AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

What is wrecking the economy is the policies which have been put in place by Bush backed up by a republican/democratic congress which has been very conservative in that it stripped all government programs of funds by the tax cuts and then spent too much money on the Iraq war which again has been run on credit have to pay for in interest. Moreover; the oil companies and other big countries have had huge tax credits while we have had to pay higher and higher energy prices and higher prices for goods that are lower in quality to boot. Also every time the economy got in trouble; the fed kept lowering the interest rates which encouraged borrowing and it is now coming home to slap us in the face.

These figures are from an analysis of detailed tables in the "Analytical Perspectives" book of the Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2009. The figures are federal funds, which do not include trust funds - such as Social Security �- that are raised and spent separately from income taxes. What you pay (or don't pay) by April 15, 2008, goes to the federal funds portion of the budget. The government practice of combining trust and federal funds began during the Vietnam War, thus making the human needs portion of the budget seem larger and the military portion smaller.

*Analysts differ on how much of the debt stems from the military; other groups estimate 50% to 60%. We use 80% because we believe if there had been no military spending most (if not all) of the national debt would have been eliminated.

Revel, please tell me how much veteran expenses have gone up in relation to the amount the budget for veterans affairs has gone up. Please give me links to those specific cuts in any active social programs anywhere that were not offset by increases somewhere else in the same program. You are the one suggesting Bush has shortchanged this or that. Show me where he has.

I have not said there were cuts what I said was benefits have not kept up with rising cost for veterans since the wars.


Battling for a Diploma


Mikulski Fights to Improve Veterans' Burial Benefits

RANDY L. PLEVA, SR., NATIONAL PRESIDENT, PARALYZED VETERANS OF AMERICA

Quote:

For FY 2008, the Administration has requested $34.2 billion for veterans' health care, a $1.9 billion increase over the levels established in H.J. Res. 20, the continuing resolution for FY 2007. Although we recognize this as another step forward, it still falls well short of the recommendations of The Independent Budget. For FY 2008, The Independent Budget recommends approximately $36.3 billion, an increase of $4.0 billion over the FY 2007 appropriation level and approximately $2.1 billion over the Administration's request.

Although not proposed to have a direct impact on veterans' health-care funding, we are deeply disappointed that the Administration chose to once again recommend an increase in prescription drug copayments from $8 to $15 and an indexed enrollment fee based on veterans' incomes. These proposals will simply add additional financial strain to many veterans, including PVA members and other veterans with catastrophic disabilities. Although the VA does not overtly explain the impact of these proposals, similar proposals in the past have estimated that nearly 200,000 veterans will leave the system and more than 1 million veterans will choose not to enroll. It is astounding that this Administration would continue to recommend policies that would push veterans away from the best health-care system in America.

Posting pie charts of large general areas of where the budget is spent is worthless in evaluating where the money SHOULD be spent. This is more particularly true when the supporting stuff is from a dedicated anti-war, site.

I will leave the pie charts aside because frankly it is beyond me. My main point was that any money spent on Iraq was money better spent at home because we no business being there even if congress did give consent to it; they were acting like republican lights at the time.

And again, it is NOT the President who passes the budget. It is Congress with that responsibility and currently that Congress is in the hands of the Democrats. Please show me where they have raised the budget adequately where you think it should be raised and how the President didn't allow them to do that.

Again I think democrats in congress was too conservative and I think I am seeing a change in that among democrats which I view as positive.

Veterans



And please show me how the treasury revenues have suffered in any respect caused by the tax cuts implemented during Bush's term of office.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/03/28/politics/washingtonpost/main3978743.shtml?source=RSSattr=Politics_3978743

Quote:

Why would tax cuts hurt the economy? Because their one very clear effect was to increase the budget deficit. Combined with spending on the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and a huge new prescription drug benefit for Medicare recipients, the cuts helped drive the annual deficit to a peak of nearly $413 billion in 2004. Last year, it dwindled to $162 billion. But the nation's cumulative debt has nearly doubled since Bush took office and now exceeds $9 trillion.

"If tax cuts aren't paid for, the extra debt hurts the economy more than any direct benefit from the tax cuts," said Jason Furman, a former adviser to President Bill Clinton who is now at the Brookings Institution. "If you cut taxes without cutting spending, you're just shifting taxes to the future."

There is little disagreement among most economists on that point. Even the Bush Treasury Department found that failing to cut government spending commensurate with the tax cuts would leave the cuts with a "negligible effect" on the economy, Carroll said.

Because the tax cuts were projected to yield giant budget deficits, they were written to expire in 2010. Bush and other Republicans, including McCain, want to make them permanent, arguing that the specter of higher taxes in 2011 is adding uncertainty to and weakening today's economy. That move that would deprive the treasury of $2.4 trillion over the next 10 years, according to the Joint Committee on Taxation.

And then show me how the President went to war without the consent of Congress and where he has funded anything on the war that has not been authorized by Congress.

I don't care if president with the consent of congress or not; they were all wrong and I left countless of links which prove the president at least should have known better not too long ago to you as a matter of fact on the Israel thread. So it is a war of choice with funds better spent at home.

Again I hoping for a change in direction with a leader in office capable of leading our country in the right direction.

And then maybe, just maybe, when you find you are unable to do any of these things, you will maybe see the Conservative point of view that blame should be focused where it belongs instead of using partisan talking points to bash the President just because you don't like him or accusing the President of all manner of absurd accusations that simply don't hold up under any kind of honest scrutiny.

There are plenty of "crimes" for which the President should be figuratively hung. So far you have failed to name a single one of them but presume to hang him for all manner of crimes he simply has not committed.

I have named countless crimes (or at least wrong headed actions) on the president having mainly to do with the lead up to the Iraq war and his ignoring intelligence which didn't fit his agenda; his unwarrented use of wiretapping, torture.. I can go on and I have left countless links on several threads. I am not going through it all again as I feel comfortable in that I have proved my case against this administration which does not excuse the democrats in congress at the time who bought all the bull crap in aftermath of 9/11. Whether you think i have is another story.

I am not saying that the prosecution of the war has not been expensive or there wouldn't be more pleasant ways to spend that money. But the answer sure isn't what most liberals seem to think we should do about it now.

I appreciate having a film clip with subtitles. The commentator may have oversimplified and made unwarranted generalizations about British Muslims, but he's entitled to his opinion. On the other hand, I don't think he overstepped the bounds of propriety, nor was as objectionable as those radical Muslims who demand that our culture be transformed to accommodate their own peculiar customs. Threats and demands by radical Muslims certainly at times appears to represent the Islamic mainstream. If the more moderate Muslims aren't willing to protest their radicals, they empower them. Oh, oh, oh looky, looky a conservative using a Left wing term like empowerment. Wonders that may fortell the End of Time. Oh well...

The bit I liked best was, "my freedom is more important to me than their religion."

(Oh and to Revel, the truth of those tax cuts is that they produced an unprecedented cash flow into the U.S. Treasury.

Foxfyre wrote:

(Oh and to Revel, the truth of those tax cuts is that they produced an unprecedented cash flow into the U.S. Treasury.

In inflation adjusted dollars? You need to post an attribution for that.

Speaking of our friends from the Middle East and similar places, this is an amusing but nevertheless thought provoking commentary on a particular perspective of a Brit dealing with that in the UK. Warning: it is politically incorrect and will probably be subject to criticism by some of our members. I wonder if it will hit a responsive chord with our conservatives? (Note to Ash: it has captions.)

http://www.dotsub.com/films/moredemands/index.php?autostart=true&language_setting=en_1618

Be sure to have your speakers turned up.

'Allying with Christian Zionists is bad for Israel'

By Shmuel Rosner

Rabbi Yoffie slams rejection of 2-state solution, blasts evangelical leader Hagee over attacking other faiths.


NEW YORK - "No, we cannot." We cannot cooperate with the Christian Zionists, Rabbi Eric H. Yoffie, President of the Union for Reform Judaism, told the annual conference of the movement's rabbis and cantors Wednesday night in Cincinnati, Ohio, according to copies of the speech distributed ahead of time to the press.

Not an easy thing to say, considering their powerful numbers and the depth of the Evangelicals' support for Israel. But Yoffie thinks it is important - not because of their stance on abortion, their policies against homosexuals or the fact they do not respect members of other religions.

These elements certainly add to the argument, particularly the last factor, but they are not the main reasons. "What they mean by support of Israel and what we mean by support of Israel are two very different things," Yoffie says, highlighting the real reason.
Advertisement

No one familiar with Yoffie's record and his positions on Israel would question his commitment to the state. He is one of the main proponents within the URJ for tightening the movement's bond with Israel, a bond that has not always been self-evident. This gives Yoffie's declaration special importance.

This isn't the first time the issue has come up among American Jews, but in the past most of the focus was on domestic issues. To put it simply, the question was: What's more important - fighting the Evangelicals over the image of America, or allying ourselves with them for Israel's sake? Two and a half years ago, Yoffie himself slammed the Evangelicals' attitudes to homosexuality.

In his speech Wednesday night, however, Yoffie declared that an alliance with Christian Zionists must be rejected for the sake of Israel. Christian Zionist support for Israel is harmful, he said. It's not "unconditional support for the Jewish state," but rather support for certain leaders, certain parties, for a political agenda that is unacceptable to Yoffie and, he believes, to a majority of Israelis. The Evangelicals reject a two-state solution and oppose Israeli territorial concessions, and for that reason the Reform Movement cannot cooperate with them.

Yoffie's speech focused on one man: John Hagee, founder of the Christians United for Israel lobby group. That in itself is notable, since Hagee ostensible received the stamp of approval when he was invited to speak to an AIPAC policy conference last year.

Foxfyre wrote:

Speaking of our friends from the Middle East and similar places, this is an amusing but nevertheless thought provoking commentary on a particular perspective of a Brit dealing with that in the UK. Warning: it is politically incorrect and will probably be subject to criticism by some of our members. I wonder if it will hit a responsive chord with our conservatives? (Note to Ash: it has captions.)

http://www.dotsub.com/films/moredemands/index.php?autostart=true&language_setting=en_1618

Be sure to have your speakers turned up.

Many thoughts on the vid.

1) I recognize it as the view of an individual and not the view of any particular worldview.

2) While he appropriately makes a distinction between Muslims and Islamofacists, he flirts with lumping up all of Islam in many genral statements.

In general, I don't disagree with a lot of what he said. There were definately times when I felt he mixed some issues which are unrelated. He then took it a step further drawing some conclusions after that. Some conclusions which I wouldn't make.

Also, on the subject of "political correctness," I have yet to hear a single liberal here invoke a PC rationale in any argument. I have seen plenty of conservatives complain about political correctness. It seems this idea is only still alive on the right, not the left.

T
K
O

Revel if you want to fight the Iraq war all over again, there is a thread devoted specifically to that and any number of "Bush lied - people died" and other threads of that ilk. Please forgive me, but I don't want to turn this thread into that. You have chosen to not answer my specific questions but rather are still spewing the same old tired anti-Bush propaganda. I'm pretty sure that everybody who requests money from the government feels they didn't get all they deserve or need and everybody who wants money from the government thinks their cause is more deserving than any other, so a quote from somebody who is 'deeply disappointed' that their increase in funding 'wasn't enough' provides no substance of fact whatsoever.

The hypocrisy comes in when some call 'not increasing funding as much as was requested' a 'cut' and/or those who complain about government spending out of one side of their mouth and then accuse the government of 'not spending enough' out of the other.

I'm not targeting you specifically here, but refusal to acknowledge how the money actually gets allocated and apportioned just so they can take punches at the President is just plain ignorance or hateful partisanship.

Most of that amount (more than $9 billion per month) is related to operations inIraq. Of that amount, about 70 percent has been allocated for the war in Iraq, CBO estimates.

Revel, you do understand that the money being spent in Iraq won't be available for anything else unless we seriously reduce the armed forces? The soldiers still have to be paid, trained, maintained, etc. The contractors will be coming home and any war industries will need to be shut down so for awhile there is likely to be higher unemployment compensation to be paid. And since Congress has not reduced spending ANYWHERE but has chosen to finance the war mostly on credit, that money just simply goes away.

So, assuming that I am more or less accurate about that, again, please answer whether you think we benefit by admitting defeat, tucking tail, and running in Afghanistan and Iraq. You don't think that al Qaida and other terrorist groups won't see that as a huge victory and incentive to step up their activities?

Please answer my question whether other US military installations should also be dismantled and brought home.

Please answer my question whether you want to pay higher taxes to fund those programs you think are underfunded.