Read the link, your idea the welfare reform hurt America is a bunch of crap. Doesnt it rign bells in your head an uptick in the economy pushed more people out of poverty than decades worth of govt programs? Obviously throwing money at the situation doesnt fix the problem.
Read the link, your idea the welfare reform hurt America is a bunch of crap. Doesnt it rign bells in your head an uptick in the economy pushed more people out of poverty than decades worth of govt programs? Obviously throwing money at the situation doesnt fix the problem.
I actually agree with Genx on this one, welfare reform during the late 90's was good. It was replacing welfare with charity in the 00's that hurt. It's harder to target charity to where it is needed.
Thank you, BMW540I6speed. That was extremely insightful and articulate. Unfortunately, it was also way too accurate in terms of evaluating the mental capabilities of most Americans.
As you said-
I've never seen it put in quite those terms, which are profoundly thought provoking.
As you said-
I've never seen it put in quite those terms, which are profoundly thought provoking.
Zebo
Elite Member
- Jul 29, 2001
- 39,398
- 19
- 81
Nice post. It's goes futher than that even with Republcans like lincoln. Seems he started a program to give land away ? free!! That act of ?radical liberalism? was known as the Homestead Act. To this day, it stands as a monument to what happens when you give people ? that?s right, give people ? some resources to work with. Todays party is all about giving to the American Artistocacy like during Guilded Age IMO. Usually on sweat like tax transfers of the working class. (anyone with earned income)
Zebo
Elite Member
- Jul 29, 2001
- 39,398
- 19
- 81
Even Homestead Act had a duty qualifier, live and work land for seven years before deed was granted. Welfare should have same thing. Anything totally free and without obligation breeds some eltilement and some taking advantage. Just ask Haliburton.
Seriousl need balance I'm not sure even Welfare refrom did enough to address it's poblems. You're right the payments are paltry and make up less than 1% of ferderal budget and most importantly keep peoples mired in poverty and slums.. Therefore I'd double the payments but on the other hand must have to work to get it. Like a FDR did with the Civil Works Administration/Civilian Conservation Corps.
OrganizedChaos
Diamond Member
- Apr 21, 2002
- 4,524
- 0
- 0
its a good thing they don't believe in evolution or else we would be risking reinfection every two years.
myocardia
Diamond Member
- Jun 21, 2003
- 9,291
- 30
- 91
You almost got it right, piasabird. What you've failed to realize is that there isn't a Republican in America who believes they've got a snowball's chance in hell of ever seeing the inside of a prison. But, luckily, the answer to the problem is quite simple: a $10,000 per day, per illegal worker fine. That applies to anyone working for you whom you don't have a photocopy of their driver's license and Social Security card. It's actually very simple. Hiring of illegal immigrants would cease to exist the day the law went into effect.
- Oct 17, 1999
- 12,505
- 3
- 81
To get back on topic...
In the last 12 years:
1. Has the federal government, government spending, gotten smaller?
2. Is the US closer to being a "Christian nation"?
In the last 12 years:
1. Has the federal government, government spending, gotten smaller?
2. Is the US closer to being a "Christian nation"?
Vic
Elite Member
- Jun 12, 2001
- 50,422
- 14,333
- 136
Uhh... the Homestead Act was not an act of "radical liberalism" but of warfare. Lincoln was giving away land the US government didn't own in order to encourage Northern expansion. Plus, it ended up being the largest corporate grant in history (Weyerhauser made his fortune buying up homesteads for pennies on the dollar that were considered unsuitable for farming, but had plenty of virgin timber).
The naivety in this thread is astounding. First, the Dems are just as much about marketing, branding, and propaganda as the Pubs. The simple fact is that the Republican faithful got had by their leadership, in much the same way that the Democratic zealots are setting themselves up for right now. Second, the entitlement-driven democratic socialism that passes for liberalism today bears almost nothing in common with the classical liberalism of the Founding Fathers, nor of Lincoln.
Except for that little bit about equal rights and the government's securing them, which you libertarian types like to ignore. The original liberals did not come from the Austrian school of libertarian economics. Get over it.
Vic
Elite Member
- Jun 12, 2001
- 50,422
- 14,333
- 136
More lies. It seems like you can't post on this subject without lying, even when I have already solidly refuted you in other threads. The basis of classical liberal and libertarian philosophies BOTH is the 2nd paragraph of the Declaration of Independence.
And let's talk about equal rights for a moment. If you use government to take the property of one to give to another, as is a key component of your philosophy, which one is more equal than the other? Because obviously they can't both be equal, now can they?
edit: Oh and BTW, I have made it repeatedly clear that I am a classical liberal, and I only call myself a libertarian when I'm around the mental midgets who don't know what a classical liberal is.
jman19
Lifer
- Nov 3, 2000
- 11,220
- 654
- 126
The good:
Balanced budget under Clinton.
The bad:
Just about everything else: wasteful impeachment proceedings (I find it funny that Republicans say he didn't do anything as a president; meanwhile, they wasted a ton of time and taxpayers money on a witchhunt), awful spending under Bush, blind support for Iraq with no plan, not holding the President accountable for anything, and pushing social conservative agendas to interfere with people's personal lives.
Balanced budget under Clinton.
The bad:
Just about everything else: wasteful impeachment proceedings (I find it funny that Republicans say he didn't do anything as a president; meanwhile, they wasted a ton of time and taxpayers money on a witchhunt), awful spending under Bush, blind support for Iraq with no plan, not holding the President accountable for anything, and pushing social conservative agendas to interfere with people's personal lives.
CaptnKirk
Lifer
- Jul 25, 2002
- 10,053
- 0
- 71
The 'Republican Conservative' machine is still in denial, and is pushing all their effort to blame the 'Stupid Voters' -
who saw through their sham and voted against their power grab to control the lives of everybody who wasn't part of their click.
WashPost Op/Ed
who saw through their sham and voted against their power grab to control the lives of everybody who wasn't part of their click.
WashPost Op/Ed
I didnt read the article but I have been listening in horror at how clueless the leadership is. THey really believe they lost because they werent moderate enough. The base is deserting them and they dont get it. They keep it up and in 08 they will lose again.
CaptnKirk
Lifer
- Jul 25, 2002
- 10,053
- 0
- 71
They do not think at all that the reason that they lost was that they weren't moderate enough,
they are convinced that the reason that they lost was that they didn't move even further to the extreme right
and take even more radical stances against all things 'Non-Evangelistic'.
The can't understand that the majority of the countries population, the 'Silent Majority', Americans that are not
'Extreme Right' or 'Extreme Left' rejected their power grap and forced Southern Religion style stands.
shortylickens
No Lifer
- Jul 15, 2003
- 80,287
- 17,078
- 136
1. I dont think Repulicans or Conservatives wanted or said they planned to overturn a bunch of liberal laws since FDR times. I think they did want to reform a couple of things, even though they never had the brains or balls to do it right.
2. You are a little paranoid and read it wrong.
3. That is what they claimed. They never do it. In fact lately they have been doing the opposite. It seems they want more and more for the government every term.
But regardless of what they actually do it always sounds nice to campaign for limited government.
I think the Republican party has a lot of nice ideas (like all the major parties) and dont have enough strong/smart people to make any of them happen. Instead they focus on all their bad ideas and execute them poorly then piss people off in the process. (Also like the others.)
EDIT:
The very first reply by Whoozyerdaddy is a much better way of saying it.
What far right plans did this congresss enact in the last 6 years? All I saw was big govt social conservatives. Their base left them and they dont get it and apparently you dont either.
CaptnKirk
Lifer
- Jul 25, 2002
- 10,053
- 0
- 71
Believe what ever bullshit you choose. THEIR BASE NEVER LEFT. What left them were the MODERATES,
the 40% from the middle that didn't accept the meddling in their affairs - the Terry Schaivo type games, Gay Marriage
played over the intrest of the countries residents who don't really care when there are more pressing issues.
The use of fear against the American Citizen to hold on to their power grab. Using non-issues to bring out
their base to attempt to swing elections in their favor backfired - Karl Rove and his pandering to the
Extreme Right go old, and stale and was thrown out like last weeks moldy bread.
You can only gag down so much empty rhetoric before you can't stomach any more.
Their attempt to make 75% of the country heel to their mindset got them tossed, and destroyed the reputation
of the Republican Party - it doomed the GOP. Hell, the next election cycle will present an even more biased
group of GOP Senators for election, and since the MODERATE Republicans couldn't survive this cycle, how in the hell do you expect an even more inflamatory group to sneak in under the Gay-Dar?
The modern conservatives are authoritarians in the grips of neocon delusions that societies can be engineered by military might. What they are attempting to "conserve" no longer has any relationship to the values of the Founders; when that relationship existed, I had some use for conservatives.
Like many, I was taken aback at some aspects of the Clinton Administration, most particularly the Waco travesty. I recall watching a Reno press conference in slack-jawed amazement, when she sought to defend the military-style invasion of a religious compound because, she told Oprah-fied America, there were all kinds of reports that "child abuse" was going on in there. The notion that it is the job of the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT to enforce laws against child abuse is preposterous. There was a local Child Protection Services serving Waco, Texas. When many conservatives adamantly insisted that the BATF et al. had no business undertaking what it did in Waco, they were right.
Fast forward to spring '05. Suddenly, it is the urgent duty of the federal government to pass special legislation to remove jurisdiction of a guardianship and end-of-life proceeding from a Florida probate judge and the Florida state courts that had repeatedly affirmed him. Mass hordes of deranged lunatics weeping and wailing, holding cups of water outside the hospice and keening about their urgent desire to give Terri a drink, that was all over Fox News and promoted as SANE. And Bush supporters all over the Internet, people who are not socially conservative in many or all respects, were willing to either endorse it, or give it a tepid pass, all because "conservative" Bush and Frist (instead of "liberal" Bill and Janet) were doing it.
There was NOTHING BushCo could do that was too extreme to alienate his followers, including "libertarians" like Glenn Reynolds. Oh, he might dither a bit that maybe the federal response to Schiavo was a tad misguided, but nothing truly bad or serious to see here. It didn't indicate something important about the judgment and competence of the Republicans.
No. Because they are keeping us safe, and so all must be indulged
Ideologues wallow in deception. They will always try to manipulate people with the same old tactics. Watch what they do, and (internally) dismiss what they say.
Honestly, Bush conservatism is a more extreme form of Reagan TV conservatism. Only now the neocons have a more pliable tool. Both versions of 'conservatism' are radical. I don't care what you call it. It's just a name. I don't represent liberalism because that word has no personal meaning to me.
People limit themselves and confuse others when they attach a label to their beliefs. It's easy and convenient. People can call themselves whatever they want, but they'll have to explain what that label means to outsiders.
Political ideas are often vague and contradictory. That's because human beings invented them. Human beings are not pure. Rigid ideologies cannot constrain the diversity of people and thought that exists throughout the world.
The collection of disparate political thoughts that define the current crop of Bush/Republican/conservative followers is dangerous for its authoritarian and militaristic nature, not because of a failure to properly distribute funds
Guys like Rush and Hanity use "consevative" and "liberal" in the same way that others use friend and enemy. If someone becomes an enemy, then they are no longer "conservative". You can treat "Bush was never conservative" the same as "Yes, he gave me money and spent a lot of time in the White House, but I didn't really know Abramoff". It's not about philosophy, it's about friend vs somebody-I-can't-be-seen-with.
I imagine they'll follow ideologues lead when asked to provide a definition of "conservatism". Namely, pretent the question was never asked. Because if they had to provide such a definition, they'd have to A) show how they themselves adhered to it, B) show how Bush did not, and C) explain how you can be conservative by supporting someone doing stuff you later claim was diametrically opposed to said conservatism.
If you stop thinking about this as an ideological disagreement between adults and start viewing it as a popularity contest by a bunch of 8 year-olds on a playground, it makes a lot more sense. What they did or said doesn't matter; image is the only coin of the realm
Political leaders (elected officials, activists, pundits, etc.) who cloak themselves in the mantle of "conservatism" are, almostly entirely, not conservatives at all, but reactionaries. They have no real interest in the conservative desiderata , which is a basis for possible liberal/conservative dialogue and even rapproachment. They are only interested in conservatism as rhetoric for pushing one or another reactionary agenda (neocon, thecon, paleocon, etc).
Most notably, social dominance, not social order, is their prime concern, which is why they are all so eager for the culture wars, and so distressed by any prospects of peace, on any front, unless it rests upon the utter annihilation of their enemies.
I am not quite saying conservatism "is a confused and indecipherable ideology that even its own self-described adherents can't agree on". Its that the TAC group which has a more authentic historical claim to the name no longer even recognizes the National Review set as in any way conservative. To them, conservative is as conservative does and free trade, outsourcing, foreign interventionism, war and the like don't qualify as conservative in any way.
I will reinterate about "brandng" although posters here like to assimilate the term to nothingness...
Think of "conservative" and "liberal" as brands. Just as they set out on a concerted and successful effort to trash the liberal brand, they are now trying to maintain respect for the conservative brand. To do so means that they have to separate the manifest failures of this administration from the conservative brand.
To do that, they have to claim that the administration is not, in fact, conservative. But they can't do this in any credible way because they have lined up behind this guy, this approach, this war just as abjectly as they lined up behind Reagan. Ford and Bush sr. not so much.
It was credible that they would consider GHWB not a real conservative. The tax increase, the engagement with international partners, the CT background, the wishy-washiness on abortion all spoke to a deference to the mushy middle.
They simply cannot credibly disassociate the brand from W. He's their man down the line. And he is a clear demonstration that their entire set of policy prescriptions, from the free use of military force to borrow and spend fiscal policies cannot be a successful framework for governance. It always was, but in the past there were speed bumps and responsibility.
The 1986 tax reform is one example of responsibility. Reagan listened to advisers that told him that his policies were not fiscally sound. Bush reversing his read my lips promise was another example, as was his conduct of the Iraq war.
This administration has engaged in an unprecedented series of irresponsible policies based on one fantasy after another.
Like many, I was taken aback at some aspects of the Clinton Administration, most particularly the Waco travesty. I recall watching a Reno press conference in slack-jawed amazement, when she sought to defend the military-style invasion of a religious compound because, she told Oprah-fied America, there were all kinds of reports that "child abuse" was going on in there. The notion that it is the job of the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT to enforce laws against child abuse is preposterous. There was a local Child Protection Services serving Waco, Texas. When many conservatives adamantly insisted that the BATF et al. had no business undertaking what it did in Waco, they were right.
Fast forward to spring '05. Suddenly, it is the urgent duty of the federal government to pass special legislation to remove jurisdiction of a guardianship and end-of-life proceeding from a Florida probate judge and the Florida state courts that had repeatedly affirmed him. Mass hordes of deranged lunatics weeping and wailing, holding cups of water outside the hospice and keening about their urgent desire to give Terri a drink, that was all over Fox News and promoted as SANE. And Bush supporters all over the Internet, people who are not socially conservative in many or all respects, were willing to either endorse it, or give it a tepid pass, all because "conservative" Bush and Frist (instead of "liberal" Bill and Janet) were doing it.
There was NOTHING BushCo could do that was too extreme to alienate his followers, including "libertarians" like Glenn Reynolds. Oh, he might dither a bit that maybe the federal response to Schiavo was a tad misguided, but nothing truly bad or serious to see here. It didn't indicate something important about the judgment and competence of the Republicans.
No. Because they are keeping us safe, and so all must be indulged
Ideologues wallow in deception. They will always try to manipulate people with the same old tactics. Watch what they do, and (internally) dismiss what they say.
Honestly, Bush conservatism is a more extreme form of Reagan TV conservatism. Only now the neocons have a more pliable tool. Both versions of 'conservatism' are radical. I don't care what you call it. It's just a name. I don't represent liberalism because that word has no personal meaning to me.
People limit themselves and confuse others when they attach a label to their beliefs. It's easy and convenient. People can call themselves whatever they want, but they'll have to explain what that label means to outsiders.
Political ideas are often vague and contradictory. That's because human beings invented them. Human beings are not pure. Rigid ideologies cannot constrain the diversity of people and thought that exists throughout the world.
The collection of disparate political thoughts that define the current crop of Bush/Republican/conservative followers is dangerous for its authoritarian and militaristic nature, not because of a failure to properly distribute funds
Guys like Rush and Hanity use "consevative" and "liberal" in the same way that others use friend and enemy. If someone becomes an enemy, then they are no longer "conservative". You can treat "Bush was never conservative" the same as "Yes, he gave me money and spent a lot of time in the White House, but I didn't really know Abramoff". It's not about philosophy, it's about friend vs somebody-I-can't-be-seen-with.
I imagine they'll follow ideologues lead when asked to provide a definition of "conservatism". Namely, pretent the question was never asked. Because if they had to provide such a definition, they'd have to A) show how they themselves adhered to it, B) show how Bush did not, and C) explain how you can be conservative by supporting someone doing stuff you later claim was diametrically opposed to said conservatism.
If you stop thinking about this as an ideological disagreement between adults and start viewing it as a popularity contest by a bunch of 8 year-olds on a playground, it makes a lot more sense. What they did or said doesn't matter; image is the only coin of the realm
Political leaders (elected officials, activists, pundits, etc.) who cloak themselves in the mantle of "conservatism" are, almostly entirely, not conservatives at all, but reactionaries. They have no real interest in the conservative desiderata , which is a basis for possible liberal/conservative dialogue and even rapproachment. They are only interested in conservatism as rhetoric for pushing one or another reactionary agenda (neocon, thecon, paleocon, etc).
Most notably, social dominance, not social order, is their prime concern, which is why they are all so eager for the culture wars, and so distressed by any prospects of peace, on any front, unless it rests upon the utter annihilation of their enemies.
I am not quite saying conservatism "is a confused and indecipherable ideology that even its own self-described adherents can't agree on". Its that the TAC group which has a more authentic historical claim to the name no longer even recognizes the National Review set as in any way conservative. To them, conservative is as conservative does and free trade, outsourcing, foreign interventionism, war and the like don't qualify as conservative in any way.
I will reinterate about "brandng" although posters here like to assimilate the term to nothingness...
Think of "conservative" and "liberal" as brands. Just as they set out on a concerted and successful effort to trash the liberal brand, they are now trying to maintain respect for the conservative brand. To do so means that they have to separate the manifest failures of this administration from the conservative brand.
To do that, they have to claim that the administration is not, in fact, conservative. But they can't do this in any credible way because they have lined up behind this guy, this approach, this war just as abjectly as they lined up behind Reagan. Ford and Bush sr. not so much.
It was credible that they would consider GHWB not a real conservative. The tax increase, the engagement with international partners, the CT background, the wishy-washiness on abortion all spoke to a deference to the mushy middle.
They simply cannot credibly disassociate the brand from W. He's their man down the line. And he is a clear demonstration that their entire set of policy prescriptions, from the free use of military force to borrow and spend fiscal policies cannot be a successful framework for governance. It always was, but in the past there were speed bumps and responsibility.
The 1986 tax reform is one example of responsibility. Reagan listened to advisers that told him that his policies were not fiscally sound. Bush reversing his read my lips promise was another example, as was his conduct of the Iraq war.
This administration has engaged in an unprecedented series of irresponsible policies based on one fantasy after another.
"3. Reduce the size and scope of government."
That one is my favorite. The idea behind America was that the federal government should have minimal power - just the necessary things like military currency, interstate issues, ...etc.
Somehow that ended with the federal government telling you in the 1920's, through FDA policy, you cannot wear a contraceptive in your bedroom with your spouse ...and today, the Republicans are trying to get federal government to control who can marry who. It would be great to have a constitutional amendment prevent the federal government from infringing on state rights to govern marriage, which the states have governed since this country was founded.
That one is my favorite. The idea behind America was that the federal government should have minimal power - just the necessary things like military currency, interstate issues, ...etc.
Somehow that ended with the federal government telling you in the 1920's, through FDA policy, you cannot wear a contraceptive in your bedroom with your spouse ...and today, the Republicans are trying to get federal government to control who can marry who. It would be great to have a constitutional amendment prevent the federal government from infringing on state rights to govern marriage, which the states have governed since this country was founded.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 20K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 12K
-
Discussion Speculation: Zen 4 (EPYC 4 "Genoa", Ryzen 7000, etc.)- Started by Vattila
- Replies: 13K
-
Facebook
Twitter