AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

@okie,

Additional comment: policies that are designed to punish, such as tariffs, for imported goods and companies that move offshore, have seldom if ever been shown to work in the past.

0 Replies

@okie,

I did not write that: I cut and pasted it. While I generally attribute what I cut and paste, this time, I did not.

So, how can you judge what reasoning is when you give evidence of never having reasoned a single thing in your long life?

And, once upon a time, both the right and left acknowledged that the chief role of government was to protect the citizenry. When I was a political science major in the '60s, the difference between the two was whether the near branch or the distant branch did a better job of protecting.

In re: corporations, the government is doing no job of protecting the citizenry from them. That is why the wages of 80% of the population have stagnated for 30 years and that wages of the top quintile have soared and why corporations are moving off shore.

Wear loafers, okie?

1 Reply

@xris,

xris wrote:

Once again you make unsubstantiated claims, you think just saying something proves it. How much you can accumulate is not governed by law only the means by which it is obtained. Now tell me how the democrats and Obama have broken the rule of law?

AGAIN!
EVIDENCE JUSTIFYING IMPEACHMENT OF
BARACK OBAMA

http://www.altavista.com/web/results?fr=altavista&itag=ody&q=REASONS+FOR+IMPEACHING+BARACK+OBAMA+&kgs=0&kls=0
1. Barack Obama has unlawfully taken private property from those persons and from those organizations who have lawfully earned it, and given it to those persons and organizations who have not lawfully earned it.

a. Barack Obama has unlawfully exercised the authority of his office to take private property for public use in violation of the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution, which guarantees to the People that “private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation,” and without “due process of law.”

b. Barack Obama has unlawfully interfered with the management of private companies for the purpose of achieving government control of them, in violation of the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution.

c. Barack Obama has unlawfully interfered with the economic rights of the people by imposing unreasonable impairments in the fulfillment of their intended contractual obligations, and their ability to enter into such contracts.

d. Barack Obama has unlawfully attempted to change our fundamental economic system from one governed by the rule of law to one governed by presidential dictate.

2. Barack Obama has unlawfully signed an unconstitutional health care bill.

a. This bill is not authorized by any power of Congress enumerated in the Constitution, not even on a very expansive reading of the power to regulate interstate commerce.

b. This bill violates the Tenth Amendment by commandeering state governments.

3. Barack Obama has unlawfully violated his oath to defend the US Constitution by exercising powers forbidden by the Constitution:

a. Barack Obama has unlawfully used public money to purchase private companies.

b. Barack Obama has unlawfully tried to use public money to create publicly owned companies.

c. Barack Obama has unlawfully embezzled public money allocated by Congress for rescuing distressed private financial institutions, and used it to purchase automobile manufacturing companies.

d. Barack Obama has unlawfully given our public money to finance foreign automobile companies.

e. Barack Obama has unlawfully given our public money to a foreign state to finance their state-run oil company while refusing to allow us to develop our own oil resources.

f. Barack Obama has unlawfully violated the balance of powers by appointing Czars with far reaching powers who are accountable to no one but himself.

g. Barack Obama has unlawfully, as a matter of patronage, stolen private industries from shareholders and given them to workers’ unions.

h. Barack Obama has unlawfully substantially benefitted his political financial supporters by giving public money to foreign industries.

i. Barack Obama has unlawfully arranged very large unscrupulous deals with private companies to exchange public money for his political advertising.

j. Barack Obama has unlawfully attempted to create a public industry, a health insurance company, that would compete with existing and similar private industries in open defiance of the consent of the people, and the letter and intent of the Constitution.

k. Barack Obama has unlawfully attempted to annul freedom of speech by setting up an illegal reporting system for recording the names of dissenters and by publicly attacking private citizens who oppose him.

l. Barack Obama has unlawfully counted illegal aliens as citizens to skew his standing with Congress.

4. Barack Obama has unlawfully conspired to suppress evidence of his true place of birth, and violated the Constitutional provision that a President of the United States shall be a natural born citizen of the United States ( Article II, Section 1, 5th paragraph).
MORE EVIDENCE JUSTIFYING IMPEACHMENT OF BARACK OBAMA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kHxb_vZe7Ao
1. Barack Obama has unlawfully funded his election campaign with foreign contributions;

2. Barack Obama has unlawfully lied about his use of other names;

3. Barack Obama has received grants of aid as a foreign student AND NOT AS AN American citizen born in the United States of America;

4. Barack Obama unlawfully possesses and uses multiple social security cards belonging to other persons;

http://www.breitbart.tv/sen-kyl-says-president-admitted-he-purposely-doesnt-secure-mexican-borderwants-it-open-for-leverage/
5. Barack Obama has appointed executive officers not approved by Congress.

6. Barack Obama about a month ago promised 1200 National Guard troops to guard the Arizona border, but none have arrived.

7. Barack Obama is suing the Arizona government for authorizing Arizona police to request proof of either citizenship or legal immigration when persons are stopped for alleged violation of Arizona laws, and the police officer has reason to believe the person stopped is in the USA illegally.
http://www.newpatriotjournal.com/search.aspx and then use the search word “skimmers”

8. Barack Obama put out a moratorium on deep water off shore oil drilling and based it on his false claim that a panel of experts recommended it.

9. Barack Obama has refused help offered by other countries and private corporations to reduce and eliminate the oil flow in the Gulf of Mexico.

10. Barack Obama has established CCX (Climate Change Exchange; Cap and Trade) to regulate the private use of energy by charging fees for non-government energy uses.

11. Barack Obama has implemented deficit increasing policies and procedures that have reduced total non-government jobs by almost 4 million since he became President (from 143,338,000 to 139,420,000).

12. Barack Obama is attempting to pass bills that will limit freedom of speech, and will permit the President to seize and/or liquidate banks allegedly too big to fail, if he thinks that is required.
http://www.www.wnd.com/?pageId=158617

13. Barack Obama has attempted to bribe candidates for public office to withdraw from running by promising them appointments to the federal government.

14. Obama's justice department has implemented a policy to not prosecute any civil rights or voting rights violations if perpetrated by a black or blacks against a white or whites.

0 Replies

@plainoldme,

AGAIN!

Those 22 statistics YOU POSTED HERE AND IN ANOTHER THREAD say nothing about the transition of people from one economic level to another as they grow older and more experienced--and finally as they retire, and then die falling to the zero economic level.

The middle class is alive and well as some enter it, some stay in it, some rise above it, and some fall below it.

However, since 2008, starting with the BCD (i.e., Bush Congressional Democrats) and subsequently the OCD (i.e., Obama Congressional Democrats), many are more likely subject to transitioning to lower economic levels from the higher levels, even while the upper economic levels themselves are increasing in percentage of total wealth.

BCD made and the OCD are making many of the same mistakes as Hoover and Roosevelt. Hoover and Roosevelt both thought they could cure depressions with higher taxes and more federal spending. Hoover and Roosevelt were wrong. BCD tried to do it by increasing total federal spending and failed. To date so is OCD failing for the same reason. The likely future consequences of OCD's even greater increased spending and promised tax increases is worse.

OCD must be replaced before it is too late to avoid their much worse wreckage of the American economy!

2 Replies

@ican711nm,

Snore! Snore! Snore! Oh, I'm sorry! Did you post something?

0 Replies

@ican711nm,

See, things have to be translated for you. The 22 statistics obviously address people in the work force now. I know that context is difficult for you.

0 Replies

@realjohnboy,

Quote:

JM: You asked me a few pages ago about potential Repub candidates for President in 2012.
I (a Dem) was thinking Mitt Romney. But perhaps he is too much of a centrist in your party with views on some issues that would never appeal to those more to the right.
Newt is well positioned ideologically but, as you noted (and I had to look up), he sure does carry a lot, a lot of negative baggage. I don't see how he can get past that. Debates between him and Obama would be fascinating to watch, though.
Palin is out of her league. I can't imagine the Repubs going with her.
I have been watching Bobby Jindal of LA and Marco Rubio of FL. They seem to me to be rising stars but each has his plate full and may decide to wait until 2016.
Brewer of AZ is a one trick pony.

Is there anyone else I should be watching?

Idologically Romney may not cut it but I think we will have to see how the mid-terms come out and, specifically, how much the Tea Party may have moved the GOP to the right. As I (and others here) have said many times before, this next election cycle will be a harbinger of where this country goes in the future. If long term there is a strong conservative shift in the state legislatures this may allow for a long term shift via redistricting of congressional districts, but, we shall see. If there is little or no conservative shift, I feel that would portend a much different America and, therefore, a less classically liberal international agenda and , possibly, a darker future for all.

But, back to your question.
Strangely enough, Howard Dean on Fox News Sunday gave a rather ringing endorsement of Newt today. It was so gushing that Newt expressed fear the endorsement would be used against him in the 2012 GOP primary (should he decide to run)! Laughing

Dean is an unabashed liberal
who was honest enough to call for the downfall of Obamacare because it wasn't, well, because Obama and Pelosi/Reid gave up the 'Public Option'--kudos to him for his honesty here!

Anyway, Gov Haley Barbour (R-MS) has been mentioned favorably by Human Events in a list of top ten picks and, also, Chris Christie past U.S. Attorney and present Gov of NJ. Of course you probably know about Pawlenty and Indiana's Daniels.

ABC's Jake Tapper had Christie on This Week with a resultant relatively short interview. It was short not because of a paucity of Tapper's questions (I like Tapper in this role, but alas it is not to be) but because Christie's answer's are short and to the point. I think a Gingrich/Christie ticket in 2012 would be absolutely wonderful (Picture an Adams/Tom Paine ticket!)--Newt's academia juxtaposed with that of Obama's. But the real fireworks would be in the VP debates Biden vs. Christie. Biden is prone to gaffs and is sometimes perceived as historically challenged vs. Christie's bulldog like grasp of and use of facts. But I don't see it happening with Newt's past and Christie pretty much promising to get NJ straightened out during the only one term Governor that he says he will govern like. (He feels to do the job correctly many oxen must be gored thereby leaving him politically vulnerable at the end of his term in 2014).

The refreshing thing about Christie is that after hearing him speak his mind you know instantly why you love (or hate ) him. Some Videos here, if you haven’t already treated yourself:

The First is his response to what a reporter referred to as his "confrontational tone":
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/14/chris-christie-pissed-video-nj-governor_n_576279.html

Can you say “Honest and Refreshing” Tom?

The next is a town hall meeting where he is confronted by a teacher complaining about her compensation:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yuri7p_9pm4

Other than Newt, Christie, and ‘refudiation’ Palin* most of the GOP seems lackluster but who knows what will happen in the next 12-18 months.

There is one guy I like in the Florida Congressional race, Allen West (Cand FL-22). A promising future candidate in the GOP. He is a US Army Retired Light Colonel who is an exciting speaker and might have a good political future ahead of him. His website is here: http://allenwestforcongress.com/

Later,

JM

* http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/refudiate-liberalism

1 Reply

@plainoldme,

plainoldme wrote:

I did not write that: I cut and pasted it. While I generally attribute what I cut and paste, this time, I did not.

I thought you were the epitome of proper writing? At least that is what you want everyone to believe, which they don't of course.

Quote:

So, how can you judge what reasoning is when you give evidence of never having reasoned a single thing in your long life?

You claim to use reason, when all you spout is liberal cookbook propaganda all day long?

Quote:

And, once upon a time, both the right and left acknowledged that the chief role of government was to protect the citizenry. When I was a political science major in the '60s, the difference between the two was whether the near branch or the distant branch did a better job of protecting.

In re: corporations, the government is doing no job of protecting the citizenry from them. That is why the wages of 80% of the population have stagnated for 30 years and that wages of the top quintile have soared and why corporations are moving off shore.

Wear loafers, okie?

It would be nice if the government would spend its time protecting us from each other instead of robbing us, the producers, to give to their voters to keep them in office. Why would Obama protect us, when it is obvious the man despises us and all the businesses we own and run. Only he and his beloved Federal Government under his control have any virtue, remember?

0 Replies

@JamesMorrison,

James, I was a Romney supporter during this last election cycle, primarily because I saw him as a level headed and common sense adult with a decent resume of experience, and having proven he could win election and govern effectively not only in a conservative state, but a fairly liberal one as well. Unfortunately, the downside of Romney is that the unbigoted and fair minded Democrats, ha ha, that stand up so freely for religious freedom for even Muslims in this country, would attempt to tear the man into literal shreds for his Mormon religion, and unfortunately a compliant press would cooperate in that effort to paint a very decent and I believe a good man into a literal devil. One of the reasons they would do this is because they hate anyone with any kind of definite moral code of right and wrong. Let me be clear, I am not a Mormon and don't even agree with much of their teachings, but I do respect religious freedom and I do respect Mormons as being mostly decent law abiding and patriotic Americans, and I think Romney is a pretty good man.

0 Replies

@xris,

Quote:

I noticed not one right wing advocate responded to my post on our national health insurance in the UK.

Please supply the link to the post so referenced.

Thanks,

JM

0 Replies

@plainoldme,

plainoldme wrote:

The 22 statistics detailed here prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the middle class is being systematically wiped out of existence in America.

The middle class is everyone who's income is between two numbers. Over time the average income in the country increases and so the whole distribution of income moves up. Now there are fewer people who's income is between those two numbers, they are no longer middle class. In a way the middle class is being wiped out. But what that really means is that the middle-class is having a higher income, and they moved above the middle class limit.

plainoldme wrote:

The rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer at a staggering rate. Once upon a time, the United States had the largest and most prosperous middle class in the history of the world, but now that is changing at a blinding pace.

Correct, but "the rich" and "the poor" are statistical groups. And statistical groups are not people. People move up and down in statistical groups. If you follow actual flesh and blood human beings over time, you find that the opposite is the case. People in the bottom 20% in 1996 had their incomes increase by 91% by 2005. Over that same time, people who were in the top 1% had their incomes decrease by 26%. In other words, the poor are gaining the most and the rich are actually losing money.

plainoldme wrote:

So why are we witnessing such fundamental changes? Well, the globalism and "free trade" that our politicians and business leaders insisted would be so good for us have had some rather nasty side effects. It turns out that they didn't tell us that the "global economy" would mean that middle class American workers would eventually have to directly compete for jobs with people on the other side of the world where there is no minimum wage and very few regulations. The big global corporations have greatly benefited by exploiting third world labor pools over the last several decades, but middle class American workers have increasingly found things to be very tough.

A global free market economy is good for everyone. Developing countries get manufacturing jobs that raise their standards of living, and provide us with cheap goods. While the US gains in high-skill technical work.

plainoldme wrote:

• 83 percent of all U.S. stocks are in the hands of 1 percent of the people.

They're called stock brokers. I bet 90% of diamonds are in the hands of diamond traders.

plainoldme wrote:

• 61 percent of Americans "always or usually" live paycheck to paycheck, which was up from 49 percent in 2008 and 43 percent in 2007.

Not because they lack the money, but because they live above their means and don't save. No amount of wealth can protect you against running out of money at the end of the month. You can always spend one Dollar more than you earn.

plainoldme wrote:

• 66 percent of the income growth between 2001 and 2007 went to the top 1% of all Americans.

As I explained above, these "rich" are not the same people. Actually only a third of the super rich were still in that income group a decade later. That so much growth goes to the top 1% means that people have the opportunity to get rich.

plainoldme wrote:

• 36 percent of Americans say that they don't contribute anything to retirement savings.
• A staggering 43 percent of Americans have less than $10,000 saved up for retirement.
• 24 percent of American workers say that they have postponed their planned retirement age in the past year.

That is a failure to save for retirement, not a lack of money. Americans are vastly richer than our parent generation, who did find the money to save. We just spend it on giant houses, 400 Dollar cell phones and 4 Dollars a cup coffee instead of retirement savings.

plainoldme wrote:

• In 1950, the ratio of the average executive's paycheck to the average worker's paycheck was about 30 to 1. Since the year 2000, that ratio has exploded to between 300 to 500 to one.

If wages rise that is due to scarcity of that type of labor.

plainoldme wrote:

• or the first time in U.S. history, more than 40 million Americans are on food stamps, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture projects that number will go up to 43 million Americans in 2011.

That the government feeds people isn't a sign of them actually being in desperate need to be fed. People can get free food, so they get free food. Nobody needs actually to be fed in this wealthy society.

plainoldme wrote:

• Approximately 21 percent of all children in the United States are living below the poverty line in 2010 - the highest rate in 20 years.

What changed is the poverty line, we keep lowering the bar. A few decades ago "poverty" meant that you were near starvation. Today most of "the poor" own a car, a flat screen and a cell phone.

plainoldme wrote:

• Only the top 5 percent of U.S. households have earned enough additional income to match the rise in housing costs since 1975.

Per-household income figures are misleading because the number of persons in households vary. High-income households are larger with an average of 3.1 people in the top fifth, compared with 2.5 people in the middle fifth and 1.7 in the bottom fifth. Obviously more people earn more money.
They also vary over time. As society grows richer, people who formerly lived together move to their own apartment, and then their income is split among more households and it appears as though household income is stagnating.

plainoldme wrote:

• Despite the financial crisis, the number of millionaires in the United States rose a whopping 16 percent to 7.8 million in 2009.

That's good, right?

2 Replies

@EmperorNero,

EmperorNero wrote:

plainoldme wrote:
• Despite the financial crisis, the number of millionaires in the United States rose a whopping 16 percent to 7.8 million in 2009.

That's good, right?

No, haven't you learned anything from the Democrats and Obama? Millionaires are to be hated and demagogued, and blamed for all of America's problems.

1 Reply

@okie,

okie wrote:

EmperorNero wrote:
plainoldme wrote:
• Despite the financial crisis, the number of millionaires in the United States rose a whopping 16 percent to 7.8 million in 2009.

That's good, right?

No, haven't you learned anything from the Democrats and Obama? Millionaires are to be hated and demagogued, and blamed for all of America's problems.

Come on, it's not about Democrats or Obama. The major parties just switch fourth and back screwing the country. The Republicans set new spending records when they were in office. And every time we think picking the other one will change a thing.

1 Reply

@EmperorNero,

Quote:

Per-household income figures are misleading because the number of persons in households vary. High-income households are larger with an average of 3.1 people in the top fifth, compared with 2.5 people in the middle fifth and 1.7 in the bottom fifth. Obviously more people earn more money.

The only thing that is obvious from that statement is you don't have a working brain cell.

Even assuming the numbers are correct about family size and income, you would have to be assuming that high income households are made up of 3 adults (one man with 2 wives perhaps?) or that children earn 6 figure salaries in high income families. Neither of those assumptions seem very realistic, do they?

2 Replies

@parados,

parados wrote:

Quote:
Per-household income figures are misleading because the number of persons in households vary. High-income households are larger with an average of 3.1 people in the top fifth, compared with 2.5 people in the middle fifth and 1.7 in the bottom fifth. Obviously more people earn more money.

The only thing that is obvious from that statement is you don't have a working brain cell.

Even assuming the numbers are correct about family size and income, you would have to be assuming that high income households are made up of 3 adults (one man with 2 wives perhaps?) or that children earn 6 figure salaries in high income families. Neither of those assumptions seem very realistic, do they?

It's statistical averages, not flesh and blood people. Households with an average of three people are statistically more likely to have a second earner than households with fewer people. That doesn't mean there literally has to be a third person in it, just more people on average. And therefore on average more earners.

And there might be a third earner in a household, a grown child living at home, grandparents, siblings living together or any other household arrangement.

1 Reply

@EmperorNero,

EmperorNero wrote:

Come on, it's not about Democrats or Obama. The major parties just switch fourth and back screwing the country. The Republicans set new spending records when they were in office. And every time we think picking the other one will change a thing.

Come on yourself. Parties do have platforms and policies. The Democrats have been traditional big spenders ever since I can remember, at least going back to LBJ and probably back to FDR. Republicans have also capitulated to spending in efforts to be liked by Congress and to pander to voters. The truth is however that most of our spending is due to entitlements that are continuing to grow out of control unless we get tough and have the guts to change it. The only guy that I can think of that actually did something about it was Newt Gingrich in the 90's. I think some conservatives, Republicans, and Tea Partiers would like to get serious about cutting spending. It is up to us, the voters, to hold their feet to the fire.

1 Reply

@okie,

okie wrote:

EmperorNero wrote:

Come on, it's not about Democrats or Obama. The major parties just switch fourth and back screwing the country. The Republicans set new spending records when they were in office. And every time we think picking the other one will change a thing.

Come on yourself. Parties do have platforms and policies. The Democrats have been traditional big spenders ever since I can remember, at least going back to LBJ and probably back to FDR. Republicans have also capitulated to spending in efforts to be liked by Congress and to pander to voters. The truth is however that most of our spending is due to entitlements that are continuing to grow out of control unless we get tough and have the guts to change it. The only guy that I can think of that actually did something about it was Newt Gingrich in the 90's. I think some conservatives, Republicans, and Tea Partiers would like to get serious about cutting spending. It is up to us, the voters, to hold their feet to the fire.

Well exactly! The Dems are horrible. No disagreeing with you there, but it's not like getting the Republicans in office will change a thing. No party has any interest in sticking to the constitutional mandates of government.
We now have a segregated society where one half of the population pays for the living of the other half. 60% of the population make a net profit in their dealing with the government. Democracy is broken because a dependent majority simply votes for making other people pay more. It's not really democratic in the sense that we collectively decide issues, it's one part of the population deciding what other people have to pay the price for.
Politicians have no reason to appeal to the minority.

1 Reply

@EmperorNero,

Quote:

It's statistical averages, not flesh and blood people. Households with an average of three people are statistically more likely to have a second earner than households with fewer people.

Actually it is flesh and blood.
What is the likely number of adults in a house with 3.1 people? What is the likely number of adults in a house with 2.7 people?

Quote:

And there might be a third earner in a household, a grown child living at home, grandparents, siblings living together or any other household arrangement.

And there might be a dog that is earning a living too. You are proving that you have no facts, only speculation. How many grown children making 6 figures do you know live with their parents who are also working making 7 figures? Paris Hilton doesn't live with her parents. Maybe you can find me one real example. I doubt it though.

1 Reply

@parados,

Did massagatto, I mean, nero, write that nonsense about "Obviously more people earn more money?" I do not read his posts beyond a word or two . . . too stupid. "He" obviously has no idea what a household means.

1 Reply

@parados,

parados wrote:

What is the likely number of adults in a house with 3.1 people? What is the likely number of adults in a house with 2.7 people?

It's one or two adults in both cases. Just that households with an average of 2.7 people are more likely to be single-earner households.

2 Replies

AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know