AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

I love the Onion Walter. If you get that, I'd say you you understand the american sense of humor quite well.

T
K
O

It would have helped me understand better if you had said that rather than appearing to back up Dys's inference that it was intended as a serious article. Then you reinforced that by calling it an urban legend. You gave no indication that you understood that it was a humorous piece.

So, I fully believe that your intent was to reinforce Dys in his intent to make me look bad. Nevertheless, considering the source, I overreacted and I am sorry for that.

I'm glad you brought it up too, Foxy.

They forgot to mention the most incompetent groups of all; Republicans in the WH and Congress. The Rep Congress was the worst, what was it, in history, or whatever, it was phucking awful.

And yet they could be viewed as stellar individuals compared to the WH gang.

Make note, make careful note that you have been offering support for this level of incompetence for a good number of years. What does that say about you?

You certainly don't need Dys's help or anyone else's for that matter. I think your record speaks for itself.

Yeah , they passed the balanced budgets that Billy now brags about adding his signature to.

The Dem congress of '93-'94 sure wouldn't send him a balanced budget.

On the Propaganda thread a discussion has turned to government's role in case of natural disasters and I think that is an important policy issue given the huge expense involved in a Katrina and similar large scale disasters.

What should FEMAs role be? How much responsibility should the government have in restoring a home, a workplace, lost wages, lost possessions?

And returning to the issue of the economy, taxes, and what presidential hopefuls might do about that, the following is pertinent (emphasis mine):

Why Not Blame Obama?
A Commentary By Larry Kudlow
Thursday, April 24, 2008

It's rather amusing watching the liberal media launch a full-scale attack on George Stephanopoulos and Charles Gibson, with Gen. Tom Shales of The Washington Post leading the charge. ABC's Stephanopoulos and Gibson had the audacity to ask Obama some tough questions during the Democratic debate Tuesday night. Challenge Obama with well-informed questions on tax policy and politics? Wound the media favorite? How dare they?

The fallout is fascinating. With members of the mainstream liberal media lunging at each other's throats, it's kind of like watching Hillary and Obama go at it.

But here's the deal: During the debate, Obama bungled his answers on tax policy, big time. Period. End of sentence. End of story. To my liberal friends in the media, all I can say is: Get over it. Your guy has a very poor grasp of basic economic principles.

First off, you don't raise taxes during a recession. That's a no-brainer. Second, doubling the capital-gains tax rate will affect Americans up and down the income ladder, not just rich hedge-fund managers. In addition, capital-gains tax cuts are self-financing, and they stimulate jobs and the economy. You want to raise budget revenues and spark economic growth? Cut the cap-gains tax rate. That's what history shows.

The Wall Street Journal's Steve Moore points out that in 2005, almost half of all tax returns reporting capital gains came from households with incomes under $50,000, while more than three-quarters came from households earning less than $100,000.

Obama also proposed uncapping the payroll tax, another blunder that will hit people up and down the income ladder. While Obama pledges tax hikes only for folks earning more than $200,000 a year, his tax hike on payrolls would actually slam middle-income earners. The cap on wages subject to the payroll tax is presently $102,000. By eliminating that cap, Obama will be soaking veteran firemen, cops, teachers and health-service workers, along with a variety of other occupations.

In fact, in America's largest cities, a firefighter married to a schoolteacher can earn close to $200,000 filing jointly. So not only will each spouse separately pay more for Social Security and health care under Obama's plan, together they'll also be slammed by Obama's cap-gains tax increase.

This is more than just a failure to understand the Laffer curve. It's another cultural misstep by Obama. I can't help but wonder if the senator knows any cops or firemen. His appeal is to well-educated latte liberals. That remark about middle-income folks having turned to God, faith and guns because of economic setbacks? Not only was it ill-advised, it illustrates the wide cultural chasm that exists between the candidate and the rest of America.

In effect, Obama's economics are bad, and his social circle is very limited. This is one of the many reasons why a quarter of the Hillary Democrats are telling pollsters they'll likely move to John McCain in the general election.

Obama's real agenda is far-liberal left. It's an ideology that places income redistribution above economic growth. That's his real message. And it's the same one that sunk Jimmy Carter, Walter Mondale, Michael Dukakis, Al Gore and John Kerry. Bill Clinton? He was a growth Democrat. So he won twice. But Obama is aligning himself with the Democratic losers. And that will make him a loser, as well.

The Pennsylvania results show that Hillary's pit-bull routine worked. But that's a different issue. What I'm saying is that liberals need to quit blaming Gibson and Stephanopoulos for Obama's shortcomings. Instead, they need to blame Obama for failing to grasp how tax penalties on upward mobility will hurt the very people he thinks he's going to help.

Jack Kemp has effectively made the point that African American communities desperately need capital in order to create new businesses and jobs. Yet as Obama takes the capital out of capitalism, all those who are not rich will be hurt when the rich folks with capital have less of it -- after tax -- to invest in those new businesses and new jobs.

That's exactly why wealth-redistribution plans always backfire. Robbing Peter to pay Paul is a surefire economic loser. So is putting government in charge of the economy, which is what Obama is proselytizing.

This marks the third mistake for the Illinois senator. Not only does he not understand economics, not only is he set apart from middle-class values and beliefs, he apparently hasn't read much history, either.

Did someone say inexperience?
LINK TO RASMUSSEN REPORTS

Now we have McCain blaming Bush for Katrina in New Orleans. That is sickening to say the least, as it was the mayor and the governor's responsibility, plus the people were warned a couple days ahead or so. I am tired of McCain pandering again, I may decide not to vote. Besides, what did McCain ever do about fixing the levies, in other words, what has the Senate done since hes been there?

And FEMA's responsibility is after a disaster, not before it, and this has always been the case. There is so much brain dead talk about Katrina, and it is frustrating to see McCain engaged in it.

McCain isn't blaming anyone. He's explaining how he would do it differently. Odds are, some natural diaster may hit during his presidency so he needs to address how he will handle it.

McCain has in fact criticized the Bush administration for the handling of Katrina, and some of that criticism is in fact justified. But I think in the direct criticism, he is mostly criticizing the inefficiency, waste, and corruption that has ensued in the reconstruction. Some of the same criticism is justified in the reconstruction in Iraq--funds siphoned off by some unscrupulous contractors who don't really care if there is much progress.

In both of these cases, I do think McCain might deal with the problems head on and actually do something to put a stop to it. That could be more difficult to do if unscrupulous contractors are darlings of powerful members of Congress. (Do I sound jaded?)

In Bush's defense, no president (or governor) or Director of FEMA has ever had to deal with a disaster of the scope and magnitude of Katrina. Haley Barbour and the mayors of devastated Mississippi towns and cities rose to the occasion and handled it and are handling it however. Louisiana's governor and the Mayor of New Orleans did not. Next time, no matter who is handling it, it will be done better because lessons have been learned.

But sooner or later there will be another "Katrina" whether via hurricane or a massive earthquake in California or whatever. How much responsibility should the federal government have to anticipate, be prepared, and be expected to do in the wake of such an occurrence? And should people who live in such areas have no responsibility at all?

A two-faced liar. A guy who can't remember what he's said from minute to minute. A dream candidate for real conswearvatives.

So he rented his wife's company plane for the same amount it would cost him to rent a plane someplace else?

And the ethical problem with this is....what?

You didn't even read the article, Foxy? Why am I not surprised.

I know that it's easier for you to function in delusion by avoiding the truth.

I read what you posted (which I usually don't) and I didn't see a problem. What problem do you see there?

Read the article.

"I read what you posted (which I usually don't) ..."

You and Tico are so mendacious.

I too find it hard to believe you read it. They used the jet for seven months, and were almost exclusive users of it for five months. They paid an amount that would have chartered a private jet for one or two months. Which means they paid somewhere between about a sixth and a third of what they should have paid. That's what the problem is with that.

That states your observation of what happened, but it doesn't state a problem. "What they should have paid"? Why should they have paid that amount? From the article:



They followed the law. Again, what is the problem?

(Note: This question is directed at Username, not JTT the Troll. I could not care less what his opinion is.)

Of interest, John McCain was a co-sponsor of a bill that would have required candidates to pay the full cost of chartered air travel and he started out that way, but since none of the other primary opponents were doing so, he eventually gave in and started using the family plane.

Apparently Obama and Clinton, so far as we know, have been paying the full cost of their air travel.

They seem to be in a distinct minority though:

NEW YORK TIMES ARTICLE - CANDIDATE AIR TRAVEL

A more recent FOX PIECE is less clear.

Good evening, Ticotroll. How's it hangin', you ole master of mendacity.




Last summer, just before starting to use his wife's plane, Mr. McCain was quoted in a newspaper report as saying that he did not plan to tap her substantial wealth to keep his bid for the Republican presidential nomination going.

"I have never thought about it," Mr. McCain was quoted by The Arizona Republic as saying at a July appearance. "I would never do such a thing, so I wouldn't know what the legalities are."

Sneaky ole Tico!

Picking up from my previous post, it is always hard to know how much a candidate's policies are based on personal ethics and how much on political expediency. Obviously McCain's accepting benefits of the family corporate plane is based on financial expediency in a hugely expersive campaign. But there is room to raise eyebrows re just about everybody:

To wit the following:

http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2008/03/sweet_column_obamas_politicall.html

On the general topic of American Conservatism in 2008 and beyond, I ran across this short essay by David Frum who provides a much different perspective.

Is it possible that those of us who hunger for a revival of Reagan conservatism are out of touch with reality? I have always assumed that most of those who shun the label of "conservative" will actually score more right than left of center given a blind test on a list of issues or points of view.

Perhaps that is no longer the case.

And if not, are we doomed to become more and more "European" with the presumed personal benefits but also with the economic stagnation that appears to be the norm there?

A conservative crisis of followershipLINK