WHO WILL WIN IN NOVEMBER?

revel wrote:

Actually, foxfyre, nimh did address Ican's points very well. The "George Orwell in NINETEEN EIGHTY-FOUR " excerpts do describe the republican party of today rather than the democrats of today if you look at the policies in which right wing neoconservatives support verses the policies which lefties support. Lefties support civil liberties and privacy and neoconservatives don't; excuses notwithstanding.

Show me some examples Revel. I rather suspect that point by point, issue by issue, tactic by tactic, policy by policy, the Democrats are far closer to what Orwell described. Can you put your argument into something objective rather than purely subjective/emotional? In other words, HOW does Orwell specifically describe the Republicans?

I'll start:

Orwell

Quote:

The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake. We are not interested in the good of others; we are interested solely in power. Not wealth or luxury or long life or happiness: only power, pure power.

In an interview with Nancy Pelosi:

Quote:

Q: If you do in fact win the House, [Steny] Hoyer will be majority leader. Who will be whip?

A: You know what? We have to win the House first. I''m even hard put to say what our agenda will be when we win, so I''m not certainly going into the politics of the caucus, that is as unimportant an issue to me right now as it could be.

SOURCE

0 Replies

Please. In the Republican world, there is the Party, and there are Terrorists. There is no inbetween.

How many times have those looking for honest debate been called traitors? Told that they are fighting against the US? That they are UnAmerican?

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Please. In the Republican world, there is the Party, and there are Terrorists. There is no inbetween.

How many times have those looking for honest debate been called traitors? Told that they are fighting against the US? That they are UnAmerican?

Cycloptichorn

Maybe as many times as the GOP has been called war mongerers, baby killers, gunboat diplomists, murderers, liars, etc. etc. etc.

So name calling is not useful. Give me specifics. How is the Democrat plan superior to the GOP? Why is it superior? Let's get into some meat here instead of partisan ad hominems.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
Please. In the Republican world, there is the Party, and there are Terrorists. There is no inbetween.

How many times have those looking for honest debate been called traitors? Told that they are fighting against the US? That they are UnAmerican?

Cycloptichorn

Maybe as many times as the GOP has been called war mongerers, baby killers, gunboat diplomists, murderers, liars, etc. etc. etc.

So name calling is not useful. Give me specifics. How is the Democrat plan superior to the GOP? Why is it superior. Let's get into some meat here instead of partisan ad hominems.

Alright, I don't mind that, but are we discussing the various platforms and positions of the parties (something I'd be happy to do) or the comparisons to Orwell's 1984?

If it is platform discussion... I will say that I've seen Democrats (mostly Pelosi and Reid) talking lately about PAYGO rules being reinstated. It's hard for me to believe that this isn't a major part of the REPUBLICAN platform. We all have realized by now that neither party is as interested in reigning in spending as they should be; so doesn't it make sense to at least attempt to stop the bleeding? Yet, it is opposed by the current crop of Republicans.

I think that the Dems are in many ways more Conservative than the Republicans nowadays.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Please. In the Republican world, there is the Party, and there are Terrorists. There is no inbetween.

How many times have those looking for honest debate been called traitors? Told that they are fighting against the US? That they are UnAmerican?

Cycloptichorn

Maybe as many times as the GOP has been called war mongerers, baby killers, gunboat diplomists, murderers, liars, etc. etc. etc.

So name calling is not useful. Give me specifics. How is the Democrat plan superior to the GOP? Why is it superior. Let's get into some meat here instead of partisan ad hominems.

Alright, I don't mind that, but are we discussing the various platforms and positions of the parties (something I'd be happy to do) or the comparisons to Orwell's 1984?

If it is platform discussion... I will say that I've seen Democrats (mostly Pelosi and Reid) talking lately about PAYGO rules being reinstated. It's hard for me to believe that this isn't a major part of the REPUBLICAN platform. We all have realized by now that neither party is as interested in reigning in spending as they should be; so doesn't it make sense to at least attempt to stop the bleeding? Yet, it is opposed by the current crop of Republicans.

I think that the Dems are in many ways more Conservative than the Republicans nowadays.

Cycloptichorn

PAYGO was originally a Republican invention. They certainly have not lived up to it recently and deserve much justified criticism for that. On the plus side for the GOP, the tax policy they rammed through over the strenuous objections of the Democrats has kept the economy bouncing along in pretty good shape with most indicators showing much optimism. The housing market is softer than it was for awhile, but many of us see it as a good thing that housing doesn't continue rising until it is unaffordable for all but the very rich.

But tell me what the Democrats would do to reinstate PAYGO. How would that be better than what we now have?

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Please. In the Republican world, there is the Party, and there are Terrorists. There is no inbetween.

How many times have those looking for honest debate been called traitors? Told that they are fighting against the US? That they are UnAmerican?

Cycloptichorn

Maybe as many times as the GOP has been called war mongerers, baby killers, gunboat diplomists, murderers, liars, etc. etc. etc.

So name calling is not useful. Give me specifics. How is the Democrat plan superior to the GOP? Why is it superior. Let's get into some meat here instead of partisan ad hominems.

Alright, I don't mind that, but are we discussing the various platforms and positions of the parties (something I'd be happy to do) or the comparisons to Orwell's 1984?

If it is platform discussion... I will say that I've seen Democrats (mostly Pelosi and Reid) talking lately about PAYGO rules being reinstated. It's hard for me to believe that this isn't a major part of the REPUBLICAN platform. We all have realized by now that neither party is as interested in reigning in spending as they should be; so doesn't it make sense to at least attempt to stop the bleeding? Yet, it is opposed by the current crop of Republicans.

I think that the Dems are in many ways more Conservative than the Republicans nowadays.

Cycloptichorn

PAYGO was originally a Republican invention. They certainly have not lived up to it recently and deserve much justified criticism for that. On the plus side for the GOP, the tax policy they rammed through over the strenuous objections of the Democrats has kept the economy bouncing along in pretty good shape with most indicators showing much optimism. The housing market is softer than it was for awhile, but many of us see it as a good thing that housing doesn't continue rising until it is unaffordable for all but the very rich.

But tell me what the Democrats would do to reinstate PAYGO. How would that be better than what we now have?

As I've pointed out many times, the debt has gone up by 1/2 in the last 6 years. This is an unavoidable fact. Anyone's economy would look good if they didn't have to worry about actually paying the bills for the things that they do.

Pelosi et al have discussed reinstating the same PAYGO restrictions that yes, were invented by Republicans. It would be better than what we now have, because it would force spenders on both sides to actually propose a source of revenue when they propose spending. This is such a classically conservative idea, it's hard to believe that it even needs to be explained; the same arguments the Conservatives used for it back in the Nineties still apply just as much today.

Another point which has been discussed is Earmark reform. As I said earlier, neither party seems to be good at controlling spending. So at the very least, we should do away with the idea of 'secret' earmarks. If a congressman or Senator wants to fight for money to go to their district, they'd better goddamned well be proud to put their name on the appropriaton and be able to explain in detail why it is neccessary.

I credit Glenn Reynolds for pushing a lot of this. I also feel that this is an area where Conservatives and Democrats can unite to get work done; there are big spenders in both parties who will fight this tooth and nail, but a coalition of fiscal sanity can get it passed.

Even if the Dems take control of one or both houses, they are going to need the Republicans onboard to get anything done. The prospect of working together doesn't exactly hurt me, and it shouldn't anyone else either.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

When the wiretapping issue first came to the attention of the American public and the administration and its media friendly allies began its defense of it, they did by saying that "democrats don't want to wiretap Al Qaeda." This became a false misleading talking point still used even now. It is misleading because democrats (or whoever else objects to warrant less wiretapping) do want to catch terrorist hatching up their plans, they just want it done within FISA which allows the government to listen to potential terrorist suspect as long as they apply for a warrant within 72 hours.

An example of twisting words to instill fear and control thought is in the following:

Quote:

Somewhere in America today, a radical Islamic terrorist could very well be picking up their phone and receiving a call from their overseas counterpart. They will discuss plots to infiltrate U.S. cities and mount devastating attacks.

Maybe in Nashville, TN. Or, maybe in Madison, WI.

If Russ Feingold had his way, U.S. authorities would do this with the intercepted phone call: hang up.

Frist on Feingold

This is one of a thousand misleading talking points (which has been handed out like flash cards to every conservative pundit and politician) because it ignores the fact that FISA law permits 72 hour time to listen to suspected terrorist while seeking a warrant. So no, they won't have to hang up if they hear a plot between known or suspected terrorist operatives talking on the phone. They merely keep listening and seek a warrant which if two people were talking about attacking American cities, it would easy to do.

But this is a good way to control the thinking in today's American public and to give credit where it is due; the Bush administration is masters at it and also of stripping away our fundamental rights all under the umbrella of "terrorist."

0 Replies

To Revel, the fact is that most Democrats have been trying to hang the GOP on the surveillance issue and have been every bit as misleading on that as any campaign propaganda the GOP is putting out on Democrats. The fact is, the government NEEDS to be able to intercept telephone calls from and to terrorists to intercept plans to commit mayhem against Americans and their guests. The Democrats have NOT come up with a better way to do that than what the administration is currently doing but use it as an issue to try to plant seeds of doubt in the American public's mind.

Apart from what anybody is SAYING, We KNOW what the Administration is doing with most of the GOP's blessings. What will the Democrats do? Stop the survelliance or impose rules that will render it ineffective? Or something else?

Cyclop, words are cheap but deeds are precious. HOW will the Democrats implement PAYGO? What programs will be cut? Will taxes be raised? Give us specifics, not campaign rhetoric.

0 Replies

foxfrye, you didn't say anything which requires a new response, so I stand by previous post to your statements regarding it.

0 Replies

revel wrote:

foxfrye, you didn't say anything which requires a new response, so I stand by previous post to your statements regarding it.

Okay. That's the typical Democrat response which is not to respond, just accuse. Which is why I won't be voting for Democrats this election.

0 Replies

Quote:

To Revel, the fact is most Democrats have been trying to hang the GOP on the surveillance issue and have been every bit as misleading on that as any campaign propaganda the GOP is putting out on Democrats. The fact is, the government NEEDS to be able to intercept telephone calls from and to terrorists to intercept plans to commit mayhem against Americans and their guests. The Democrats have NOT come up with a better way to do that than what the administration is currently doing but use it as an issue to try to plant seeds of doubt in the American public's mind.

The problem is that the administration can tap anyone they want, at anytime; all they have to do is follow the law and run it by a judge. Alternatively, they have the opportunity (probably had the opportunity, the way things are going) to change the laws. They didn't do so.

There hasn't been any compelling evidence given showing how the Administration can't just follow the law and put the judges - who are the ones trusted by the Constitution to determine whether or not people should be tapped - back in the loop. And I don't even want to get into spying on internet communications, that's a whole other can of worms.

The Dems have merely asked that we either follow the laws, or change the laws. Bush doesn't seem interested in doing either, and that isn't an acceptable position for the leader of the country which is supposed to uphold the laws more than any other major power in the world.

Quote:

Apart from what anybody is SAYING, We KNOW what the Administration is doing with most of the GOP's blessings. What will the Democrats do? Stop the survelliance or impose rules that will render it ineffective? Or something else?

I'm pretty sure they will get to the bottom of whether or not the program actually relies upon what the Republicans say it does. There has been a funny habit by the Republican leaders in the house and senate of not swearing people in when they give testimony these last 5 or 6 years. I think you'll see an end to that with Dems in charge.

The Dems don't have to do anything at all except ensure that the laws on the books are being followed, and entertain any reasonable requests to change the laws that are put forth by the Administration.

Quote:

Cyclop, words are cheap but deeds are precious. HOW will the Democrats implement PAYGO? What programs will be cut? Will taxes be raised? Give us specifics, not campaign rhetoric.

The Dems will probably re-institute the exact same Paygo regulations as before. See:

http://www.hillnews.com/thehill/export/TheHill/Comment/OpEd/031605_paygo.html

Remember that this only applies to new spending and new proposals, not to pre-existing ones. There don't neccessarily have to be new taxes raised (though the Dems will raise taxes, because we need to raise taxes for other reasons) unless there is new spending. It doesn't mandate any cuts in currently existing programs, unless we are proposing new programs and no additional money to pay for it.

One would think that the Republicans would be dying to see the Dems, who are accused of overspending constantly, implement this program. It would be a good way to ensure that Dems who take over Congress don't run the deficit up farther than it already is.

Do you not believe that Republicans would be behind this bill as well?

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cyclo,
Do you support the "line item veto" for the President?

0 Replies

mysteryman wrote:

Cyclo,
Do you support the "line item veto" for the President?

I'm in the middle on it. The Supreme Court didn't seem to support it, and it would certainly help gigantic earmarks from going through, but I'm not exactly sure it is neccessary - the president can just refuse to sign the bill, if he doesn't like what is in it.

Remember Reagan doing so?

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

mysteryman wrote:
Cyclo,
Do you support the "line item veto" for the President?

I'm in the middle on it. The Supreme Court didn't seem to support it, and it would certainly help gigantic earmarks from going through, but I'm not exactly sure it is neccessary - the president can just refuse to sign the bill, if he doesn't like what is in it.

Remember Reagan doing so?

Cycloptichorn

And therein lies the problem.
Congress has a bad habit of adding pork to a bill the President wants.
If the President says that he will sign a bill for increased funding for the VA,congress will add an amendment providing money to build a bridge to nowhere,or some other pork some congressman wants.

If the President refuses to sign the bill because of the added pork,he is accused of not funding the VA
If he signs the bill,he is accused of porkbarrel spending.

Either way,he gets the blame.

If the Pres had the power of "line item veto",he could redline the parts he didnt like and sign the rest.
One has to wonder how much wasteful spending would be curtailed if the President,of either party,had the power to do that.

Personally,I support the "line item veto".

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:
To Revel, the fact is most Democrats have been trying to hang the GOP on the surveillance issue and have been every bit as misleading on that as any campaign propaganda the GOP is putting out on Democrats. The fact is, the government NEEDS to be able to intercept telephone calls from and to terrorists to intercept plans to commit mayhem against Americans and their guests. The Democrats have NOT come up with a better way to do that than what the administration is currently doing but use it as an issue to try to plant seeds of doubt in the American public's mind.

The problem is that the administration can tap anyone they want, at anytime; all they have to do is follow the law and run it by a judge. Alternatively, they have the opportunity (probably had the opportunity, the way things are going) to change the laws. They didn't do so.

And they gave very specific reasons why the existing laws were adequate and ran it by a whole bevy of legal minds who concurred with that. Why change a law that does the job as it is? What different law would the Democrats have suggested? (So far they haven't suggested any that would not scuttle the program altogether.)

There hasn't been any compelling evidence given showing how the Administration can't just follow the law and put the judges - who are the ones trusted by the Constitution to determine whether or not people should be tapped - back in the loop. And I don't even want to get into spying on internet communications, that's a whole other can of worms.

??? It is my impression that internet communications are rigidly monitored. Where do you see that they are not? As for the judges, it is all well an good to say put the judges into the loop, but when you have a one-minute window of opportunity, it simply is not realistic to call the judge first, and it is extremely counterproductive to later telegraph to the terrorists that you're on to them.

The Dems have merely asked that we either follow the laws, or change the laws. Bush doesn't seem interested in doing either, and that isn't an acceptable position for the leader of the country which is supposed to uphold the laws more than any other major power in the world.

We know the Dems say the laws have not been followed though they are very vague on the specifics there. But what specific changes have the Dems suggested for the laws? Or what new laws?

Quote:
Apart from what anybody is SAYING, We KNOW what the Administration is doing with most of the GOP's blessings. What will the Democrats do? Stop the survelliance or impose rules that will render it ineffective? Or something else?

I'm pretty sure they will get to the bottom of whether or not the program actually relies upon what the Republicans say it does. There has been a funny habit by the Republican leaders in the house and senate of not swearing people in when they give testimony these last 5 or 6 years. I think you'll see an end to that with Dems in charge.

More campaign rhetoric. We've all heard the slams, smears, criticism, ad nauseum. Let's see if we can actually deal in specific issues and means of addressing them. (I'm guessing those on the Left can't do that so prove me wrong.)

The Dems don't have to do anything at all except ensure that the laws on the books are being followed, and entertain any reasonable requests to change the laws that are put forth by the Administration.

Aha. So the Dems don't have any plan at all? They don't need one? And you're voting for them anyway?

Quote:
Cyclop, words are cheap but deeds are precious. HOW will the Democrats implement PAYGO? What programs will be cut? Will taxes be raised? Give us specifics, not campaign rhetoric.

The Dems will probably re-institute the exact same Paygo regulations as before. See:

http://www.hillnews.com/thehill/export/TheHill/Comment/OpEd/031605_paygo.html

Remember that this only applies to new spending and new proposals, not to pre-existing ones. There don't neccessarily have to be new taxes raised (though the Dems will raise taxes, because we need to raise taxes for other reasons) unless there is new spending. It doesn't mandate any cuts in currently existing programs, unless we are proposing new programs and no additional money to pay for it.

One would think that the Republicans would be dying to see the Dems, who are accused of overspending constantly, implement this program. It would be a good way to ensure that Dems who take over Congress don't run the deficit up farther than it already is.

Do you not believe that Republicans would be behind this bill as well?

Cycloptichorn

The Deficit has been steadily dropping for a couple of years now and, if that continues and there is no reason to think that it won't if current policies stay in place, we will achieve a balanced budget without draconian cuts in critical programs. A balanced budget accomplishes what PAYGO accomplishes without endangering critical expenditures when the nation is at war.

I am the first to say there are many federal programs that should be scrapped, many federal agencies that should be shut down, and the federal government should get back to its specific constitutional role and fund that. The candidate who comes out and pushes for that will have my vote, my financial support, my hands on support. But the Democrats use ANY cuts in federal programs, except for defense, as campaign rhetoric to slam the GOP.

So you are saying the Democrats would (probably) use the PAYGO model in a time of war?

0 Replies

mysteryman wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
mysteryman wrote:
Cyclo,
Do you support the "line item veto" for the President?

I'm in the middle on it. The Supreme Court didn't seem to support it, and it would certainly help gigantic earmarks from going through, but I'm not exactly sure it is neccessary - the president can just refuse to sign the bill, if he doesn't like what is in it.

Remember Reagan doing so?

Cycloptichorn

And therein lies the problem.
Congress has a bad habit of adding pork to a bill the President wants.
If the President says that he will sign a bill for increased funding for the VA,congress will add an amendment providing money to build a bridge to nowhere,or some other pork some congressman wants.

If the President refuses to sign the bill because of the added pork,he is accused of not funding the VA
If he signs the bill,he is accused of porkbarrel spending.

Either way,he gets the blame.

If the Pres had the power of "line item veto",he could redline the parts he didnt like and sign the rest.
One has to wonder how much wasteful spending would be curtailed if the President,of either party,had the power to do that.

Personally,I support the "line item veto".

It depends. Can the Prez veto non-monetary parts of bills which he doesn't like?

The Executive branch has a responsibility to explain to the citizens of America its' decisions just like the Congress does. If the prez feels that he is being held hostage by Congress, he needs to explain to the American people that he won't sign a pork-laden bill even if it does give money to the VA. This is how the system is supposed to work.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

I intended to edit my previous post to add that the criticism of the Dems when the GOP does cut spending or eliminates a program is the reason more of that isn't done. I did not intend that to be an excuse for the GOP not to do it though.

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

mysteryman wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
mysteryman wrote:
Cyclo,
Do you support the "line item veto" for the President?

I'm in the middle on it. The Supreme Court didn't seem to support it, and it would certainly help gigantic earmarks from going through, but I'm not exactly sure it is neccessary - the president can just refuse to sign the bill, if he doesn't like what is in it.

Remember Reagan doing so?

Cycloptichorn

And therein lies the problem.
Congress has a bad habit of adding pork to a bill the President wants.
If the President says that he will sign a bill for increased funding for the VA,congress will add an amendment providing money to build a bridge to nowhere,or some other pork some congressman wants.

If the President refuses to sign the bill because of the added pork,he is accused of not funding the VA
If he signs the bill,he is accused of porkbarrel spending.

Either way,he gets the blame.

If the Pres had the power of "line item veto",he could redline the parts he didnt like and sign the rest.
One has to wonder how much wasteful spending would be curtailed if the President,of either party,had the power to do that.

Personally,I support the "line item veto".

It depends. Can the Prez veto non-monetary parts of bills which he doesn't like?

The Executive branch has a responsibility to explain to the citizens of America its' decisions just like the Congress does. If the prez feels that he is being held hostage by Congress, he needs to explain to the American people that he won't sign a pork-laden bill even if it does give money to the VA. This is how the system is supposed to work.

Cycloptichorn

The President cannot veto parts of a bill,if he could that would be the "line item veto".
He has to sign all of it or veto all of it,there is no inbetween.

I know how the system is supposed to work,but you know as well as I do that it doesnt work that way.
You have seen as well as I do that the President,of either party,can be and is held hostage by the press and the critics of the other party.

Just because the President explains his position,and does so reasonably and logically,does not mean that his message will get out.

The "line item veto" is the best way to go.

0 Replies

See, now this is a nice conversation.

Quote:

And they gave very specific reasons why the existing laws were adequate and ran it by a whole bevy of legal minds who concurred with that. Why change a law that does the job as it is? What different law would the Democrats have suggested? (So far they haven't suggested any that would not scuttle the program altogether.)

The problem is, the justifications that have been given by the 'legal minds' Bush (though I don't blame him personally, he's just acting on advice) 'ran this through' is twofold:

First, that the AUMF gives the prez. the authority to break FISA. This has been shown to be false in the recent Hamdan decision by the SC.

Second, that FISA itself is not binding upon the president. Unfortunately, this contradicts the actual wording of FISA itself, which is a duly passed law by Congress and signed into law by the President.

The majority of legal scholars agree that the President is breaking the law with this program. None of them have argued that outside of the AUMF justification given by the Justice Dept., that Bush's program is consistent with FISA. I'd be more than happy to provide you many, many links confirming this if you ask me to.

Quote:

??? It is my impression that internet communications are rigidly monitored. Where do you see that they are not? As for the judges, it is all well an good to say put the judges into the loop, but when you have a one-minute window of opportunity, it simply is not realistic to call the judge first, and it is extremely counterproductive to later telegraph to the terrorists that you're on to them.

You don't have to call the judge first under FISA. You tap the phone, get the info in that 'one-minute window' and then send a letter to the judges telling them what you did and asking them to review the situation. If the judges find that you shouldn't be tapping the phone, you deal with that then.

There doesn't need to be any changes to currently existing FISA laws for the admin to be able to tap who they want, when they want, and still be consistent with the 4th amendment. All they have to do is let the judges know, even after the fact. There is a pretty big suspicion that the reason this isn't done is because we are tapping people for reasons we shouldn't be, for things that have nothing to do with terrorism. And under the Bush plan, there's no way to tell if we are or not. No oversight. This is unacceptable in a society built upon laws and oversight.

Quote:

We know the Dems say the laws have not been followed though they are very vague on the specifics there. But what specific changes have the Dems suggested for the laws? Or what new laws?

The Dems have merely requested that the current laws be followed. They are specific as to what is being broken - judges are not being told who is being tapped and who isn't. This bypasses the entire point of FISA, which was specifically created for this instance.

There isn't a currently shown need to pass or modify any laws. The president has the ability to display to Congress that there need to be changes if he wishes, but he hasn't done so, so... the current laws stand on the books. It is an incontrivertable fact that FISA prohibits what the Prez has been doing, and it hasn't been changed.

Quote:

More campaign rhetoric. We've all heard the slams, smears, criticism, ad nauseum. Let's see if we can actually deal in specific issues and means of addressing them. (I'm guessing those on the Left can't do that so prove me wrong.)

It isn't campaign rhetoric to point out that the Bush officials who have been called to testify about the Warrantless Wiretapping program have not been sworn to tell the truth in front of committee, it is a fact. A hard to explain fact.

Quote:

Aha. So the Dems don't have any plan at all? They don't need one? And you're voting for them anyway?

Of course they have a plan. The plan is to ensure that the laws of America are being followed. This is in direct contradiction to the Republican practice of not ensuring that laws are being followed. And yes, I plan on voting for those who support the laws of America.

Quote:

The Deficit has been steadily dropping for a couple of years now

No, it hasn't. The deficit most certainly has not been dropping, because we are still issuing debt at a greater and greater rate per year. I understand that the Administration uses accounting tricks to make the deficit look smaller (and steals tons of money from SS to do so) but the amount of debt being issued has not gone down. This, once again, is a fact that shows our economy is not doing well.

Quote:

and, if that continues and there is no reason to think that it won't if current policies stay in place, we will achieve a balanced budget without draconian cuts in critical programs. A balanced budget accomplishes what PAYGO accomplishes without endangering critical expenditures when the nation is at war.

PAYGO doesn't endanger critical expenditures when we are at war either. It merely asks for the sponsors of those expenditures to show how we are going to pay for them. If we need more money for the war, perhaps it is time to start actually paying for the war - something that we used to do. Conservatives like to harken back to WW2 as an example for how Americans should act, but when they are asked to pay for war in the fashion of WW2, all of a sudden they balk at the comparisons.

Quote:

I am the first to say there are many federal programs that should be scrapped, many federal agencies that should be shut down, and the federal government should get back to its specific constitutional role and fund that. The candidate who comes out and pushes for that will have my vote, my financial support, my hands on support. But the Democrats use ANY cuts in federal programs, except for defense, as campaign rhetoric to slam the GOP.

So you are saying the Democrats would (probably) use the PAYGO model in a time of war?

Yes, they would. If Americans truly believe in the war, we should be willing to pull together and pay for it. Somehow I think you already know that the vast majority of people would not be willing to pay a new tax to support the war, even though deficit spending is exactly that: a new tax to support the war, but put off into the future with interest added on to it.

We cannot avoid paying our bills as a society through accounting tricks and number games. We can only delay paying the bills. I say, if we are fiscally responsible, let's start accepting the fact that what we do costs money, and paying for it.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

MM Writes

Quote:

Just because the President explains his position,and does so reasonably and logically,does not mean that his message will get out.

The "line item veto" is the best way to go.

Maybe without meaning to, you just gave both sides of the paradox.

Revisiting Ican's Orwell quote

Quote:

The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake. We are not interested in the good of others; we are interested solely in power. Not wealth or luxury or long life or happiness: only power, pure power.

No matter how responsible, how well-intentioned, and how well-explained the President's line item veto might be of say that 'bridge to nowhere in Alaska' that was kicked around for awhile, the opposition will use it to crucify him; i.e. he doesn't care about the Alaskan indigenous peoples who would have been served, yadda yadda. They would use it as much as possible to demonize him and/or weaken the GOP.

It this it is this ugly phenomenon in American politics. Never mind that it is the right thing to do or would benefit all the American people. The single motive of the party who wants the power is to make it look as bad as possible for the party that has it.

Then there is the party loyalty angle. Do you veto something that is of paramount importance to one of your key supporters?

This is why it is so difficult to get a workable line item veto into play. It puts a real burden on the Chief Executive to be the moral and fiscal conscience of the entire government and absolves the legislators of the responsibility. Nevertheless, Reagan, Clinton, and Bush 43 have all asked for it.

Wouldn't it be wonderful if Orwell wasn't so right on target? Wouldn't it be wonderful if our legislators actually did have the very best interests of the American people as their #1 motive for their activities?

0 Replies

WHO WILL WIN IN NOVEMBER?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know