AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

And that's different from what I did because ... ?


Praise from Caesar indeed.

Take what you can get.

So starting a thread with the statement that you want the US to lose the war is showing "support" for the military?

It is to me. What, do you want me to start posting dictionary definitions, like ican't?

Okay you guys have me at a disadvantage here because you can go to short threads you've tagged. Almost all the political threads I post in are those that run for months, years, hundreds of pages, thousands of posts.

But re my criticisms of President Bush, I did run across these. Most are from this thread actually. I hope they meet with your satisfaction.











Okay your turn.

Pretty faint complaints there, I must say. Is that the best?

Cycloptichorn

How about we see some faint compliments from you re President Bush?

All you have to do is look back a page or two, when I did so upon your request.

Cycloptichorn

Faint? They're almost like compliments! LOL

I ran across this, as a comparison between the legacy of the Democratic Party and the Republican Party and its conservatism, in regard to race in the U.S. I don't usually do this, but I think it is important enough to paste the copy here. And something to keep in mind, the last 3 or 4 decades, including the election of Obama, I believe it is instructive to remember that the pact between Democrats and minorities have a whole lot more to do with socialism than it does with individual rights. Republicans have been the party of individuals, rights and responsibilities, while Democrats are now the party of groups and socialism, which explains the shift in politics in that direction, I believe a very dangerous direction for the country.

http://realdemocrathistory.wordpress.com/category/kkk/

"Our nation’s top historians reveal that the Democratic Party gave us the Ku Klux Klan, Black Codes, Jim Crow Laws and other repressive legislation which resulted in the multitude of murders, lynchings, mutilations, and intimidations (of thousands of black and white Republicans). On the issue of slavery: historians say the Democrats gave their lives to expand it, the Republicans gave their lives to ban it.

The Democrats:
Democrats fought to expand slavery while Republicans fought to end it.
Democrats passed those discriminatory Black Codes and Jim Crow laws.
Democrats supported and passed the Missouri Compromise to protect slavery.
Democrats supported and passed the Kansas Nebraska Act to expand slavery.
Democrats supported and backed the Dred Scott Decision.
Democrats opposed educating blacks and murdered our teachers.
Democrats fought against anti-lynching laws.
Democrat Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia, is well known for having been a “Kleagle” in the Ku Klux Klan.
Democrat Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia, personally filibustered the Civil Rights Act of 1964 for 14 straight hours to keep it from passage.
Democrats passed the Repeal Act of 1894 that overturned civil right laws enacted by Republicans.
Democrats declared that they would rather vote for a “yellow dog” than vote for a Republican, because the Republican Party was known as the party for blacks.
Democrat President Woodrow Wilson, reintroduced segregation throughout the federal government immediately upon taking office in 1913.
Democrat President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s first appointment to the Supreme Court was a life member of the Ku Klux Klan, Sen. Hugo Black, Democrat of Alabama.
Democrat President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s choice for vice president in 1944 was Harry Truman, who had joined the Ku Klux Klan in Kansas City in 1922.
Democrat President Franklin D. Roosevelt resisted Republican efforts to pass a federal law against lynching.
Democrat President Franklin D. Roosevelt opposed integration of the armed forces.
Democrat Senators Sam Ervin, Albert Gore, Sr. and Robert Byrd were the chief opponents of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
Democrats supported and backed Judge John Ferguson in the case of Plessy v Ferguson.
Democrats supported the School Board of Topeka Kansas in the case of Brown v The Board of Education of Topeka Kansas.
Democrat public safety commissioner Eugene “Bull” Connor, in Birmingham, Ala., unleashed vicious dogs and turned fire hoses on black civil rights demonstrators.
Democrats were who Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and the other protesters were fighting.
Democrat Georgia Governor Lester Maddox “brandished an ax hammer to prevent blacks from patronizing his restaurant.
Democrat Governor George Wallace stood in front of the Alabama schoolhouse in 1963, declaring there would be segregation forever.
Democrat Arkansas Governor Faubus tried to prevent desegregation of Little Rock public schools.
Democrat Senator John F. Kennedy voted against the 1957 Civil rights Act.
Democrat President John F. Kennedy opposed the 1963 March on Washington by Dr. King.
Democrat President John F. Kennedy, had Dr. King wiretapped and investigated by the FBI.
Democrat President Bill Clinton’s mentor was U.S. Senator J. William Fulbright, an Arkansas Democrat and a supporter of racial segregation.
Democrat President Bill Clinton interned for J. William Fulbright in 1966-67.
Democrat Senator J. William Fulbright signed the Southern Manifesto opposing the Supreme Court’s 1954 Brown vs. Board of Education decision.
Democrat Senator J. William Fulbright joined with the Dixiecrats in filibustering the Civil Rights Acts of 1957 and 1964.
Democrat Senator J. William Fulbright voted against the 1965 Voting Rights Act.
Southern Democrats opposed desegregation and integration.

Democrats opposed:

The Emancipation Proclamation
The 13th Amendment
The 14th Amendment
The 15th Amendment
The Reconstruction Act of 1867
The Civil Rights of 1866
The Enforcement Act of 1870
The Forced Act of 1871
The Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871
The Civil Rights Act of 1875
The Freeman Bureau
The Civil Rights Act of 1957
The Civil Rights Act of 1960
The United State Civil Rights Commission


Republicans gave strong bi-partisan support and sponsorship for the following
legislation:

The Civil Rights Act of 1964
The Voting Rights Act of 1965
The 1968 Civil Rights Acts
The Equal Opportunity Act of 1972
Goals and Timetables for Affirmative Action Programs
Comprehensive Employment Training Act of 1973
Voting Rights Act of Amendment of 1982
Civil Rights Act of 1983
Federal Contract Compliance and Workforce Development Act of 1988
The Republicans:
Republicans enacted civil rights laws in the 1950’s and 1960’s, over the objection of Democrats.
Republicans founded the HBCU’s (Historical Black College’s and Universities) and started the NAACP to counter the racist practices of the Democrats.
Republicans pushed through much of the ground-breaking civil rights legislation in Congress.
Republicans fought slavery and amended the Constitution to grant blacks freedom, citizenship and the right to vote.
Republicans pushed through much of the groundbreaking civil rights legislation from the 1860s through the 1960s.
Republican President Dwight Eisenhower sent troops into the South to desegregate the schools.
Republican President Eisenhower appointed Chief Justice Earl Warren to the Supreme Court, which resulted in the 1954 Brown vs. Board of Education decision.
Republican Senator Everett Dirksen from Illinois, not Democrat President Lyndon Johnson, was the one who pushed through the civil rights laws of the 1960’s.
Republican Senator Everett Dirksen from Illinois wrote the language for the 1965 Voting Rights Act.
Republican Senator Everett Dirksen from Illinois also crafted the language for the Civil Rights Act of 1968 which prohibited discrimination in housing.
Republican and black American, A. Phillip Randolph, organized the 1963 March by Dr. King on Washington.
The 1964 Civil Rights Act Roll Call Vote: In the House, only 64 percent of the Democrats (153 yes, 91 no), but 80 percent of the Republicans (136 yes, 35 no), voted for it. In the Senate, while only 68 percent of the Democrats endorsed the bill (46 yes, 21 no), 82 percent of the Republicans voted to enact it (27 yes, 6 no).

Thaddeus Stevens, a Radical Republican that introduced legislation to give African Americans the so-called 40 acres and a mule and Democrats overwhelmingly voted against the bill.

During the Senate debates on the Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871, it was revealed that members of the Democratic Party formed many terrorist organizations like the Ku Klux Klan to murder and intimidate African Americans voters. The Ku Klux Klan Act was a bill introduced by a Republican Congress to stop Klan Activities.

History reveals that Democrats lynched, burned, mutilated and murdered thousands of blacks and completely destroyed entire towns and communities occupied by middle class Blacks, including Rosewood, Florida, the Greenwood District in Tulsa Oklahoma, and Wilmington, North Carolina to name a few.

History reveals that it was Abolitionists and Radical Republicans such as Henry L. Morehouse and General Oliver Howard that started many of the traditional Black colleges, while Democrats fought to keep them closed. Many of our traditional Black colleges are named after white Republicans.

After exclusively giving the Democrats their votes for the past 25 years, the average African American cannot point to one piece of civil rights legislation sponsored solely by the Democratic Party that was specifically designed to eradicate the unique problems that African Americans face today.

As of 2004, the Democrat Party (the oldest political party in America) has never elected a black man to the United States Senate, the Republicans have elected three."

okie, It's results that counts; it's about our economy and security. Republicans fail on all counts. Look it up on Google.

You do know who's to blame on our current economic crisis don't you?

The war in Iraq was never about "our security," and it's still costing our country lives and billions every week.

Bush's lower taxes didn't create the jobs he promised, but instead his job creation was the worst since Hoover.

What other "proof" do you not see?

Foxfyre, here are two of my additional debatable positions:

(10) Reduce the federal budget to less than 3 trillion per year, and keep it there for at least 10 years;

(11) Amend the Constitution to permit a majority of the states to call for a special election of the president and members of Congress, such that the terms of those elected by that special election shall expire when current terms shall expire.

MY RESPONSES TO YOUR RESPONSES
(1) I think we should divide this debate into two parts:
-a- Those changes that should be made to rescue our Constitutional Republic;
-b- Those changes that can probably be achieved within our lifetimes.
Right now, I'm mainly interested in focusing on -a- changes.

Regarding "exemptions, deductions, etc. ... that we "have not yet agreed on either," I think you already know my view on this and I know yours. To repeat mine here:
I think it essential not to permit any exemptions, deductions, refunds, paybacks, postponements, or anything else that would reduce the flat tax of X% on annual personal gross income from being completely uniform in all respects. Opening the door to only one exception, opens the door to any exception. Besides that, everyone who earns one dollar or more should pay his share of our government's cost of securing their rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness that enabled them to earn that one dollar or more.

(2) Requiring the payment of a uniform flat tax as a condition to vote in federal elections, would not be analogous to either the re-establishment of a poll tax, or a requirement to own property. Requiring an annual payment of a uniform flat tax is establishing that the right to vote for members of Congress or the President depends on whether or not one has paid their share of the cost of securing their rights.

(3) But wouldn't drilling in ANWR contribute to a reduction in the cost of energy, which in turn would contribute to greater energy consumption, which in turn would contribute to plant life on earth having more CO2 available to grow on, which in turn would contribute to plant life taking over our entire planet and making it a jungle? (-|o)

(4) OK!

(5), (6), (7) term limits are recommended for the same reasons (8) is recommended to continue to exist. Permitting elected federal offices to be lifetime jobs has been shown to invite the participation of those people who think their function is to buy voter support anyway they can for as long as they can. Making their terms of office much less than lifetime jobs will reduce the number of candidates who have little or no reason to obey their oath to "support the Constition."

(9) Amending the Constitution to deny the federal government the power to regulate the union part of commerce "among the several states", seems like a good idea. It would introduce competition among the states for union regulations that are the greatest benefit to the general welfare of the people in each state.

On the otherhand, look at how many states now are considering raising tax rates that will cause many of their residents to flee their states for states that are not raising their tax rates. I'd like to think these tax raising states will realize that raising tax rates produces less not more revenue and change their minds. The risk of having each state manage its own unions, could lead to some states collapsing into fascist states as far as the management of businesses in those states are concerned. If that were to happen in even one state, the increased risk of that fascism spreading to other states would not be small.

Foxfyre, please also comment on my two additional debatable positions, (10) and (11).

HISTORY OF THE DECLINE OF THE USA’s FINANCE INDUSTRY

1977
President Carter signs into law CRA (i.e., Community Investment Act) Carter.
Mandates banks invest in poor urban areas.

1991
Home Mortgage Disclosure Act is expanded to compares rejection rates by race.

1995
Clinton changes CRA to require banks provide mortgages to their poorer communities.

1998
Janet Reno declares that since inception of 1992 fair lending initiative, Justice Department has filed 13 major fair lending lawsuits.

2001
*04/…."Bush declares that the size of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is a potential large financial problem because financial trouble of a large "GSE (i.e., Government Sponsored Enterprise) could cause strong repercussions in financial markets."

2003
*01/22"Freddie Mac announces it must restate financial results for the previous 3 years due to earnings report errors.
*06/11"Freddie Mac is the subject of federal securities and criminal investigations.
*09/11"New York Times says, "Bush recommends the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago."
*09/25--Barney Frank responds, "Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac do very good work, and they are not endangering the fiscal health of this country … I believe there has been more alarm raised about potential unsafety and unsoundness than, in fact, exists."
*10/29"Fannie Mae discloses $1.2 billion accounting error.

2004
*06/16"Samuel Bodman, Deputy Secretary of Treasury, repeats Bush Administration call "for a new, first class, regulatory supervisor for three housing GSEs: Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the Federal Home Loan Banking System.
*10/06"Franklin Raines, Fannie Mae CEO, testifies before the House Financial Services Committee, "assets are so riskless that the capital for holding them should be under two percent. "

2006
*04/18"Freddie Mac pays a record $3.8 million Federal Election Commission fine.
*05/23"Fannie Mae’s regulator announces that Fannie Mae has for years overstated reported income and capital by $10.6 billion.
*05/25"Senator John McCain calls for GSE regulatory reform legislation, warning: "If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system and the economy as a whole.”
*11/07"Democrats win majorities in both houses of Congress. The U.S. economy is growing at about 3 percent, unemployment is at 4.5 percent, and inflation under 2 percent.

2007
*06/23"Two Bear Sterns hedge fund groups collapse due to their mortgage investments.
*08/09" President Bush requests Congress pass a reform package for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
*12/06" President Bush warns Congress of need to pass legislation reforming GSEs.

2008
*03/14"J.P. Morgan and the Federal Reserve recognize extent of Bear’s toxic assets, including sub-prime mortgages, and credit default swaps, and interconnection with other banks.
*03/14"At Economic Club of New York, President Bush requests Congress take action and reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
*04/14"President Bush issues a plea to Congress to pass legislation reforming Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
*05/03"President Bush issues a plea to Congress to pass legislation reforming Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
*05/19"President Bush issues a plea to Congress to pass legislation reforming Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
*05/31"President Bush issues a plea to Congress to pass legislation reforming Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
*06/06"President Bush issues a plea to Congress to pass legislation reforming Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
*07/11"Senator Chris Dodd says: "There’s sort of a panic going on today, and that’s not what ought to be. The facts don’t warrant that reaction, in my opinion … Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were never bottom feeders in the residential mortgage market. People ought to feel comfortable about that. "
*07/13"Treasury Secretary Paulson asks Congress to grant him authority to take over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
*09/07"Paulson takes over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and offers them $200 billion, despite the fact their government credit line had been limited to $25 billion.
*09/15"Lehman Brothers officially collapses, the government does not intervene, and panic occurs, triggering a big Dow decline.
*09/16"Nancy Pelosi is asked if the Democrats bear some responsibility for the current crisis on Wall Street. Pelosi answers, "No. "
*09/17"Harry Reid regarding the economic collapse: "No one knows what to do."
*09/18"About 11:00 AM, the Federal Reserve noticed a tremendous drawdown of money market accounts in the United States within two hours, equal to about $550. Treasury puts $105 billion in the system, but quickly realizes it cannot correct the problem.
*09/18"Paulson and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke ask Congress for the required funds"and unprecedented authority to bail out the entire financial system. They say failure to act means "we may not have an economy on Monday."
*09/23" Paulson and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke in Senate Banking Committee testimony outline the $700 billion asset relief program (TARP).
*09/29"That TARP version doesn’t pass the Democrat-controlled House of Representatives.
*10/03"Three days later TARP is passed after about $112 billion is added.
*11/05"The day after Barack Obama’s election, stocks plunge 500 points.
*11/12"Paulson changes the TARP rules from purchasing "troubled assets" to buying bank stocks to spur lending.
*11/23"Paulson gives Citibank a $308 billion bailout.
*12/06"Both houses of Congress agree to bail out the U.S. auto companies.
*12/18"President-elect Obama hints at an $800 billion to $1 trillion stimulus plan within his first month of office, and the Dow drops another 2.5 percent.

2009
*02/10"Treasury Secretary Tim Geitner unveils the Administration’s $2 trillion TARP II plan, and the Dow drops 382 points, or 4.6 percent
*02/17"President Obama signs a $787 billion bailout bill.
*02/18" President Obama reveals his mortgage bailout plan.
*02/19"Rick Santelli says in an impromptu speech on the floor of the Chicago Mercantile Exchange: "The government is promoting bad behavior … How many of you people want to pay for your neighbor’s mortgage? President Obama are you listening?" Santelli calls for a "Chicago Tea Party."
*02/20"The market falls as Chris Dodd, chairman of the Senate Banking Committee floats the idea of nationalizing the nation’s banks. The White House issues a denial, and the Dow ends down 100 points. The Dow is down now more than 800 points"nearly 10 percent"from the day before President Obama’s inauguration.
*02/21"Soros says, "The financial crisis marks end of a free-market model."

"We’ve got trouble right here in [Potomac] river city."

You, of course already "know the rest of the story."

"

SUMMARY OF THE HISTORY OF Unemployment, Income tax Rates, Revenues, and GDP for Carter, Reagan, Bush41, Clinton, and Bush 43.

RELEVANT LINKS:
ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/lf/aat1.txt
Unemployed Table 1942 to 2008
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2051527/posts
Highest and lowest Income Tax Rates 1913 to 2007
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2008/pdf/hist.pdf
Table 1.1 Summary of Budget Receipts Outlays Surpluses or Deficits, 1789-2012 (in millions of dollars)
http://www.bea.gov/national/nipaweb/TablePrint.asp?FirstYear=1965&LastYear=2008&Freq=Year&SelectedTable=5&ViewSeries=NO&Java=no&MaxValue=14412.8&MaxChars=8&Request3Place=N&3Place=N&FromView=YES&Legal=&Land=
Table 1.1.5. Gross Domestic Product

CARTER
Unemployment decreased from 7.7% in 1976, to 7.1% in 1980.
Income tax rates constant 14% min to 70% max in 1976 thru 1980.
Revenues increased from 379,292 million in 1976, to 517,112 million in 1980.
GDP increased from 1,825.3 billion in 1976, to 2,789.5 billion in 1980.

REAGAN
Unemployment decreased from 7.1% in 1980, to 5.5% in 1988.
Income tax rates decreased from 14% min to 70% max in 1980, to 15% min to 33% max in 1988.
Revenues increased from 517,112 million in 1980, to 909,303 million in 1988.
GDP increased from 2,789.5 billion in 1980, to 5,103.8 billion in 1988.

BUSH 41
Unemployment increased from 5.5% in 1988, to 7.5% in 1992.
Income tax rates decreased from 15% min to 33% max in 1988, to 15% min to 31% max in 1992.
Revenues increased from 909,303 million in 1988, to 1,091,328 million in 1992.
GDP increased from 5,103.8 billion in 1988, to 6,337.7 billion in 1992.

CLINTON
Unemployment decreased from 7.5% in 1992, to 4.0% in 2000.
Income tax rates increased from 15% min to 31% max in 1992, to 15% min to 39.6% max in 2000.
Revenues increased from 1,091,328 million in 1992, to 2,025,457 million in 2000.
GDP increased from 6,337.7 billion in 1992, to 9,817.0 billion in 2000.

BUSH 43
Unemployment increased from 4.0% in 2000 to 4.6% in 2007.
Unemployment increased from 4.6% in 2007 to 7.2% in 2008.
Income tax rates decreased from 15% min to 39.6% max in 2000, to 10% min to 35% max in 2006,
Income tax rates constant from 10% min to 35% max in 2006, to 10% min to 35% max in 2008,
Revenues increased from 2,025,457 million in 2001, to 2,662,476 million in 2008.
GDP increased from 9,817.0 billion in 2000 to 14,280.7 billion in 2008.

Not sure this is possible without starting to roll back the most expensive entitlements and eliminating all but Constitutionally authorized activities, and that must be done as slowly as it has been forced upon us lest we cause unconscionable pain and difficulty for millions of Americans. And we would not want to hamstring the government and make it unable to fulfill its Constitutionally mandated responsibilities.

So it is a chicken and egg kind of thing I think. Do we reduce spending and THEN mandate spending caps on government? Or do we mandate a spending cap and leave it up to Congress to reduce whatever spending to meet it? Do you really trust Congress that much?

Yes, the federal government should be a fraction of its current size and should limit itself to those responsibilities assigned to it in the Constitution. But getting back to that point has to be handled prudently. It can't be done instantly.



How do you envision this working? I'm not certain I fully understand whatyou're saying here.

MY RESPONSES TO YOUR RESPONSES
(1) I think we should divide this debate into two parts:
-a- Those changes that should be made to rescue our Constitutional Republic;
-b- Those changes that can probably be achieved within our lifetimes.
Right now, I'm mainly interested in focusing on -a- changes.



In theory I agree with you. Certainly every voter should be paying taxes on his/her income. In In practice however, I think there is no reasonable or practical way to impose taxes on the kid who gets paid $10 for cutting my lawn. (If I had a lawn.) In other words, I don't want the responsibility for all that paper work and probably wouldn't hire the kid if I had to take care of that. And I don't want to deny the kid the job. So need to think on that one some more.



Okay I'm thinking about this one too. There's still red flags popping up for me re this but I won't say no without giving it some careful consideration.



I'll take a chance.

OK!



Term limits are an attractive idea but I still would prefer to leave that up to the people. Wouldn't not letting the representatives vote on their own expense account, wages, retirement package but leaving that up to the states serve to keep the representatives more responsive to the states? And if we require Congress to return to its Constitutional roots so that all votes must consider the general welfare rather than benefit to any individual state, region, entity, or group, that would help too.

Let's hash this one out some more.



So long as the Federal government fulfills its responsibility to protect individual rights, the states will be allowed to only go so far with Marxist or Facist ideology. And those who push the limits as far as they can go will probably see their revenues and brightest and best fleeing the state to more hospitable environments and will most likely reform themselves to become more attractive again. At any rate, when most of the laws that most affect us are initiated closer to home, we are more likely to pay attention to them and exert our Constitutional right to a vote, free speech, and rights of redress.

I'm guessing that the average citizen pays a whole lot more attention to what is happening in Washington DC than they pay attention to what their own State or City government is doing to them or on their behalf. I'm further guessing that if most of the action is local instead of in Washington DC, local government will become a great deal more transparent and important.

And now I need to finish my 2008 taxes.

I would much rather do this.

ican, All your links are a waste of time and energy. All we need is a graph that shows how presidents have fared since 1945:



You're a joke as are your links.

Reagan did pretty well, but GHBush pretty much destroyed everything Reagan accomplished.

Employment plummeted in Reagan's second term.

Gleanings from my email today. Anybody have a quarrel with this one?

Members of Congress should be compelled to wear uniforms like NASCAR drivers, so we can identify their corporate sponsors.

I am a bit surprised you would post this. After all, the number of lobbyists exploded during the past eight years.