to see an... (Below threshold)
Hank:

Re: "I would love to see an actual socialist like Bernie Sanders get into the White House, just so you can see what an actual socialist looks like. Here's one hint: he [Obama] would have pushed single-payer health care from the beginning."

Good point.
You mean like: "Reality: Obama Has Consistently Said That If We Were Starting From Scratch, He Would Support A Single Payer System."

http://www.barackobama.com/factcheck/2008/01/05/fact_check_obama_consistent_in.php


As a liberal, for the re... (Below threshold)
Deke:

As a liberal, for the record, I don't think conservatives are evil or stupid. I just think self-called conservatives tend to follow an ideology which is inconsistent and out of step with historical fact, because it is emotionally appealing.

I disagree, I believe modern conservative ideology of smaller government and more reliance on local control, in direct conflict with modern liberal ideology of large government control over most sectors of society is a clear and concise contrast of ideals favoring conservatism. Both sides have their hot button, emotional issues, but to say conservatism is "based" on emotion is patently false and I would argue the core of modern liberalism is all about emotion, whether it's the "starving" children or the colapse of the enviroment, very little empirical data comes from sources on the left that isn't manufactured, the recent climategate debacle being a prime example.

I'll agree that there was a time for progressive thought in our society, especially during the Industrial Revolution, but I'd also argue that the need to control our societies thoughts and actions, across the board, has tetered on the brink of Facism by modern proponents of the Progressive movement.

The downside to this, it allows them to be easily manipulated against their own best interests - by people who look down on them and would never admit them to their private country clubs.

I'd agree with you on this, and an analogy can be made between the Whigs of the Pre Civil War North, who were beholden to big business interest, ignoring the huge groundswell of resentment to slavery and it's expansion, the need for cheap cotten over-riding the concerns of the common citizen. The "Blue-Bloods" who have controlled the Republican party since the 1950's were content to remain in the minority and represent their interests and were in the leadership when they took control in 1994, they unfort., had no clue how to govern and fell back to what they knew, which is spending and abandoning conservative principals, of course they soon lost power.

The Tea-Pary/Libertarian movement, within the Republican party, is a direct conflict with the establishment, in my opinion, and will be the battleground for it's future.


Jim x, "conservatives te... (Below threshold)
P. Bunyan:

Jim x, "conservatives tend to follow an ideology which is inconsistent and out of step with historical fact"

I am sincerely curious Jim, what historical fact (or facts?) are you talking about here?

Deke, I think it doesn't ma... (Below threshold)

Deke, I think it doesn't make sense to simultaneously claim that liberal ideology is based in emotion and conservative ideology is not.

I think only one look at the emotion present at any conservative ideology should prove that.

Certainly all ideologies can be said to be based in emotions to some extent, or at least engage them, because if something matters to us at all it matters to us emotionally.

But my issue with what is currently called conservatism is not its emotion, or even what conservatism claims to care about. My problem is that its words do not much its deeds. It is logically inconsistent, allowing those who follow it to be manipulated via their emotions without that manipulation even being grounded in a logical structure.

Conservatives are in favor of small government - unless a conservative is in power. See Reagan, Nixon, GHWB and GWB. All of whom greatly increased the size, scope and power of the Federal government.

Conservatives are in favor of local control - except when they are not. See the SCOTUS overruling of Florida's recount, the Republican attempt to overturn Florida court judgements in Terri Schiavo, the Bush Administration's attempt to overrule and overturn California's state pollution laws, and on and on.

Conservatives are in favor of protecting the Constitution - unless they don't like the people being protected. So conservatives say that the very **idea** of a national ID card for medical care is creeping tyranny - but a law that requires anyone to be able to produce their papers? No problem at all.

I know there are no demons, only humans.
So my only conclusion from all of the above examples, and many more besides, is that conservatives are good, smart people who are letting their emotion override their ability to see or care about these contradictions.

P. Bunyan, Exhibit A in my ... (Below threshold)

P. Bunyan, Exhibit A in my assertion that conservatives tend to follow an ideology that is out of step with historical fact, is the continued adherence to "supply-side economics", which GWHB himself referred to as "Voodoo Economics" when he was running against Saint Ronnie in the 1980 primary.

This dogma states that tax cuts and deregulation always works, and raising taxes on the wealthy always hurts the economy.

The clear cases where this is not true are historical fact, are a) FDR's efforts to get us out of the Great Depression, and b) Bill Clinton's efforts to get us out of the first Bush recession in 1992.

In both cases, they followed the exact opposite of cutting taxes - they raised taxes on the wealthy, while lowering them for the poor and middle class AND simultaneously investing in the employment of the poor and middle class.

These historical facts are explained away in any number of ways, at least a couple of which I expect to see in response to this comment. Let me at least head one off:

A majority of nonpartisan economists **and** economic historians agree that FDR's policies helped the US economy out of Hoover's depression, and shortened it rather than lengthened it.

http://www.jstor.org/pss/2123771
http://econ161.berkeley.edu/Econ_articles/Reviews/vedder.html

The endless stream of conservative talking points attempting to refute this historical fact of more than 60 years ago, each of which is rapidly debunked, shows what I consider ideological resistance to basic established fact.

"I just think self-called c... (Below threshold)
alanstorm:

"I just think self-called conservatives tend to follow an ideology which is inconsistent and out of step with historical fact, because it is emotionally appealing."

What is jim x talking about? Sounds like he's describing liberals (the current usage, anyway) who have failed to notice that socialism doesn't work - at least for very long. Let's see: the Soviet Union collapsed of its own contradictions several years ago, Socialist Europe is "enjoying" its own financial collapse due to cost of endless government programs; and let's not forget the socialst paradises of Cuba and North Korea!

As far as emotional appeal, that's all that liberalism has to offer. I don't see how it could be otherwise, given that the concept has been demonstrated not to work.

"The downside to this, it allows them to be easily manipulated against their own best interests -" Here he is talking about liberals again. Exhibit A: those who voted for Hopenchange. Remember the Obama fans fainting at his appearances like he was the second coming of the Beatles?

To be fair, there are people who fit jim's description on both sides - the difference is that on the left side, those are in the majority and in charge.

JT ~ You are incorrect abou... (Below threshold)
Jim Addison:

JT ~ You are incorrect about what Libertarians believe. Like all too many, you have accepted the "libertarian" label for positions which pre-date "libertarianism" by centuries. Not that you're alone - the Cato Institute describes itself as "libertarian," although only the most generous definition actually applies. This is why the LP never gets more than 0.5% of the vote nationally - their true views are lunatic fringe. But that's another subject.

jim_x isn't even worth replying to, his projection is simply laughable. The left's ideas are all many decades old, their policies have been tried over and over again around the world and failed every single time, yet they keep coming back for more. He thinks Obama is a "centrist" for crying out loud! Heh . . .

I like this headline. <a h... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:
On your list of Republican ... (Below threshold)
Deke:

On your list of Republican presidents you lump them all together as Conservative. One of the central themes of your argument is that Conservatives are controlled by blue-blood "psuedo" conservatives, who manipulate the grass-root movements emotions, and except for Reagan, your list includes the poster children for that argument, so unfort., you fail in that respect Jim.

As far as the only real Conservative in that group, RR, facts don't lie, longest peace-time, non-bubble, economic growth in American history is proof, in my opinion, that Conservatism, when articulated by a decent spokesmen, works as intended. Now I'm sure you have arguments on why Reagan was a failure, but almost universally, when ideology isn't involved, the evidence points to a very good president.

Conservatives are in favor of protecting the Constitution - unless they don't like the people being protected. So conservatives say that the very **idea** of a national ID card for medical care is creeping tyranny - but a law that requires anyone to be able to produce their papers? No problem at all.

Now on this one friend you are reallllyyy off base. Federal law requires that legal visitors and others non U.S. citizens, carry ID on them at all times, Conservatives are discouraged by the last 2 admins refusal to enforce said laws. We would be just as determined to fight any kind of national ID act, as proven over many years, making citizens "show their papers" DOES smack of tyranny.

What you, and a lot of Liberals do, is lump the term "Republican" and "Conservative" together. Your argument about not lumping Democrat and Socialist together holds water there also. Conservatives are some of the first to jump on their leaders for abandoning ideals, one wonders if Liberals would do the same, an example, BHO, supported the government in Shiavo, though later saying he rergretted it, would you then say he was wrong and misguided, controlled by emotions?

Yeah, Jim x, I figured it w... (Below threshold)
P. Bunyan:

Yeah, Jim x, I figured it was something like that. Other's may take the time to refute your examples but I don't think you'd believe anything I, or they told you. It's hard to overcome indoctrination at those levels.

You wouldn't even accept as fact that FDR did not "get of out of the Great Depression" and in fact his policies turned a fairly common recession into "The Great Depression" (just as Obama is doing today).

Nor would you acknowledge that the early 90's recession (again common after a booming economic period) had already ended before Clinton was elected in '92 (even some leftists in the media admitted this-- and the fact that they failed to report it-- after the election), so what's the point really?

Once again Reagan's timeless wisdom is proven true:

"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so."

What is jim x talk... (Below threshold)
What is jim x talking about?

A lot of things in the rest of that paragraph, actually.

Sounds like he's describing liberals (the current usage, anyway) who have failed to notice that socialism doesn't work - at least for very long.

The idea that liberals are automatically in support of socialism, or that it's even a core part of liberal thought and the Democratic party? Let's start right there. That is Exhibit B in listing conservative opinions that have no basis in historical fact.

FDR was a wealthy aristocrat and businessman, who helped rebuild our economy to the benefit of our corporations AND our citizens. Bill Clinton grew up from humble beginnings to become a self-made millionaire and do the same. Now Barack Obama.

To call these representatives and friends of business and moneyed elites "socialist" defies comprehension. It is to twist reality out of all recognition.

Liberals are no more automatically socialists than conservatives are automatically fascists.

Let's see: the Soviet Union collapsed of its own contradictions several years ago,

And? That's got nothing to do with liberalism. Sorry, I know the John Birchers loved to think so, but FDR was not a communist. And "Socialism" is not the same thing as "social security" even though both words have "social" in them.

Socialist Europe is "enjoying" its own financial collapse due to cost of endless government programs;

Which is simply not true. First, "socialist" europe is still doing better than we are - unemployment is at %8.3, as opposed to our @ %10. Second, their collapse is due to the economic situation the Greece - which is due to it's failure to regulate banks AND to cut its unneeded military budget. Which left it on shaky ground to withstand the worldwide recession that **we in the US under George Bush** helped cause. USA! USA!

and let's not forget the socialst paradises of Cuba and North Korea!

Sure. Let's also remember that liberals are not automatically socialists, let alone communists.

Yeah, Jim x, I fig... (Below threshold)
Yeah, Jim x, I figured it was something like that. Other's may take the time to refute your examples but I don't think you'd believe anything I, or they told you. It's hard to overcome indoctrination at those levels.

Ok, here's the deal. I think you're indoctrinated. You think i'm indoctrinated. We're at a standoff.

That's where a useful third party comes in - facts and logic.

I've shown mine. Your refusal to show yours means you forfeit the argument.

Which means you go further towards proving my point - that conservative ideology is out of step with historical fact.

This is why the LP... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:
This is why the LP never gets more than 0.5% of the vote nationally - their true views are lunatic fringe.

This becomes obvious when the subject turns to preemptive laws. For Libertarians no risk is too great and no cost is too high to justify preemptive laws. In the libertarian world there's no law against driving drunk at 90 MPH through a school zone as children arrive or leave for the day.

The nation that comes closest to having a libertarian government is Somalia.

As far as the only... (Below threshold)
As far as the only real Conservative in that group, RR, facts don't lie, longest peace-time, non-bubble, economic growth in American history is proof, in my opinion, that Conservatism, when articulated by a decent spokesmen, works as intended.

Except that:
- it *was* an economic bubble - which popped under GHWB.

- it was not the longest peacetime non-bubble us growth - that would be the period from the end of the Korean war to the beginning of Johnson's expandion of the Viet Nam war. And that's only if we're considering the "Cold War" an actual peacetime - it caused a considerable amount of military spending.

- Most central to my point, Reagan being a "good president" is different than him being a "good conservative".

Specifically Reagan:
- increased the size, power and scope of Federal government

- negotiated with terrorists, and secretly sold weapons systems to our sworn enemy Iran

- tripled the national debt

- raised taxes

- violated the Constitution, and specifically the separation of powers, by secretly funding a private war in South America which killed tens of thousands of people

- placed our soldiers in harms way for pure PR reasons without the arms to defend themselves - resulting in the bombing of the Marine barracks in Beirut

Any ONE of those should, according to conservative ideology, be enough to banish any President from the ranks of true conservatism.

But, with all of the above being proven historical *fact*, you continue to excuse or forget them so you can admire Reagan as a great **conservative**.

Which is, again, exactly my point: conservative ideology is not logically consistent. You like Reagan, you like how he makes you feel about America and yourself, and so you're willing to forgive any number of actual things which are supposed to be against the tenets of conservatism.

# 16, you prove my basic as... (Below threshold)

# 16, you prove my basic assertion far better than I've been able to with many words.

Jim x, "I've shown mine.... (Below threshold)
P. Bunyan:

Jim x, "I've shown mine."

No you haven't. That's my point! What you consider to be "facts", are simply and demonstrably not true.

Which is simply no... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:
Which is simply not true. First, "socialist" europe is still doing better than we are - unemployment is at %8.3, as opposed to our @ %10.

But Obama said unemployment wouldn't go over 8% if the stimulus bill passed. Well it passed. Maybe Obama's anti-business policies have something to do with the unemployment rate.

Second, their collapse is due to the economic situation the Greece - which is due to it's failure to regulate banks AND to cut its unneeded military budget.

If it were just Greece there would be no financial crisis in Europe. Greece, Spain, Portugal, and Italy are in trouble from too much debt and most of that debt is from entitlement programs, just as in the U.S.

Which left it on shaky ground to withstand the worldwide recession that **we in the US under George Bush** helped cause.

Bush saw the problem coming in 2001 and asked for tougher regulation of the housing market in his first budget. It's a matter of public record. Bush tried to reform Social Security, but it was blocked by Democrats saying it didn't need reform. Now Obama is talking about reforming Medicare and Social Security. Funny how democrats come around to agreeing with Bush in time.

# 25 - wow. Yes I did. In t... (Below threshold)

# 25 - wow. Yes I did. In the very post you originally responded to.

I will now quote again from # 14:

A majority of nonpartisan economists **and** economic historians agree that FDR's policies helped the US economy out of Hoover's depression, and shortened it rather than lengthened it.

http://www.jstor.org/pss/2123771
http://econ161.berkeley.edu/Econ_articles/Reviews/vedder.html

Since you claim those are simply and demonstrably not true - why don't you go ahead and simply demonstrate they're not true.

Jim X -Re the Rega... (Below threshold)
JLawson:

Jim X -

Re the Regan years - having been in the military during them, going INTO them we were woefully underpaid and underfunded.

And Reagan did increase defense spending - which gave us the tools needed for Gulf War 1.

However, the deal he had to broker with a Democratic House and Senate meant that THEY got to spend a dollar and a half on social programs for every dollar that he increased defense spending.

Also, take a look at the IRS intake between 1980 and 1988. Even though taxes were CUT, revenues ROSE - from $244 billion in 1980 to $446 billion in 1989. And the rich? They paid more.

The share of the income tax burden borne by the top 10 percent of taxpayers increased from 48.0 percent in 1981 to 57.2 percent in 1988. Meanwhile, the share of income taxes paid by the bottom 50 percent of taxpayers dropped from 7.5 percent in 1981 to 5.7 percent in 1988.

http://www.house.gov/jec/fiscal/tx-grwth/reagtxct/reagtxct.htm

So Regan tripled the debt, but it needed to be done after Carter's term. And he had a hell of a lot of help from Congress. And if THERY had been willing to forego THEIR spending, then perhaps things would have been a lot different.

(But ask a politician to stop spending? You might as well ask them to stop screwing their staff or eating waygu beef...)

But Obama said une... (Below threshold)
But Obama said unemployment wouldn't go over 8% if the stimulus bill passed. Well it passed. Maybe Obama's anti-business policies have something to do with the unemployment rate.

Not my argument. I'm pointing out how the statement that "Socialist Europe" is doing worse than the US, is wrong.

Bush saw the problem coming in 2001 and asked for tougher regulation of the housing market in his first budget.

Let's say that's true. The conservative GOP had both the Senate and Congress at that time, and 6 years after. So why wasn't that passed?

Bush tried to reform Social Security, but it was blocked by Democrats saying it didn't need reform.

This is wrong a few ways. It wasn't blocked because it didn't need reform - it was blocked because Bush wanted to piratize it, and Democrats did not. Current proposals to reform it do not involve piratization.

You would think that attempts to put Social Security funds into the stock market would automatically be laughable even by conservatives - since it was the Great Depression's stock crash that caused FDR to create Social Security in the first place. And since successive crashes in 200 and 2007 would have completely wiped out the last safety net of the elderly, twice.

But, nope. Somehow Social Security is still the devil, but military spending never needs to be cut at all.

So Regan tripled t... (Below threshold)
So Regan tripled the debt, but it needed to be done after Carter's term. And he had a hell of a lot of help from Congress. And if THERY had been willing to forego THEIR spending, then perhaps things would have been a lot different.

That still means that Reagan did something which good conservatives aren't supposed to do, doesn't it?

"why don't you go ahead ... (Below threshold)
P. Bunyan:

"why don't you go ahead and simply demonstrate they're not true."

Because you simply would not believe anything I posted, therefore it would be a pointless waste of my time.

Because you simply... (Below threshold)
Because you simply would not believe anything I posted, therefore it would be a pointless waste of my time.

Okay then, you forfeit the argument.

P. Bunyan, the whole point ... (Below threshold)

P. Bunyan, the whole point is if you provide evidence then it is beyond a matter of my belief or your belief. It then comes down to facts and a proper logical analysis of them.

I have presented my facts and logic. You have not.

"That still means that R... (Below threshold)
P. Bunyan:

"That still means that Reagan did something which good conservatives aren't supposed to do, doesn't it?"

Yes, but Regean's priority was to defeat the USSR in the cold war and since he had a leftist congress he had no choice but to let congress overspend on socialist things so they'd let Reagan build up the military and force the Russians to do the same, which since the Russian Communists' ideology and ecomonic policy was idential to Obama's, was not possible and destroyed the USSR.

That's how politics works.

But this all happened before you were born.

Jim, There is a bi... (Below threshold)
P. Bunyan:

Jim,

There is a big difference between linking to someone else's opinion and "presenting facts and logic". You have only presented you opinions in the tread and have used no logic that I can discern.

P. Bunyan, I stated my opin... (Below threshold)

P. Bunyan, I stated my opinion, citing the articles listed as my support. Therefore we can both agree I am "presenting" them.

If you want to understand some of the facts and logic that back up my opinion, go and read them. If they are so obviously wrong as you think, you should be able to quickly prove them wrong.

You, on the other hand, have refused to either:
a) show me how my opinion is wrong
b) refute the citations I linked to as wrong
c) show any facts or logic that show I'm wrong, either your own or "someone else's", at all.

That means you are forfeiting the argument.

"That still mea... (Below threshold)
"That still means that Reagan did something which good conservatives aren't supposed to do, doesn't it?"

Yes,

Okay then. Now, note that this only one of 6 listed cardinal conservative sins committed by Reagan.

And yet he is continued to be a great **Conservative** president.

Now there are presidents who conservatives will agree were at least good, but who definitely weren't conservative. FDR would be one, Truman would be another, Teddy Roosevelt would be a third.

But Reagan is considered by conservatives to not only have been a great President, but a great **conservative** President - even though he committed these 6 different **huge** offenses against conservative ideology.

I think this shows a logical inconsistency on the part of Conservative ideology.

Remarkable, how no one want... (Below threshold)

Remarkable, how no one wants to discuss the actual examples of the Obama administration's derelictions. Look how the Obama supporters leap to the attack -- it's almost like they know there IS no defense for what he's done.

And not done.

J.

I've never even started the... (Below threshold)
P. Bunyan:

I've never even started the argument, but I'll tell you what I'll do-- I have to be AFK for a couple hours. Later this evening, around 8 or 9 e.s.t. I'll show you facts and logic that refute you're opinion. I also bet you'll either ignore them, attempt to rebut the facts with more opinions, or change the subject.

But hey, I might be wrong. I still bet it will be a total waste of my time.

This post seems about as cl... (Below threshold)
Steve Crickmore:

This post seems about as close to admitting that much of the wingnuts' thinking is clearly not based on actual reality or as Jay infers, it is insane. For me, the lack of coherence of a faux libertarian/tea party positions in their pursuit of the fantasy of limited or small federal government, while at that the same time holding contrary (big govt.) points of view, that would enrage the likes of a true and more consistent free market libertarian such as Ron Paul, who is also against wars of aggression Iraq and Afghanistan and the Patriot Act has always been self evident.

For example, tea partiers/wing nuts don't want Obama to touch Medicare, or in in otherwards reform it and decrease the unnecssary benefits, but they want him to $tep in, but not on the toes of BP, and clean up immediately and fix the gushing oil in the gulf, after endlessly talking about about how cumbersome and expensive these unnecessary environmental regulations have been, and that multinationals, big or small oil, have been so much more trustful and effective, where 'real americans' such as Cheney and Bush earned there stripes and millions, than anyone could emerging from 'the public interest' culture of the the federal government or law school or the inner city.

Later this evenin... (Below threshold)
Later this evening, around 8 or 9 e.s.t. I'll show you facts and logic that refute you're opinion. I also bet you'll either ignore them, attempt to rebut the facts with more opinions, or change the subject.

But hey, I might be wrong.

Well I certainly appreciate your effort, and I'll be sure to respond once you have.

re: # 38, Jay T: Obama's po... (Below threshold)

re: # 38, Jay T: Obama's policies and actions are a legitimate area of criticism. If we could keep our arguments towards actual nonpartisan estimates of policies and their effects, i.e. what Presidents and Senators are actually **doing**, then we could get beyond a lot of the ideological noise which is serving only to divide us as a country.

The problem is that a lot of tenets that conservatives are holding to are logically inconsistent and out of steps with the facts - which result in a skewed understanding of the world and how best to deal with it.

Steve, jim x, I cited three... (Below threshold)

Steve, jim x, I cited three concrete examples of Obama administration action/inaction: Arizona's border woes, no federal budget, and the Gulf oil spill.

I find their response to those three issues utterly inexplicable. I literally cannot find the logic behind any of them. Please enlighten us poor, ignorant clods about how they really are on the right course in those three areas.

Please, though, be positive. Don't just attack the other side; describe what Obama has done (or not done) and explain why that was a good choice.

J.

It's not surprising Obama a... (Below threshold)
Carol:

It's not surprising Obama and congress has not submitted a budget. It's an election year-they don't want people to know how big their next deficit is because they know it would work against them. They'll wait until after the election hoping that they can deceive the public and minimize their losses.

This is wrong a fe... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:
This is wrong a few ways. It wasn't blocked because it didn't need reform - it was blocked because Bush wanted to piratize it, and Democrats did not. Current proposals to reform it do not involve piratization.

Not needing reform was one of the reasons and another was privatization. Democrats were and are wrong on both points.

You would think that attempts to put Social Security funds into the stock market would automatically be laughable even by conservatives - since it was the Great Depression's stock crash that caused FDR to create Social Security in the first place. And since successive crashes in 200 and 2007 would have completely wiped out the last safety net of the elderly, twice.

What's laughable is that the government has been spending the excess money workers have been paying in and now the government wants to change the rules rather than honor the IOU's. Any private party that tried that would end up in jail.

The only people who lost lots of money in 2000 and 2007 are those who got out of the market at the bottom. People who stayed in have recovered most of their money from 2007 and many are in positive territory.

Social Security needs to be treated like a real retirement plan and a combination of investments and government guaranteed bonds administered by an independent entity would go a long way to fixing it. The last thing we need is to allow politicians to spend the money and then renege on the deal, which is what we have now.

Let's say that's t... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:
Let's say that's true. The conservative GOP had both the Senate and Congress at that time, and 6 years after. So why wasn't that passed?

You cited Bush as being part of the cause of the subprime mortgage mess, yet as I pointed out, it was Bush who tried to avert it at a time when it could have been averted. Congress didn't act at Bush's direction just as it doesn't act now on parts of Obama's agenda such as cap and trade. If congress not acting is Bush's fault then it's also Obama's fault.

Jay, on reading your commen... (Below threshold)
Steve Crickmore:

Jay, on reading your comments # 38 and "43, yes Obama has- I wouldn't say been derelict, but he has been half hearted, (I can't answer for the budget) but this is because he poses little 'socialist' threat to the establishment. He is a consensus builder and a cerebral one, reminds me a lot of polyglot and sociologist intellectual, Henrique Cardoso, the former President of Brazil, not his successor who is and was a socialist, Lulu.

Obama, he's a Hamiltonian at heart, who thinks that a sound economy depends on a healthy big-business sector and doesn't much mind making some fat cats even fatter if it moves the country forward. So it's natural for people who wish that Obama actually was the socialist the tea parties believe him to be to be somewhat disappointed.

The one area are where Obama has received little attention or criticism from the right, (but much from the left), is in his maintainance of all the executive uses and 'abuses' of war powers.

And as for the Reagan legacy, remember he famously said "trees cause more polution than people". With the oil spill, his sympathies would likely be with the ">http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/23/us/23drill.html?ref=us"> Judge Blocks Deep-Water Drilling Moratorium

Judge Feldman -- a 1983 appointee of President Ronald Reagan -- wrote that the Obama administration had failed to justify the need for the sweeping suspension, which he characterized as "generic, indeed punitive."

Which is, again, e... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:
Which is, again, exactly my point: conservative ideology is not logically consistent.

Such logic assumes a static world, which is not the case. There's a time to save and a time to spend, a time to raise taxes and a time to lower taxes, a time for war and a time for peace. No president can be judged apart from the "times", which is what you are trying to do.

Also, no president is 100% conservative or 100% liberal. Some of Bush's policies and ideas were quite liberal, but who considers Bush to be a liberal president? Some of Obama's polices and ideas seem to be quite conservative, but who considers Obama to be a conservative president?

What determines whether a president is conservative or liberal is their governing philosophy and in that regard Reagan was conservative and Obama is liberal.

Excuse me, I messed up the ... (Below threshold)
Steve Crickmore:

Excuse me, I messed up the last Reagan quote ,which should be "Trees cause more pollution than automobiles do." -- Ronald Reagan, 1981, and the NYT link which corrected is Judge Blocks Deep-Water Drilling Moratorium .

News flash, Steve -- Reagan... (Below threshold)

News flash, Steve -- Reagan is not only out of office, but dead.

So, you're saying that Obama's too intelligent to put together a budget, respond appropriately to a major disaster, or do anything besides preserve the status quo on the border?

I keep hearing how intelligent Obama is. The proof of that is pretty much all inferred -- citing actual examples of the guy's intellect is very rare.

Back during the campaign, Obama himself said he was a Rorshach Blot of a candidate -- people projected upon him whatever they wanted to. I see you're still seeing the butterflies and naked women.

J.

Mac Lorry, I'm speaking ent... (Below threshold)

Mac Lorry, I'm speaking entirely to governing philosophy. And specifically, what is supposed to be conservative governing philosophy as opposed to liberal governing philosophy.

Now it can be sure that there have been no 100% conservative or liberal presidents. But there are presidents either ideologies voted in great droves for, and who consider to be a great example of their ideology in practice.

FDR is considered by many liberals to be a great President, and a great example of liberal governing philosophy. The "New Deal" is an example of this.

Reagan is considered by almost every conservative I've ever met to be a great example of a conservative President. And yet, his policies in practice are the exact opposite of what conservatives are supposed to want - not just in one nitpicking way, but in the six different ways that I mentioned above.

Violation of the constitution isn't something that's supposed to be subject to change. Yet Reagan did this.

Putting our boys in harm's way for purely political PR reasons, without even giving them a way to defend themselves, is something no President should do. And certainly something that goes against conservative principles.

These are not small things, and most importantly they are not supposed to be small things to conservatives. That conservatives never remember them when remembering Reagan, indicates to me that the logical facts are less important than the emotional good feelings conservatives want to have about Reagan.

I love the liberals way of ... (Below threshold)
WildWillie:

I love the liberals way of picking "facts" to prove a point. At the same time saying stuff like "Hoovers depression". The liberals claim to want honest factual debate yet cloud the argument with rhetorical bombs. I simply get bored with their antics. JT is completely correct. Obama is the subject yet the liberals want to hijack the argument back 60+ years. Typical and boring.

There is a huge and menacing leadership void in the White House. The perpetual candidate cannot use words anymore to get out of jams. Actions are required and they are not happening. He knows how to throw a party, golf, etc. but his example of leadership demonstrates just what an empty suit he is. In the November elections, the republicans have their work cut out for them. At least Obama will have someone to "blame" then. ww

"Remarkable, how no one ... (Below threshold)
P. Bunyan:

"Remarkable, how no one wants to discuss the actual examples of the Obama administration's derelictions

Sorry Jay, I know how touchy you are about that. In all fairness Jim was responding directly to your post and then we just responded to him. Anyway:

The Budget: The Dems can't pass their budget before the election because they'd loose even more seats then they already are going to loose if more people actually knew their true agenda.

Arizona: Closing the border would benefit Obama much less than leaving it open. If he closes it he benefits from the reduced risk of terrorist attacks. If he leaves it open he benfits from tens of millions of votes and continued support of his base.

The oil leak: Again while he would benefit from adequately addressing the problem, he perceives that he will benefit way more by essentially contributing to it through inaction. If he adresses it he would benefit with an uptick in approval rating. If he does what he's been doing he gets justify (as least in the minds of leftists and the ignorant) cap and trade.

And Jim I'll get to you shortly.

Mac Lorry, I'm spe... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:
Mac Lorry, I'm speaking entirely to governing philosophy. And specifically, what is supposed to be conservative governing philosophy as opposed to liberal governing philosophy.

Please enlighten us as to what you think constitutes conservative governing philosophy.

Reagan is considered by almost every conservative I've ever met to be a great example of a conservative President. And yet, his policies in practice are the exact opposite of what conservatives are supposed to want - not just in one nitpicking way, but in the six different ways that I mentioned above.

Like I said, you are ignoring the times (the context) to come to your conclusions. Reagan increased taxes, but he cut taxes even more. Reagan spent vast sums of money on the military to win the cold war, but you fail to give him credit for the peace dividend that followed. Reagan's stated philosophy was that government was not the solution, but the problem.

Violation of the constitution isn't something that's supposed to be subject to change. Yet Reagan did this.

As did FDR. That apparently is a bipartisan failing.

Putting our boys in harm's way for purely political PR reasons, without even giving them a way to defend themselves, is something no President should do

That's just opinion. The US is famous for gunboat diplomacy, which is a PR stunt. The military not being ready for Islamic suicide bombers doesn't detract from Reagan's conservative political philosophy.

And certainly something that goes against conservative principles.

You don't seem to know what those principles are, so you're incapable of keeping score on Reagan.

These are not small things, and most importantly they are not supposed to be small things to conservatives.

Most of your list has nothing to do with conservative principles, and the ones that do seem to run counter to conservative principles go back to the statement that no one is 100% conservative or 100% liberal.

That conservatives never remember them when remembering Reagan, indicates to me that the logical facts are less important than the emotional good feelings conservatives want to have about Reagan.

The difference is that conservatives actually understand logic, something I find lacking in most liberals who post here.

Mac Lorry, conservative pri... (Below threshold)

Mac Lorry, conservative principles as I understand them are supposed to be:

1. Federal government is too large and strong, both in size and power
2. Programs such as Social Security and Medicare cost way too much, and should be changed or eliminated
3. The Constitution should be followed to the letter
4. Low taxes on the wealthy and deregulation of business are the keys to economic prosperity for all
5. The US should never negotiate with terrorists
6. Federal government should give way to local and state rights whenever possible
7. Federal government debt is mortgaging the future of our children, and increasing it is something no conservative should do
8. The US should never put our soldiers at risk for political purposes

Some conservatives may disagree with one of those points or another, but I can't imagine a self-called conservative disagreeing with a majority of them.

Agree or disagree?

Ok now Jim,"a) ... (Below threshold)
P. Bunyan:

Ok now Jim,

"a) show me how my opinion is wrong"

First- I did point out the fact that Clinton did not inherit a recession. You ignored that fact. Also Clinton's high taxes did in fact leave the country in a recession (proof of this at the same link above).

Second- If you again look at that same link you will see the fact that the economy was improving when Roosevelt took office, then it leveled out and then took a dump again into recession in the later 30's only to slightly improve at the start of WWII but then went back to plumeting into yet another recession by the time he died. He did leave future generations saddled with debt and interest payments not related to wartime spending for the first time in US history but that's about it for Roosevelt's contribution to the economy.

Thems are the FACTS Jack no matter how you wanna spin it.

"b) refute the citations I linked to as wrong"

I don't think it's possible to do that. Your first link was to the first page (and only first page) of an opinion survey.

Your second link was to a hyper-partisan opinion piece. I will acknowledge that the data re: adjusted real wages may very well have been fact, but it was nonetheless irrelevant to your point.

"c) show any facts or logic that show I'm wrong, either your own or "someone else's", at all."

Let's look at the core to most leftist policies. The commie in the Whitehouse stated it as "I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody." But this same concept was best articulated long ago by another leftist: "From each according to his abilities (e.g. high taxes on the rich), to each according to his needs(e.g. welfare, medicaid, ect.)"

That sounds wonderful in theory actually. I wouldn't mind living in a world where everyone gave 100% and performed to the best of their abilities and everyone's needs were also met 100%. Sadly that has never worked and can never work. The problem of course is human nature.

When the government governs according to these principles everyone's abilities become liabilities and everyone's needs become assets. It is human nature to minimize your liabilities and maximize your assets.

In a free market capitalist system the opposite is true. I acknowledge that in such a system you will get an unequal distribution of wealth. You will also get booms and busts (a.k.a. recessions) Recessions are not necessarilty bad things however and they've never substancially harmed me so your original statement that the free market is not "in [my] own best interest" is demonstrably false. They do harm some people, but those same people benefit form the booms way more than they are harmed by the busts anyway so overall they are better off.

If your goal is to minimize the gap between the rich and poor then your ignorant to support Democrats. Sure diffent types of people become rich under the Dem policies, but other than that there's no difference. If your goal is to minimize the ecomonic swings (booms and busts) then the Dems are the way to go. Unfortunately, in doing that you forfit the increase in standard of living that comes from free market capitalism--you get no big busts, but you get no booms at all.

And one last thing regarding your post #42, do you realize that your second paragraph did exactly what you decried in your first paragraph, thus making you a hypocrite?

Mac Lorry, conserv... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:
Mac Lorry, conservative principles as I understand them are supposed to be:

I think you're confusing conservative with libertarian. Conservative philosophy is to use pragmatic and time proven principles to solve problems with the least amount of government involvement.

1. Federal government is too large and strong, both in size and power

Some problems, such as war, require a strong and powerful federal government, but at other times the federal government should do less, and whatever government does it should do well.

2. Programs such as Social Security and Medicare cost way too much, and should be changed or eliminated

Even Obama says these cost way too much and have to be changed. Unlike a libertarian, a conservative can accept change once it's proven to work. Social Security should be reformed to be a true retirement plan that's independently administered and where the money that comes in can't be spend by politicians for their current pork barrel projects in exchange for IOU's that can't be paid.

3. The Constitution should be followed to the letter

To do otherwise is unconstitutional. However, the Constitution says that the courts decide what the Constitution means, so following what the courts say it means is following the Constitution to the letter. The problem with that system is us mere humans and no system run by humans can get around that failing.

4. Low taxes on the wealthy and deregulation of business are the keys to economic prosperity for all

There's an optima tax rate or range of rates for a given set of economic conditions. That optima rate generates the most revenue for the government by allowing the economy to grow. Unlike libertarians, conservatives understand the need for preemptive regulations where the risk and cost of failure is high, or where competitive pressures prevent businesses from acting in the best interest of the public.

5. The US should never negotiate with terrorists

It's a good principle, but I don't know that it applies when dealing with terrorist nations.

6. Federal government should give way to local and state rights whenever possible

The principle is that the government closest to the governed does the best job. It's silly for the federal government to impose a nationwide standard on how much water a toilet uses per flush. Desert states should be able to set their own standard and wet states their own. However, standardization of weights and measure, the air waves, banking and such is all best done at the federal level. The answer is that it depends on what law or rule is being imposed.

7. Federal government debt is mortgaging the future of our children, and increasing it is something no conservative should do

The principle is for the government to follow sound financial principles. As in the private sector, barrowing is often a wise decision if done for the right reasons. What doesn't make sense is to accelerate spending to the point where debt will increase at alarming rates as far into the future as anyone can see.

8. The US should never put our soldiers at risk for political purposes

That's the only time we put our soldiers at risk. War is for political purposes such as defending against communism or stopping genocide in another nation. If there were no political differences between nations there would be few wars.

Some conservatives may disagree with one of those points or another, but I can't imagine a self-called conservative disagreeing with a majority of them

You're talking about absolutes and conservatives are governed by pragmatism and time proven principles rather than absolutes. Show conservatives something that's proven to work and they will support it if it makes sense in the current circumstances. Show conservatives something that hasn't worked over time and they will support changing it if it makes sense in the current circumstances. Conservatives keep the nation on track of providing a stable environment for the people to flourish in. When a change is needed we'll move a step at a time, if possible, to make sure we don't get ahead of the people. A conservative government responds to the demand for change from the people rather than imposing change on the people.

Jim X -"That st... (Below threshold)
JLawson:

Jim X -

"That still means that Reagan did something which good conservatives aren't supposed to do, doesn't it?"

It means he put the good of the country (not some nebulous 'good' which comes from massive amounts of pork splattered out with little accountability, or bailing out 'too big to fail' union-controlled manufacturers) to the forefront.

We were in shit shape as a nation after we lost the Viet Nam war, and after 4 years of Mr. Indecision buggered the economy. 20% interest rates on housing loans (had a friend who bought a condo - the rate was god-awful) inflation going through the roof, a military that didn't have sufficient spares for maintenance or consumables for training - much less for fighting a war - the list is pretty long. (However, they did invent PCs around then. But the invention of the PC didn't make up for Disco - the decade still sucked mightily.)

And at the same time, we were looking at the USSR having grabbed Afghanistan (much good it did them) - and with designs on the rest of Europe... what would you have done in Reagan's place? Not with the benefit of 30 years hindsight - but at the time, with the information you had regarding capabilities and intent of the USSR?

There were precious few options open to him. A Democratic Congress controlled the purse strings - they had for decades. Maybe there was some other course of action he could have taken to build a strong military... oh, he could have cut social programs! No... not with the Congress he had. Ah! He could have cut the SIZE of government... no, sorry, he had little control over Congress. He could have... TALKED to the USSR! Eh... not so much.

But he could propose cutting taxes, and increasing defense spending. What Congress did after that was their own actions.

(Let's not forget the 'Star Wars' programs - trying to keep up with the US on military spending AND come up with countermeasures that would have worked against a working ABM system gave the USSR an economic kick in the nuts that paralyzed the whole system. And in '89 - it collapsed.)

Reagan could communicate with the people much better than Nixon, Ford, or Carter. He reminded us that we were an exceptional country - appealed to that horribly base instinct of patriotism - and was able to get enough support so that Congress would do what had to be done. (For a modestly exorbitant fee, of course.)

Reagan was a statesman, not a politician. He put the welfare of the entire country first - and like it or not what he did actually worked.

What Obama's doing? Hell if I know. There doesn't seem to be a recovery going on, he's talking about taxing energy to fund alternative energy sources (which are failing badly already in Europe) and we're looking at trillion dollar annual deficts for a decade or more.

If this is a 'successful' implementation of programs the country needs, I don't even want to think what a botched job by Obama would look like.

I don't think he's a statesman. He doesn't seem to have the capability or capacity, or even the desire of acting for the good of all, if there's any group he might find more 'favorable' whether through ideological leanings or sheer affinity. He's a low-grade Chicago politician at best, a community activist pushed far beyond his capability at worst.

Oh, he's REAL good at getting elected.

But that's just the easy part. That's ALWAYS been the easy part.

Ok P. Bunyan, thank you for... (Below threshold)

Ok P. Bunyan, thank you for at last replying with some actual facts, figures and links.

First- I did point out the fact that Clinton did not inherit a recession. [link]

That link is a straight chart of economics figures. But, according to my look at similar info, the recession did occur entirely within George Bush's term. The effects of the recession weren't entirely shaken off until December of 1992 - which technically is 1 month into Bill Clinton's term. But I won't argue the point.

Also Clinton's high taxes did in fact leave the country in a recession (proof of this at the same link above).

Technically the slump occurred during Bush's administration. But clearly, Bush hadn't been in long enough to be responsible for that.

What is known is that Clinton had nearly eight straight years of expansion - by following the exact opposite of Reagan and Bush's supply-side economics. And then there was a crash.

So, let's say that Clinton's policies were the cause of the 2001 crash, and Reagan/Bush's policies were the cause of the 1990 crash.

After 10 years of Reaganomics aka supply-side economics, there was limited growth, a greatly increased amount of government debt, a stock market crash and a recession.

After 8 years of Clintonian economics, largely Keynesian, there was almost the greatest amount of growth in American history, the first budget surplus for decades, a stock market crash and a recession.

So of those two choices, I'll take Clinton's economy.

Note too that many of these high-level measurements of economy, such as GDP and stock market activity, can provide a skewed view of an economy's health because the benefits of the economy aren't being felt by the poor and middle class. Which is another reason for the success of Bill Clinton's administration - the poor and middle class in particular made more and did better, and spread their spending throughout the rest of the economy.

This is re: FDR and the new... (Below threshold)

This is re: FDR and the new deal.

Your first link was to the first page (and only first page) of an opinion survey.

My apologies. I thought of linking to the Wiki article that quoted the results of that survey. But I know many conservatives distrust Wikipedia, so I tried to link to the source. I should pay for the abstract, I guess, but I'm too cheap. Here's the summation in Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_deal#Critical_interpretations_of_New_Deal_economic_policies

Whaples sent out anonymous questionnaires to members of the Economic History Association. Members were asked to either disagree, agree, or agree with provisos with the statement that read:

"Taken as a whole, government policies of the New Deal served to lengthen and deepen the Great Depression"

...74% of those [economists] who worked in the history department, and 51% in the economic department disagreed with the statement outright.[71]

Now it's up to you if you want to accept or reject Wikipedia just for being Wikipedia. But I've seen other sites on line referencing the same abstract and having the same info as the Wikipedia, so that seems accurate.

Why does this opinion survey matter? To me, it matters because these are experts who have dedicated their lives to the fields of economics and economic history. So I think their majority opinion has some weight on this topic.

To refute this, you could find a similar majority consensus against.

Your second link was to a hyper-partisan opinion piece. I will acknowledge that the data re: adjusted real wages may very well have been fact, but it was nonetheless irrelevant to your point.

That piece was not necessarily hyper-partisan. What it was, was a deconstruction of the most recent attempt to claim that FDR made the depression worse rather than helped the US out of it.

But, if you disagree, please feel free to show a similar piece with substantive arguments that FDR made the Depression worse.

Let's look at the ... (Below threshold)
Let's look at the core to most leftist policies. The commie in the Whitehouse

You mean, the current one who took over after the fascist, whose grandfather Prescott was a Nazi sympathizer?

stated it as "I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody." But this same concept was best articulated long ago by another leftist: "From each according to his abilities (e.g. high taxes on the rich), to each according to his needs(e.g. welfare, medicaid, ect.)"

Interesting. You know, here's an interesting conservative Rightist quote, that best articulates the conservative Christian concepts of governing:

Today Christians ... stand at the head of [this country] ... I pledge that I never will tie myself to parties who want to destroy Christianity ... We want to fill our culture again with the Christian spirit ... We want to burn out all the recent immoral developments in literature, in the theater, and in the press--in short, we want to burn out the poison of immorality which has entered into our whole life and culture as a result of liberal excess during the past ... [few] years.

A mister Hitler from somewhere in Germany. Sounds like a lovely man.

Does it seem unfair and inaccurate to compare Adolf Hitler, Nazism and fascism to conservatism? If so, you may consider that comparing "Leftism" to Marx is similarly off-target.

Especially as FDR was not a communist, nor Bill Clinton. They were both capitalists. And Bill Clinton in particular was **extremely** friendly to business.

Skipping over the reasons w... (Below threshold)

Skipping over the reasons why communism doesn't work - which has absolutely nothing to do with FDR or Bill Clinton's tax policies and their record of growth...

If your goal is to minimize the gap between the rich and poor then your ignorant to support Democrats.

My goal is to have the healthiest nation possible.

It is my understanding that the policies Democrats make possible do when leading the country, do that better than when Republicans lead.

An analysis that confirms this is:

http://www.eriposte.com/economy/other/demovsrep.htm

Nearly every economic indicator does better under Democratic US presidents than Republican ones.

As re: # 42, I don't agree. My second paragraph is describing what I view as a road block. One side can in fact do something more than one other side - and ignoring this if it's happening doesn't make anything better, it only makes it worse. Hence the false "bipartisanship" of the news media, that treats Sarah Palin's economic analysis as equal to that of any actual expert who reads.




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

tips@wizbangblog.com

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy