The GOP philosophy: Same old bad ideas

Cal Thomas’ article published in Wednesday’s Citizen is a very well articulated argument that people should be educated (by Republicans once they are back in power) to fend for themselves in a world dominated by wealthy corporate interests who relentlessly endeavor to mold government into something ineffectual that can be manipulated by them.

It is just another well argued bad idea in a seemingly endless stream of propaganda generated by the conservative right that seeks to improve the circumstances of the wealthy at the expense of the majority.

Mr. Thomas deftly argues self-sufficiency. He would do away with Social Security and Medicare. He would eliminate or at least deregulate every other government program designed to help the needy. He champions privatization and believes that if it doesn’t make a profit it isn’t worth doing. He believes that the wealthy should pay less taxes because they are the “movers and shakers” in this country and that the wealth they create will “trickle down to the masses.”

Just look at the state of the nation now. Republicans have governed for most of the past 40 years. Is America better off? I don’t think so!

I have been alive long enough to remember every government since Dwight Eisenhower and have witnessed the systematic redistribution of wealth so that the rich have gotten richer as the poor have gotten poorer.

Right wing philosophers like Cal Thomas (who works for Rupert Murdoch’s Fox News) have sold the American people Gordon Gekko-like ideas so they will stand by idly or even support public policies designed to impoverish them. These ideas are cleverly packaged as “traditional American values.” Give me a break!

I really don’t expect to see much improvement. As long as the American people continue to be fooled by duplicitous right wing propaganda, nothing will change.

Please don’t misunderstand me. I am not advocating socialism or communism. They won’t work. But unbridled capitalism will not work either.

I am, however, advocating responsible government that does not get the country into bogus wars and does not let wealthy corporate interests rule the roost.

Perhaps we should begin by renouncing war as public policy. Perhaps we should bow out of the affairs of other nations.

Perhaps we should demand that government balance the budget and pay off the deficit. Perhaps we should amend the Constitution to that effect.

Perhaps we should end corporate tax breaks for sending jobs overseas. Perhaps we should end corporate welfare.

Perhaps we should outlaw lobbying and the buying of public officials. Perhaps we should demand that public policy benefit all Americans for a change.

Perhaps we should make energy self-sufficiency public policy. Perhaps we should prosecute corporations that hire illegal aliens if we are worried about that.

How bad do things have to get? I am mad as hell! I think the American people are, too. When are we going to take our government back? I’ll tell you when. When we wake up and demand significant change that will benefit the country as a whole. I sure hope that doesn’t mean returning to the bankrupt policies of the “party of no,” however.

David Browning

Peachtree City, Ga.

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
Gort - Premise

Mr. Browning - Quote: "It is just another well argued bad idea in a seemingly endless stream of propaganda generated by the conservative right that seeks to improve the circumstances of the wealthy at the expense of the majority.

Mr. Thomas deftly argues self-sufficiency. He would do away with Social Security and Medicare. He would eliminate or at least deregulate every other government program designed to help the needy. He champions privatization and believes that if it doesn’t make a profit it isn’t worth doing. He believes that the wealthy should pay less taxes because they are the “movers and shakers” in this country and that the wealth they create will “trickle down to the masses.”"

His premise is that life is unfair.

So, your point is what? That he is somehow correct? That our government was formed to make it all equal? If so, go re-read my post and come back with an argument for your position, Gort.

Gort
Gort's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/28/2009
PTC_O, my point is David

PTC_O, my point is David Browning is absolutely correct. I back up my argument with this:

Quote:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
Gort - Constitution

Have you ever read the constitution? I would suppose that, as most Progressives; you will point out the “general welfare” reference as justification for your rationalization of theft. The problem with this problematic interpretation is that the general welfare was framed within the context of Article I, Section 8. This Article clearly mandates that the Constitution provides for the general welfare under the enumerated powers as specifically stated within Section 8. Aside from Section 10, all other powers were specifically reserved for the States under the Tenth Amendment. I am sure that these words are simply words to you and have no meaning whatsoever.

The fact remains that the Framers of our Constitution had no intention to have direct taxation (Article I, Section 9) and most certainly not redistribution of individual wealth through taxation. You cannot find this power in the Constitution.

The preamble to the Constitution was just that a preamble, it is not “law”. The fact that you use it to “back up’ your argument illustrates the shallowness of your ideas concerning the Constitution.

What is it that you think the government “guarantees” you as a citizen? If you read the document you will find out. It has nothing to do with providing you or those that you feel deserving someone else’s property. This was the basis of Mr. Browning’s letter to the editor, "life is not fair" and it is the role of government to correct this injustice of life.

Gort
Gort's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/28/2009
PTC_O, what are you saying, I

PTC_O, what are you saying, I don't know how to read?

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
Gort

Think, Gort. Think

Gort
Gort's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/28/2009
PTC_O, I am thinking, I’m

PTC_O, I am thinking, I’m thinking I already answered this for you on 10/7, at 9:57 PM, a little farther down this page. Why you insist on turning every political subject into a debate on the original intent of the US Constitution is beyond me.

I’ll just mark your response down as another instance of: “The GOP philosophy: Same old bad ideas”

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
Gort - why it's important

It is important to understand the origins and intent of the Constitution because if that intent is lost, we are lost. Not that we are not lost already, you clearly believe in what you are saying but I believe that your beliefs are instilled in you without much study or thought.

The problem is that people don't think about what the Constitution was really attempting to do, they like you believe that it is simply outdated ideas, or has Hamilton discribed it "a frail and worthless fabric". This is far from the truth.

You should attempt from time to time just to study it and think about what they were attempting to do with this document. Here are two good books on the subject and if you take the time to read them, maybe even you will be persuaded by the brilliance of our Founders ideas.

Read these two and think about it, then come back with your questions.

Original Meanings: Politics and Ideas in the Making of the Constitution by Jack N. Rakove

The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution by Bernard Bailyn

Think Gort, think

Courthouserules
Courthouserules's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/02/2010
Constitution?

We have had numerous 5-4 votes from the Supreme Court in recent years that were conservativly biased everytime!

They even allowed themselves to interfere with a state supreme court and actually elect a President who got a minority of the popular votes.

No Constitution is safe as long as Supreme Courts such as this exist.

It seems it is impossible for any of the conservatives to ever vote with the liberals no matter what.

Time to "pack" the court again---we need two more liberals on there, making 11 Justices.

Observerofu
Observerofu's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/14/2010
It is because

Progressives believe the Constitution is simply an old document that needs updating.
Conservatives still believe the Constitution is relevant and does not need to be made into a "LIVING" document.

Your arguments display a lack of respect for the Founding Fathers intent for the People to be the decider's of our individual freedoms. You seem to believe the Government is more capable of deciding what we as a people need and what is "fair".

Neither the GOP or the DNC have the answers because they see through the prism of DC. The Democrats want to Tax and Spend the Republicans want to Tax Cut and Spend.

Neither works. Tax Cuts mixed with spending cuts is the only answer that has ever worked. The Market can and will correct itself, but as long as this administration continues to offer nothing but threats of larger taxes and instability businesses like mine will not hire.

Without the Small Businesses in America who create the larger share of Jobs
doing what we do best this economy will not move forward. With the new taxes and regulations that are falling on us Jan 01, 2011 we see nothing on the horizon that offers hope.

So in closing what has the DNC offered in the last 20 months?

Gort
Gort's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/28/2009
OofU, there you go again,

OofU, there you go again, telling me what I believe in! But what the heck, if that’s all you give me, I’ll work with it!

So you say my position is, the Constitution is a “Living” document and that is bad. So your position must be the Constitution is a “Dead” document and that’s good? Does this line of reasoning really work at Teaparty meetings or does it just sound smarter when Christine O'Donnell reads the words backwards from a piece of paper?

If anyone is mocking the Founding Fathers it’s you and your GOP/Teaparty friends. You’re the guys running around pretending your channeling the spirit of the Founding Father. The Founding Fathers were about binding the nation together; your fake Teaparty and GOP is about division.

So you’re worried about the new taxes and regulations for small business? Maybe your GOP/Teaparty candidates you get elected this term can fix it for you when they get to Washington. Ironic isn't it? That you, of all people, are looking to Washington for a solution to your problems.

For the past twenty months the conservatives have whined, complained, stamp their feet, and stood on the sideline while the Democratic Party did all the heavy lifting to keep a terrible situation from becoming a catastrophe.

With few exceptions, the only help we seen from Republican politicians is when they would come out to mug up for the cameras while they handed out a stimulus check they voted against.

Observerofu
Observerofu's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/14/2010
Understanding is not your strong suit is it Gort?

I believe I said "It Seems" meaning to appear or consistent with.

Your post says all I need to know about you.

But for clarification would you like to state if you are indeed a Progressive or not?

Gort
Gort's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/28/2009
OofU, do you have time to

OofU, do you have time to blog? You better spend more time figuring out how to pay all those new taxes and regulation you’re so afraid of. 2011 is almost here!

To answer your question, I’m just Gort. I'm unique. I refuse to let you or anyone else put me in a box.

I picked the name Gort because it had four letters and the picture was available on the internet. The only resemblance to the movie Gort is the hard balding head, and the beacon of light I shine wherever I go. 8-)

See you in the funny papers.

Observerofu
Observerofu's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/14/2010
I will be sure to fill you in

as they are brought on line. Until then I think I will just hunker down keep the employees I currently have save for that stormy day.

Gort
Gort's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/28/2009
OofU, I look forward to

OofU, I look forward to hearing all about it. The good as well as the bad, okay!

You wouldn’t want anyone on the forum to accuse you of not being “fair and balanced” would you?

Observerofu
Observerofu's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/14/2010
Not a problem

Oh I suppose I can give FACTS and not inject a party ideology into it.

However there are some who will always be afraid to face their party's missteps and no matter how glaring the stumble is they will still deny the facts and say it never happened or just misstate the persons position then go on to attack them instead of acknowledge and argue the message.

Those are just fearful of being wrong.

Gort
Gort's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/28/2009
You don’t have to go to

You don’t have to go to Washington if you’re looking for bad Republican ideas. We got some bad ideas under the dome in Atlanta too. My understanding is, Republican Michael Hardin wants to sponsor a bill that requires random drug tests for unemployment and welfare recipients?

(Funny, he doesn’t mention anything about recipients of corporate welfare and their employees being subject to the same scrutiny.)

You just have to wonder, how many school teachers the state legislature is willing to furlough to accomplish this gift to humanity.

Courthouserules
Courthouserules's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/02/2010
Gort

You have a point.
I am absolutely for blood tests required for anyone getting tax money as pay or loans or grants!
Just as people like Cal wants. I'll bet Cal couldn't pass the blood test!
Limbaugh wouldn't want a drug test, I'm sure.

All government pensioners should be required on a random basis to have a check for drugs and alcohol, but no less than every year once.

All Police and firemen also, all school teachers, all federal employees except elected officials. They have to drink!

I guess Cal is afraid these people will spend too much on drugs and beer.
By the way isn't that government interference into people's private business--which he hates!

Cyclist
Cyclist's picture
Offline
Joined: 05/15/2007
Gort

If this is the same proposal that was brought up last year, they'll have to pay for the drug test.

Cyclist
Cyclist's picture
Offline
Joined: 05/15/2007
If we are going to take back our country....

we had better do it quickly. The clock is ticking on the debt bomb.

Gort
Gort's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/28/2009
Cyclist, I’m glad you brought

Cyclist, I’m glad you brought up the “debt bomb.” One of the major pillows of deceit in the Republican “Plague on America” is to extend the “Bush Tax Cuts.”

What is that going to do to the debt? Make it go down?

Create job? I don’t think so. The “Bush Tax Cuts,” have been in effect since 2003 so why isn’t the country swimming in jobs if that was true?

Cyclist
Cyclist's picture
Offline
Joined: 05/15/2007
You know Gort....

from my reading of the tea leaves - and I'm no tea "partier" - the US budget for FY 2009 (Bush's last) had a deficit of $407 Billion. Obama's first budget FY 2010 had a deficit of $1.171 Trillion. For FY 2011 that budget deficit will grow to $1.267 Trillion. In those two years - '10 and '11 - we will have spent over $2.4 Trillion more than was taken in. That's shocking when you consider that this is almost what the federal budget was in FY 2006.

Tax cuts, hell we are going to be in a situation where there will be no money to support consumerism. I suspect that all of it will be going to taxes and or higher interest rates and not to mention that the dollar will be worth less meaning the price of goods and fuel will rise. There will be no money left over to support consumerism which is how one grows an economy to get it moving again. I don't know if you remember the late '70s and earlier '80s but we are going experience it again in a rush.

Major Mike said it best "be very afraid".

Chris P. Bacon
Chris P. Bacon's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/28/2010
Cyclist, one minor correction

Hi Cyclist, I was thinking of you tonight when I read this article: Eight False Things That Every Voter "Knows"...

The actual deficit of George W. Bush's final budget (FY2009) was not 407 billion, but rather $1.416 trillion dollars.

A contemporary account of the final numbers can be found in an October 2009 AP article here, written days after the books were closed on FY2009 on Sept 30, 2009.

These deficits are nonetheless very high.

Edited to add:
Bush's FY2008 budget deficit was 458 billion dollars, perhaps that is what you were referring to?

Cyclist
Cyclist's picture
Offline
Joined: 05/15/2007
Bacon - The Diffference is....

I was using "planned" deficit numbers not actual. In all fairness, the deficit for FY 2010 "planned" was close to "actual".

Now I wish Cal will let me post from the house soon. It seems a post with an embedded link got hung-up and now I have to be clear across the nation in order to reply. Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr!

Gort
Gort's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/28/2009
Cyclist, you brought up the

Cyclist, you brought up the subject of the “debt bomb”. I just asked you, what effect the Republican plan to extend the “Bush Tax Cuts,” would have on the debt.

1. Will it ease the problem with the debt?

2. Will it create jobs?

My position is, it would make the debt worst. Second, if the Bush tax cuts didn’t create any jobs, (in the USA,) since 2003, it’s safe to say they wouldn’t create any in the future.

Come on now, how about answering the questions I asked?

NUK_1
NUK_1's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/17/2007
Gort: Tax cuts and the deficit

I don't think extending the tax cuts of 2003 is going "help" with the deficit nor do I think it will "create" a lot of jobs. What extending them will do is keep more people presently employed from suddenly becoming unemployed.

As far as the deficit part, government should never implement tax cuts without the same reduction in spending, i.e. tax cuts should pay for themselves and not just in the nebulous "created lots of jobs...helped the economy..blah blah blah." The big problem with the Reagan tax cuts was that it was backed up by MORE spending, more spending than ever in history by the govt. That's a guaranteed way to increase deficits. Politicians like this route as someone else later has to solve the problem and not them. Well, time is running out on putting it all off on others like our children.

I think the full Bush cuts should remain in effect and that the govt should cut spending. By a LOT. Unlike about all Repubs, that also means the military gets some pain too and especially the Homeland Security bottomless pit of money as well as the laughably stupid amount of money spent on the "War on Drugs" both here and abroad. So a bunch of people in law enforcement lose their jobs of trying to protect people from themselves, so what?. Free rides are over and if there are going to be tax cuts/extensions, someone needs to pay for them NOW and not "later."

I look on the gigantic fiscal wreck of this country as a chance to dramatically shift the uncontrolled growth of government in this country as well as using financial logic instead of moral logic in creating priorities and budgets, but there's also a better chance that everyone wants someone else to suffer from govt spending reductions and instead will just keep on piling up debt and heading even further into insolvency.

Gort
Gort's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/28/2009
NUK_1, I’m a little confused.

NUK_1, I’m a little confused. In your first paragraph you agree that extending the tax cuts won’t help the debt problem or create “a lot of jobs.” Yet, when I read your paragraph three, it looks to me like you want to extend them anyway.

I understand your concern about loosing additional jobs but please consider this. If the tax cuts are not extended it would demonstrate there is a serious political will to actually do something about the deficit. It would remove the uncertainty that prevents companies and financial markets from taking action.

Wouldn’t that encourage companies to hire new workers in the US and increase the willingness of the financial markets to invest in the US as well?

I’m of the opinion, we got to pay the bill for the spending binge we went on in the last decade. If not now, then let someone tell me when would be a good time?

NUK_1
NUK_1's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/17/2007
Gort: Extend them and pay for them

Unlike the way it has been since 2003 where the tax cuts just added a ton to the deficit, they have to be "paid" for by a reduction in spending. In political terms, that means it's all on the table and if people/politicians want tax cuts, something else has to go to offset the reduction in revenue to the govt.

You could make quite a laundry list of items that need to be cut or gutted and we'll see whether there is more political will for maintaining the tax cuts over sucking holes of money like agribusiness subsidies and enormous corp welfare, Homeland Security, Military, the vast social entitlement empire, etc. IMO, these all need to be cut regardless of extending the Bush tax rates anyway, so time to get busy!

I could live with the tax cuts even being phased-out over a few years if it meant taking a very sharp axe to sacred govt cows.

Observerofu
Observerofu's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/14/2010
Agreed Tax Cuts AND Spending cuts

are the way to go. The problem is and always has been no Political will by our "Elected" officials to cut back on the earmarks and porky projects.

Until some Fiscal responsibility creeps back into DC we are pretty much stuck in the morass we are currently seeing and the debt and deficits will continue to grow.

Chris P. Bacon
Chris P. Bacon's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/28/2010
Rand Paul: "I ♥ Earmarks!"

Well THAT didn't take long...

Libertarian/Republican Rand Paul campaigned long and hard against earmarks this entire year. Now that he's been elected, he's told the Wall Street Journal that, surprise, surprise, earmarks aren't that bad after all!

Quote:

In a bigger shift from his campaign pledge to end earmarks, he tells me that they are a bad "symbol" of easy spending but that he will fight for Kentucky's share of earmarks and federal pork, as long as it's doled out transparently at the committee level and not parachuted in in the dead of night. "I will advocate for Kentucky's interests," he says.

LINK

Seduced by the allure of earmarks a scant 4 days after being elected! That's gotta be some sort of record!

As the noted philosopher Johnny Rotten of the Sex Pistols once said..."Ever get the feeling you've been cheated?”

Courthouserules
Courthouserules's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/02/2010
He and Isakson are big buddies, I'll bet!

Only person I know who didn't want any earmarks was John McCain and you people thought he was too liberal!

Gort
Gort's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/28/2009
NUK_1, I hear you, I just

NUK_1, I hear you, I just don’t think there is a political will to solve any problems. Reasonable people with a common goal could come up with your laundry list of problems to solve but these are not reasonable times. The Republican Party is very encouraged with the political results of the “party of no” strategy.

When the mid-terms are over they will continue that strategy for another two years. If the Democrats work a deal with the Republicans in the lame duck session, to extend all or any part of the Bush tax cuts, they are just adding to the debt problem.

If the Republican’s are successful in the mid-terms the Democratic Party will assume the roll of the “party of no,” and on and on it goes until it gets so silly even the special interest start complaining. Somehow when they complain both parties seem to listen.

Its not always easy living in a democracy, but it is interesting. Thanks for your replies.

Courthouserules
Courthouserules's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/02/2010
NUK

It makes no sense to cut taxes like Reagan and Bush, jr., did and then spend even more!

The cuts Bush, jr. made have not stopped the current great recession, either that or it would have been vastly worse if he had not! (how could it be though?)

Whatever congress does about the pending renewal of Bush's tax cuts, it is not going to end this great recession any time soon! It would just promote spending much more to avoid a depression if it were available---but it would not be available since it should go to pay off the deficit!

Since we live under capitalism, the only solution is collecting more taxes from 15,000,000 not working when they go back to work. That won't happen until the banks loan the money to do that! No one has any money except the banks, and they are on the edge yet!

When Washington turns them loose to foreclose the rest of the bad debts
(they just stopped them) it will again get worse for the banks---they will have to write off those foreclosures.

Plus, we haven't even started yet on commercial foreclosure that were closed due to the recession and those that were overbuilt and have yet to have a tenant!

Cyclist
Cyclist's picture
Offline
Joined: 05/15/2007
Nuk

Google:

Fed Chair Ben Bernanke stated in April 2010: "Thus, the reality is that the Congress, the Administration, and the American people will have to choose among making modifications to entitlement programs such as Medicare and Social Security, restraining federal spending on everything else, accepting higher taxes, or some combination thereof.

That pretty much sums it up.

Courthouserules
Courthouserules's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/02/2010
cyclist

What does "making modifications to Social Security and Medicare," mean?

He used the words "higher" and "restraining" elsewhere, but "modifications," for those two.

Typical Federal Chairmen double-speak, just like the TEAS.

The only other method for the "modifications" is the stock market! Is anyone that stupid?

Well, yes they could cut the benefits in half and close half the hospitals and make a paupers out of 25% of the population & lay-off the hospital employees including doctors.

Could lay-off the army and freeze all pensions now being paid, also!

Bernanke could care less as to how many poor people there might be, nor how deep the resulting depression might be!

Neither would the TEAS and right-wingers and very wealthy people, and highly pensioned people, and idiots.

These are the differences in liberalism and conservatism. Independent democracy is the only true way.

Cyclist
Cyclist's picture
Offline
Joined: 05/15/2007
OK CHR$...

Stop the analyzing and keep in step as we all move forward to get that hair cut.

Courthouserules
Courthouserules's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/02/2010
cyclist

STOP! You say!

Is that all you have to say?

Cyclist
Cyclist's picture
Offline
Joined: 05/15/2007
Gort,

Tax cuts, hell we are going to be in a situation where there will be no money to support consumerism.

Meaning:

No tax cuts. Heck, the demos want to modify Bush's plan and only let the rich tax rules expire but keeping the middle class tax cuts. It simply ain't enough so the answer to your fist question is no.

It didn't create any jobs since 2003? Interesting, check this out. It infers other wise. Now as for going forward with jobs, I doubt it.

Gort
Gort's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/28/2009
Cyclist, if I understand you

Cyclist, if I understand you correctly, it sounds like we agree. Extending the tax cuts is not good for the debt, and we both doubt it will add jobs.

BTW, nice chart everything looked good until about April of 2008 when the bottom started to fall out. Anyway, it has too much red and not enough blue for my taste. 8 - )

Cyclist
Cyclist's picture
Offline
Joined: 05/15/2007
Gort on the budget and understanding

Right now, several in the house are becoming concerned about the debt. This is witnessed by the fact that President Obama sent some feelers out to test the water to see if he could get another $50 Billion in stimulus money for more infrastructure work. From what Washington correspondent Jamie Dupree said this morning was that house leadership pushed back saying that something else in the budget had had to be cut. Perhaps the party of "yes" is leaning towards the party of "no".

Anyways, I agree with you up to the point that the Bush tax cuts did not stimulate the economy. Using that that slide slow I sent you I could argue that it did stimulate jobs until the bottom fell out of the economy.

Courthouserules
Courthouserules's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/02/2010
cyclist

I don't remember you telling Reagan or Bush that thought! (their 9 trillion).

And no, the clock is not ticking.

We pay about 7% of our budget now for interest on those loans.
Just as a working citizen making $50,000 pays up to 5-10,000 dollars on his debts. That is 14%, + OR-.

sOME MAKING $100,000 MIGHT PAY 20%.

MANY CORPORATIONS PAY FAR MORE INTEREST THAN 7% interest.

Want to check Delta's interest payments? Are they on the edge?

Thems politicking words you got!

doright
doright's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/14/2008
Dear Mr. Browning

I think its gone from the party of no to the party of HELL NO. I don't understand why the Republicans and most of Americans are angry. The president is doing his best he has offered more stimulus to help bail out banks and car companies instead of corporations and Nancy Pelosi said on Thursday that food stamps where the best bang for your buck to stimulate the economy. I don't understand why people are not fine with a .5 GDP and 98% debt for this country when we are getting so many other things. Do they not know government is here as our friend to take care of us? This is the promised change.

Then again the party of 'HELL NO' is looking pretty good about now and the so called plague on America (Pledge to America), I will take my chances and invite the tea baggers and tea strainers and tea drinkers to bring it on, show Fayette county and this nation what you got, give us your best. It can't be any worse then what we currently have on both sides.

Doing the right thing is never easy, doing it consistently is even harder.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
I agree PTC OBSERVER
Quote:

The solution to our problems lies within each of us. The Natural Law that empowered our framers to conceive the Constitution underscores that each of us must live life under the most important Rule, the Golden Rule. We don’t need the government to do that for us

That's it!! We (the people) are supposed to be the government!! We've allowed corporations, lobbyists, bankers, big business, etc. to speak for us. VOTE!! Our legislators are servants of those who support their re-election by big donations - and less than 40% of us vote.

Gort
Gort's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/28/2009
Dmom, what did you think of

Dmom, what did you think of the Republican, "Pledge to America?" (aka Plague on America,)

Reads like a Christmas list for special interest, don't it?

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
Gort

Yup.

Gort
Gort's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/28/2009
Dmom, go to YouTube and query

Dmom, go to YouTube and query “Nathan Deal Rally at Falcon Field, Peachtree City, Georgia”. It’s in three parts.

Part one reminded me of Nixon’s “little dog checkers” speech. Part two is about his policy to put more public employees out of work so he can continue the states corporate welfare program. Part three is local Teaparty members, gushing like school girls in his presence.

It’s awesome!

plainjane
plainjane's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/29/2010
GOP Philosophy: Same Old Bad Ideas

PTC OBSERVER: You comments are exceedingly painful to read. You have been sold a bill of goods and now you are peddling that nonsense - anonymously.

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
plainjane

How's that?

Please explain your position.

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
Painful Letter - Mr. Browning

Mr. Browning’s letter to the Citizen is quite painful to read not for the points that he attempts to make but the fact that they are all so misguided. No, I am not a Republican and believe me I am not defending Democrats. However, the political dialog in this country has been shaped by multiple decades of political speak and empty promises. Everyone knows there is something terribly wrong with the country, everyone has different opinions as to what problems are, but few actually agree on what is actually wrong.

Mr. Browning’s argument starts with a premise, that is life should be fair and it’s not. Given that life isn’t fair then it is the role of government to somehow make it fair. In fact the government has been trying to make things fair for many decades. Is this a proper role for our government, should we expect that a government make everything fair for its citizens? I think not.

Our constitutional government was formed around protection of three basic concepts; life, liberty, and property. In particular, the government should be given limited power and the branches should be separated to dilute its enumerated powers. Under the Constitution, the states should have the bulk of the power, pushing representative power to the lowest common denominator the individual citizen. Our framers knew from personal experience that a powerful central government was a threat to their life, liberty, and property. We seem to have forgotten this essential point.

So, what’s the problem? The problem is that the central government has been given more and more power in the mistaken belief that it can solve all of society’s ills. This social contract has been a failure, a total failure. Throwing more money at this broken contract will not repair it or even make it better. The expectation that government is the answer to all of our problems is in fact misguided and dangerous to our freedoms. Life isn’t fair, that’s a fact. Giving power to the central government does not solve this universal truth, it creates more problems, and many that Mr. Browning lists.

I could go into why each of the problems he lists to some degree exist because of government, but it would only serve to diffuse this simple message. The solution to our problems lies within each of us. The Natural Law that empowered our framers to conceive the Constitution underscores that each of us must live life under the most important Rule, the Golden Rule. We don’t need the government to do that for us.

Gort
Gort's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/28/2009
PTC Observer, I totally

PTC Observer, I totally disagree with your analysis of David Browning's letter. You said,

Quote:

Mr. Browning’s argument starts with a premise, that is life should be fair and it’s not.

That was your premise, not his. Mr. Browning’s letter was about “The GOP philosophy: Same old bad ideas”

Gort
Gort's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/28/2009
David Browning, I enjoyed

David Browning, I enjoyed reading your open letter and agree with much of what you say.

Quote:

"GOP philosophy: Same old bad ideas,"

It was like a breath of fresh air to this forum.

NUK_1
NUK_1's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/17/2007
Largely agree, Mr. Browning

A good portion of your opinions are what traditionally WAS called "conservatism" before the Repubs hijacked the concept in the 1980's and declared Reagan(a moderate before and after becoming President) a conservative icon. Then came the neo-cons with ideas that aren't anything resembling "conservative.

The GOP has utterly failed and the Dems have also. While it is heartening to see more and more candidates from third parties on the ballot and those who declare themselves as "independents," it's really WE that failed more than political parties, corporations, whatever. WE were the ones who elected people who were looking to sell-out everything the moment they got elected in order to get money, power, and re-elected. WE expected bums and we definitely got them. Until we replace that ilk of politician, it won't matter what party they belong to or anything else.

Pretty much agree with more than half of your list of priorities....I think most people do that haven't grown so disillusioned that it doesn't matter to them any more. Unfortunately, what is probably truly needed is the below, a satirical piece in The Onion:

"American People Hire High-Powered Lobbyist To Push Interests in Congress"
http://www.theonion.com/articles/american-people-hire-highpowered-lobbyi...

I will say one thing about the corporate welfare issue. I am generally against the concept but then the US has some of the highest corporate tax rates of any developed nation. That is "balanced" out by corp welfare which translates into politicians and corps that can afford the a on of lobbyists as having the power. A lesser corp tax rate and no corp welfare? Why, the poor politicians might not have overflowing campaign coffers and smaller corps might be competing on a more level playing field. The lobbyists? Gee, some might be unemployed, boo-hoo.

plainjane
plainjane's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/29/2010
GOP: Same Old Bad Ideas

Well said, David Browning. I, too, am old enough to remember Dwight D. Eisernhower, and a time when the Republican party stood for responsible government. It was Eisenhower who said "Beware of the military industrial complex . . ." and here are today in the worst mess in my long memory. Anyone who tries to lay this country's economic,social, military and foreign relations woes on our current Democratic president is very young and naive or simply uninformed about our nation's recent history. A systematic brainwashing by right wing philosophers and and entertainers (let's not call them reporters) does not help young people to gain perspective. I am sick at heart. But I also feel encouraged to read an occasional thoughtful commentary such as Mr. Browning has provided.

bladderq
bladderq's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/02/2005
Ike & Interstates

I often wonder how the Interstate Hwy system fits into the Teabagger World. Should all 48 states have come together & piecemealed this together? Then it took a tax to pay for it all. And all that free road certainly doesn't pay for itself. I mean nothing in Madison's work mentions any of this. Does that mean the Constitution is a "living" document?

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
Ike

The interstate system was built under or I should say with the excuse that the system was for national defense. Without this provision the Congress would not have approved it.

BTW - Roads are not free.

Joe Kawfi
Joe Kawfi's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/20/2009
Just another day in the 'hood

Child, teen injured in drive-by shooting

This kind of story is almost an every day occurance in Atlanta. It happens so often, no one is shocked by it anymore.

Recent Comments