55
   

AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

 
 
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Apr, 2009 04:55 pm
All politicians avoid the word "promise," on any side of the political spectrum. They will always qualify their statements as Obama does quite well. That's politics and:

We live in a moment of history where change is so speeded up that we begin to see the present only when it is already disappearing.
- R. D. Laing
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Apr, 2009 05:35 pm
@parados,
I think you are misinterpreting how the study was done. And what the study was about.
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Apr, 2009 06:06 pm
And re that promise to cut the budget in half? There's a LOT of stuff out there about that:





Quote:
Obama vows to cut huge deficit in half
By MIKE ALLEN | 2/22/09 6:58 AM EST

President Obama will announce Monday that he plans to cut the nation’’s projected annual deficit in half by the end of his first term, a senior administration official said Saturday.

The plan will make explicit what Obama officials have been suggesting for months: Contrary to his campaign promise, Obama will allow the Bush tax cuts on the wealthiest Americans expire as scheduled at the end of 2010 instead of seeking their repeal sooner. Officials determined that seeking to raise the taxes earlier during a recession was a bad idea, advisers said.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0209/19124.html


Quote:
President Barack Obama's pledge to cut deficit in half a huge challenge
Experts say numbers defy halving shortfall by end of his term
By Janet Hook and Peter Nicholas | Washington Bureau
February 26, 2009
WASHINGTON "" As President Barack Obama presents his first budget Thursday, the most daunting goal he sets may not be the ambitious proposals for economic recovery, health-care reform or revamping the nation's energy policy. Big as those challenges are, they may be child's play compared to his promise to slash the federal budget deficit in half by the end of his term.
Two problems already are apparent if he is to cut the $1.3 trillion deficit to $533 billion. First, many of the methods he says he will use have often fallen short in the past""cutting waste, imposing new budget rules, curbing defense outlays and raising taxes on the affluent.

Second and potentially harder to overcome: There is fresh evidence that, for all the talk of fiscal responsibility, Congress is not ready to mend its free-spending ways.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-budget_thursfeb26,0,6698914.story


Quote:
Obama aims to cut deficit in half by 2013
Updated 2/23/2009
President Obama's 2010 budget includes plans for defense cuts, including a rollback of the Iraq war
By David Jackson, USA TODAY

WASHINGTON "" Now that his $787 billion stimulus bill is law, President Obama plans to spend this week promoting a budget plan designed to cut the federal deficit in half by the end of his first term.
The president will host a "fiscal responsibility summit" at the White House on Monday and will give a prime-time speech to Congress on Tuesday before unveiling a budget overview Thursday.

White House spokeswoman Jen Psaki confirmed that the administration pegs the current deficit at $1.3 trillion, or 9.2% of the overall economy, and projects that in four years the deficit will be down to $533 billion, or 3% of the economy as measured by the gross domestic product.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2009-02-22-obamaecon_N.htm Text Size:





ican711nm
 
  0  
Reply Wed 29 Apr, 2009 06:12 pm
Obama and his supporters are simpletons. They have chosen to solve the USA economy problems created by Bush’s excessive spending and lending, by INCREASING instead of decreasing that excessive spending and lending.
0 Replies
 
Lightwizard
 
  2  
Reply Wed 29 Apr, 2009 06:45 pm
@Foxfyre,
Where do you get a promise out of any of that? Answer: it isn't there.
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Apr, 2009 07:48 pm
@Lightwizard,
Well technically "pledge" is a different word than "promise" but perhaps you can explain to me how saying "I pledge to cut the deficit in half" is different from saying "I promise to cut the deficit in half"?

Definition from the free online dictionary: pledge (plj)
n.
1. A solemn binding promise to do, give, or refrain from doing something
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Apr, 2009 07:52 pm
Third poll now has Republican self-identification at 20 or 21 %. http://documents.nytimes.com/new-york-times-cbs-news-poll-obama-s-100th-day-in-office#p=30
Lightwizard
 
  2  
Reply Wed 29 Apr, 2009 08:00 pm
@Foxfyre,
So apparently you trust journalists and media more than lawyers. Pledge is their headline, and the President in the next "aims" and "plans" to cut the deficit. Another journalist paraphrases with "vows," another word I can't find Obama using. If you that easily tricked my journalists, your just as easily tricked by the lawyers in the Congress and the Senate. They're called headlines, or in journalism, "hooks." They just wait for you to fall for the line and sinker.

So, again, did I miss something or where did Obama himself say, "I pledge to cut the deficit in half?"
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Apr, 2009 08:13 pm
@Lightwizard,
Quote:
President Barack Obama's pledge to cut deficit in half a huge challenge
Experts say numbers defy halving shortfall by end of his term

By Janet Hook and Peter Nicholas | Washington Bureau
February 26, 2009

WASHINGTON " As President Barack Obama presents his first budget Thursday, the most daunting goal he sets may not be the ambitious proposals for economic recovery, health-care reform or revamping the nation's energy policy. Big as those challenges are, they may be child's play compared to his promise to slash the federal budget deficit in half by the end of his term.

Two problems already are apparent if he is to cut the $1.3 trillion deficit to $533 billion. First, many of the methods he says he will use have often fallen short in the past"cutting waste, imposing new budget rules, curbing defense outlays and raising taxes on the affluent.

Second and potentially harder to overcome: There is fresh evidence that, for all the talk of fiscal responsibility, Congress is not ready to mend its free-spending ways.


Pledges are fine, but without the cooperation from congress, it's gonna be impossible.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Apr, 2009 09:38 pm
@Lightwizard,
Lightwizard wrote:

So apparently you trust journalists and media more than lawyers. Pledge is their headline, and the President in the next "aims" and "plans" to cut the deficit. Another journalist paraphrases with "vows," another word I can't find Obama using. If you that easily tricked my journalists, your just as easily tricked by the lawyers in the Congress and the Senate. They're called headlines, or in journalism, "hooks." They just wait for you to fall for the line and sinker.

So, again, did I miss something or where did Obama himself say, "I pledge to cut the deficit in half?"


Yes, if you listen to the second YouTube clip, he lays out the situation and toward the end says, "and that is why today I am pledging to cut the deficit (we inherited) in half. . . . ." or at least that is very close to what he said.
A Lone Voice
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Apr, 2009 09:46 pm
@Debra Law,
Quote:

Torture does NOT pale in comparison to interning US citizes. Both are reprehensible.

Our government officially apologized for violating the civil rights of Japanese-Americans. The Civil Liberties Act, signed by President Reagan, "provided $1.65 billion in restitution to 82,000 individuals of Japanese ancestry who had been subjected to evacuation, relocation and internment during World War II."

When you stop worshipping Bush's imperial presidency, maybe your head will be clear enough for you to understand that torture and abuse is never acceptable. How much restitution do we owe a human being for nearly suffocating him to death 183 times? How do we make amends to the whole world and regain our moral center? We can start by investigating and prosecuting those responsible for the torture and abuse.



Bush was an idiot, as I've said here many times.

You sure seem to worship at the alter of the far left, including the Obama presidency, though.

You are also living in an echo chamber re ‘torture.’ Just because others on the left keep repeating themselves doesn’t make it true. While some of the repubs are agreeing with Obama, not everyone in the dem party is agreeing with him, either. It is not as clear cut of an issue as those of you on the far left would like to believe.

How about answering my question? Shouldn't the Obama admin track down FDR admin officials who were in the decision making loop re interment camps, much as Germany hunts down Nazis to this day?

Or should the Eisenhower admin have launched an investigation?

Just because we apologized as a country, these people are off the hook?

How do you feel about Truman dropping the bomb on Japan? Shouldn't Obama be hunting down those people involved in that decision?

You sure seem to pick and choose your outrage...
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Apr, 2009 10:29 pm
@A Lone Voice,
ALV, You do well what most conservatives do; divert the issue of torture back to a time most people were not born nor understand the difference the world had about the casualties of war. The subject of torture has been studied and described as illegal by both our country and international laws (Geneva Convention of which we are signatories).

The reason Obama will not classify the crime against the Bush regime is simple; he wants the legal system to prosecute crimes, not the president's office.

Most legal scholars in this country has already classified waterboarding as torture and illegal.

Repeating anything may be true or untrue, but waterboarding by both domestic and international opinion already classified waterboarding as illegal. Them are the facts.
A Lone Voice
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Apr, 2009 12:04 am
@cicerone imposter,
Quote:

Most legal scholars in this country has already classified waterboarding as torture and illegal.


I appreciate your candor here. You're correct, not all legal scholars have classified water boarding as torture.

And, I'm not trying to divert; I'm asking for consistent thinking among those on the left. You speak about the differences the world had to the casualties of war; perhaps the US had differences to terrorist attacks. Liberals in congress back then did, at least...
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  2  
Reply Thu 30 Apr, 2009 01:09 am
@Foxfyre,
Could you tell me how I misinterpreted it? It seems pretty straight forward.
They took members of Congress, checked where they were on the liberal scale then then used the median congressman as their median between liberal and conservative. If you think they used a different system, please explain it.
0 Replies
 
Debra Law
 
  0  
Reply Thu 30 Apr, 2009 05:27 am
@A Lone Voice,
Debra Law wrote:

Torture does NOT pale in comparison to interning US citizes. Both are reprehensible.

Our government officially apologized for violating the civil rights of Japanese-Americans. The Civil Liberties Act, signed by President Reagan, "provided $1.65 billion in restitution to 82,000 individuals of Japanese ancestry who had been subjected to evacuation, relocation and internment during World War II."

When you stop worshipping Bush's imperial presidency, maybe your head will be clear enough for you to understand that torture and abuse is never acceptable. How much restitution do we owe a human being for nearly suffocating him to death 183 times? How do we make amends to the whole world and regain our moral center? We can start by investigating and prosecuting those responsible for the torture and abuse.



Lone Voice wrote:
Bush was an idiot, as I've said here many times.


Unlike you, Bush knows that abusing and torturing prisoners is both morally and legally wrong. While Bush was in office, he told the whole world that our country investigates allegations of abuse and torture and we prosecute the offenders. He has proven himself to be a duplicitous meglomaniac who caused great harm to this country. The rest of us should not follow in his footsteps.


Lone Voice wrote:
You sure seem to worship at the alter of the far left, including the Obama presidency, though.


I respect the rule of law. I understand that the law applies to everyone. If this is an attribute that you find to be unique to the "far left," then what does that say about all those who are positioned to the right of the far left?

Lone Voice wrote:
You are also living in an echo chamber re ‘torture.’ Just because others on the left keep repeating themselves doesn’t make it true.


A multitude of people from every segment of society, including people "on the right," condemn the torture and abuse of prisoners. We know that prisoners in the custody of our government were abused and tortured based on the information that has been released thus far. A criminal investigation is necessary to determine the full extent of our government's mistreatment of prisoners and the law breakers must be prosecuted. If we truly adhere to our core principles, then that's the way we must do things in this country.

Lone Voice wrote:
While some of the repubs are agreeing with Obama, not everyone in the dem party is agreeing with him, either. It is not as clear cut of an issue as those of you on the far left would like to believe.


Whether investigating allegations of criminal conduct is agreeable to some and/or disagreeable to others is irrelevant. This is not a popularity contest. Allegations of criminal conduct must be investigated, evidence must be gathered, and the offenders must be brought to justice.

Lone Voice wrote:
How about answering my question? Shouldn't the Obama admin track down FDR admin officials who were in the decision making loop re interment camps, much as Germany hunts down Nazis to this day?


I have responded to your arguments and queries as have several other posters, but you do not extend the same courtesy. If we have sufficient evidence to establish probable cause to believe that someone committed a crime in the past, and the statute of limitations does not prohibit prosecution, then yes--our present day law enforcement authorities should bring the law breakers to justice.

It may be the case that someone who held a government position in the past, whether it be 70 years ago, committed a crime and got away with it. But that possibility does not constitute an excuse for letting the government officials of the last administration to get away with recent crimes. Government officials are not above the law. The law applies to everyone, not just the lowly masses.

This needs to be posted again:

Justice Brandeis wrote:
Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the Government's purposes are beneficent. Men born to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil-minded rulers. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding. . . .

Decency, security, and liberty alike demand that government officials shall be subjected to the same rules of conduct that are commands to the citizen. In a government of laws, existence of the government will be imperiled if it fails to observe the law scrupulously. Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. To declare that in the administration of the criminal law the end justifies the means-to declare that the government may commit crimes in order to secure the conviction of a private criminal-would bring terrible retribution. Against that pernicious doctrine this court should resolutely set its face.


OLMSTEAD v. U.S., 277 U.S. 438 (1928) (J. Brandeis, dissenting).


Woiyo9
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Apr, 2009 06:00 am
@Debra Law,
Drunk
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Apr, 2009 07:36 am
@blatham,
Pew has Republican self-identification now at 22%. It was 30% in 2004.

This party is on the verge of becoming like the old bitter lady on the other side of the fence who does nothing positive for the neighborhood and who refuses to throw back the softball that landed in her yard.

The purposeful marginalization of anyone of moderate voice began with Rove, Abramoff, Reed, and Norquist in their stints with the college republicans. Internal mechanisms which might have provided a significant body of bright young people coming up and gaining experience politically have also been shifted over, in large part, to the extremist parts of the party (some exceptions...as in the legal sphere even if they too are more extremist than I'd like).

Contrary to what Fox and talk radio have been trying to insist, the growing "independent" group can't be counted on to fill the ranks of missing Republican voters - their interests and ideologies are too varied and they are increasingly voting Democrat. Republicans are, and will be for the foreseeable future, relegated to the south and out of power nationally.
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Apr, 2009 08:09 am
@Foxfyre,
He follows up with, "It won't be easy," and getting some legislation through congress, getting people employed and other factors are the problems that must be overcome in order for the deficit to drop. It's an arbitrary goal to state "half," when in fact, it could be 40%. However, I can't see that everyone wouldn't be happy about that. There's the distinct possibility that with most things falling in place, the administration could reduce the deficit to 20 or 30% of what it is today, or even wipe it out entirely. He, in addition, qualified it as the deficit as "we inherited." A pledge does not have to be an individual promise but an agreement to do or forbear (Merriam Webster). Nitpicking at semantics isn't going to help -- he hasn't specifically promised anything on a stack of Bibles. No politician will do that past the inaugural oath. If one can point out where he's broken that oath, then there's something to complain about. We live in a culture of complaint (thanks, Robert Hughes) and too much of the complaining is emotional, gut-reacting, prejudicial diatribe. Bush made the ultimate idiotic promise, pledge, teen-age whooping, or whatever you want to call it with "Mission Accomplished."
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Apr, 2009 08:13 am
@blatham,
Graham gets it... from today's NY Times
Quote:
“Do you really believe that we lost 18-to-34-year-olds by 19 percent, or we lost Hispanic voters, because we are not conservative enough?” he said. “No. This is a ridiculous line of thought. The truth is we lost young people because our Republican brand is tainted.”

But whether the party can be moved in a sane direction by the few voices like his isn't at all clear. Much of the institutionalized power in the party (eg at primary nomination level and at the level of who actually controls the media operations) remains firmly in the grip of those who disagree with Graham.

One more election debacle will help. Another after that will make some species of serious change inevitable.
Woiyo9
 
  0  
Reply Thu 30 Apr, 2009 08:32 am
@blatham,
BULLSHIT!!!!!

Obama won by a 3 points swing. Not very convincing. Bush fatigue is the reason.
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.12 seconds on 06/23/2025 at 09:05:44