Rove slams Obama over 'bitter' comments, flag pin

[Paulie]

I know.. but I don't see it as liberal. I saw the repubs as arrogant and out of control and without appropriate checks and balances on their behavior. At least when power is shared there's a dynamic which keeps people on a shorter leash. These guys were kids with their little chubby fingers caught in the cookie jar.

Can you say bridge to nowhere? Sure I knew you could.

As long as you understand that you'll never see me advocate much of anything that the republican-controlled congress of this century has done.

Having unchecked power to me, is not an excuse for abandoning your principles, and the principles of the constituents who put you in power in the first place, or who have been CONTINUALLY putting you in power for even DECADES now. What the means to me, is that the so-called conservatives in congress aren't REALLY conservatives, because as soon as they have the power to reach into the purse unabated, they do so with clear vigor.

It also means to me that many of their voters aren't really conservatives EITHER, as for some reason they keep voting for them.

The bridge to nowhere is also something you'll never see me advocate for.

I HAVE, however, been reading lately about a Russian-proposed tunnel connecting Siberia with Alaska, for travel and trade purposes. I think that would be an EXCELLENT idea, personally.

 

[Paulie]

If deficit spending is conservative, then Bill Clinton was more conservative than Bush.

No child left behind is just stupid.... and it's unfunded, so what it is ... is window dressing. And THAT is politicians.. neither liberal nor conservative.

We shouldn't be nation building, but then again, we shouldn't have been out nation destroying. Once we did that, the rest was a foregone conclusion. And that policy was NEO-CON... not dem nor liberal.

The problem is that this republican party which exists right now ISN'T conservative. Conservatives stay out of people's bedrooms and spend their money wisely. They don't however try to destroy government because they essential hate it.

Deficit spending is NOT conservative. That's the point I was trying to make.

"No Child" is liberal, because it relies upon the premise that the federal government should regulate how our children learn and advance in public schools, and it restricts teachers from using a lot of their own knowledge to teach class how they think it should best be taught. Like government knows better than teachers, about how to educate people.

And being "neo-con" doesn't have to be exclusive of con or lib. It's a bunch of guys who were mostly liberals, that have hijacked the conservative base for their own political usage. You can thank Karl Rove for much of that.

Who would you say in your view then, was/is a "good" conservative?

 

[Foxfyre]

Thanks, but opinion pieces from wingnuts aren't proof.

Dispute the data they present if you can then. You asked for proof and I gave it to you. I don't believe you'll be able to find ANYTHING from ANYBODY to discredit their analysis.

 

[Ravi]

Dispute the data they present if you can then. You asked for proof and I gave it to you. I don't believe you'll be able to find ANYTHING from ANYBODY to discredit their analysis.

You didn't give me any data. You gave me opinion. And actually, there are plenty of economists, some currently serving under Bush, that admit there is no proof of this...keep dreaming.

This has been discussed on this forum in the past and totally debunked.

 

[Foxfyre]

You haven't noticed yet that this government doesn't care whether or not it's getting enough of your taxes to cover its spending? They can cut taxes all they want, the money will just be borrowed from foreign nations, or printed up. Listen, I'm completely anti-deficit spending. I find it to be the most irresponsible thing our government does on a consistent basis. Under Bush, the national debt has doubled. He did in only 8 years, what previously took the first 87 years.

Isn't that what I've already said? No matter how much you give government to spend they are going to spend it all and then some. Therefore an increase in taxes is only going to increase government spending. So I am at least in favor of lower taxes that promotes a more robust economy rather than higher taxes that slow or stifle the economy.

I am as opposed to deficit spending as you are but the answer to that is in the people we elect to Congress. As long as they can use our money to buy our votes and enrich themselves, which most of them do, we will not see federal government spending reined in or any realistic controls put on the massive federal entitlement programs that are the cause for most of the deficit spending that there is. The only control the President has is with the veto pen and Congress can pretty well control his use of that by including items in allocation bills that he can ill afford to veto. The President cannot spend one dime that is not authorized by Congress.

Our problem is that we seem to like our own elected people and blame everybody else. The people have a great deal of power to dictate what they demand from their government however. How about we start doing THAT instead of trying to find some individual to demonize and blame?

Meanwhile viva tax cuts and lower taxes across the board. Let's don't give them any additional incentive to increase their bribes to keep themselves in power.

 

[jillian]

Deficit spending is NOT conservative. That's the point I was trying to make.

"No Child" is liberal, because it relies upon the premise that the federal government should regulate how our children learn and advance in public schools, and it restricts teachers from using a lot of their own knowledge to teach class how they think it should best be taught. Like government knows better than teachers, about how to educate people.

And being "neo-con" doesn't have to be exclusive of con or lib. It's a bunch of guys who were mostly liberals, that have hijacked the conservative base for their own political usage. You can thank Karl Rove for much of that.

Who would you say in your view then, was/is a "good" conservative?

Don't blame liberals for republican arrogance.

I like Joe Scarborough ;o)

I also liked pataki when he was gov of ny.

 

[Paulie]

Isn't that what I've already said? No matter how much you give government to spend they are going to spend it all and then some. Therefore an increase in taxes is only going to increase government spending. So I am at least in favor of lower taxes that promotes a more robust economy rather than higher taxes that slow or stifle the economy.

I am as opposed to deficit spending as you are but the answer to that is in the people we elect to Congress. As long as they can use our money to buy our votes and enrich themselves, which most of them do, we will not see federal government spending reined in or any realistic controls put on the massive federal entitlement programs that are the cause for most of the deficit spending that there is. The only control the President has is with the veto pen and Congress can pretty well control his use of that by including items in allocation bills that he can ill afford to veto. The President cannot spend one dime that is not authorized by Congress.

Our problem is that we seem to like our own elected people and blame everybody else. The people have a great deal of power to dictate what they demand from their government however. How about we start doing THAT instead of trying to find some individual to demonize and blame?

Meanwhile viva tax cuts and lower taxes across the board. Let's don't give them any additional incentive to increase their bribes to keep themselves in power.

Where I disagree with this, is where cutting taxes is somehow keeping government from spending more. There are other alternatives as I pointed out, and those alternatives are what has been causing such a rapid devaluation of the Dollar, which is the BIGGEST problem. The mounting debt from borrowing iresponsibly, the out of control money printing...I'd much rather the budget stay balanced and stop purposefully devaluing the dollar to maintain liquidity. There's enough money in the system as it is. Cutting taxes does not help the situation. It worsens it, which obviously is up for debate with you. The spending isn't stopping, so I can't advocate creating a deficit by cutting taxes and instead adding to our debt, and inflating the money supply to no end. I don't like taxes being RAISED, but I also don't like them being lowered in the absence of spending cuts, to allow people to spend their little hearts out, trying to keep up with the inflation rate, while simultaneously neglecting a balanced, responsible savings plan.

It's not that taxes need to be continually cut. Spending needs to go, FIRST. THEN, taxes can be cut. I don't agree with the revenue analyses you posted about tax cuts, either. And I'm sure many others don't, as well. But, of course, I'm of the Austrian/Chicago school of thought, so I probably WOULDN'T agree.

 

[Foxfyre]

Where I disagree with this, is where cutting taxes is somehow keeping government from spending more. There are other alternatives as I pointed out, and those alternatives are what has been causing such a rapid devaluation of the Dollar, which is the BIGGEST problem. The mounting debt from borrowing iresponsibly, the out of control money printing...I'd much rather the budget stay balanced and stop purposefully devaluing the dollar to maintain liquidity. There's enough money in the system as it is. Cutting taxes does not help the situation. It worsens it, which obviously is up for debate with you. The spending isn't stopping, so I can't advocate creating a deficit by cutting taxes and instead adding to our debt, and inflating the money supply to no end. I don't like taxes being RAISED, but I also don't like them being lowered in the absence of spending cuts, to allow people to spend their little hearts out, trying to keep up with the inflation rate, while simultaneously neglecting a balanced, responsible savings plan.

It's not that taxes need to be continually cut. Spending needs to go, FIRST. THEN, taxes can be cut. I don't agree with the revenue analyses you posted about tax cuts, either. And I'm sure many others don't, as well. But, of course, I'm of the Austrian/Chicago school of thought, so I probably WOULDN'T agree.

As I said we will just have to agree to disagree. I didn't say that cutting taxes helps the situation of out-of-control government spending. I did say that it allows us to keep more of our own money to use in ways that stimulate instead of drag down the economy while allowing the govenrment more of our money will be spent plus they will be encouraged to initiate even more new spending.

If you do not wish to exert yourself to demand that your elected officials rein in unnecessary or opportuniistic spending, that is your choice. And I don't care whether you agree with the figures I posted or not. But I can guarantee you that you will be unable to dispute them with any credible source. (People more radical and "I hate Bush" in their views than you have already tried. You can trust me on that.)

The dollar has probably pretty well bottomed out. The great advantage of a weak dollar is that it makes imported products much more expensive and thereby encourages all of us to buy American. This boosts all American manufacturers from tiddywinks to automobile makers and has reduced our trade deficits. So it isn't necessarily an all bad thing. The dollar is beginning to slowly rise against both the Euro and and Yen which also is not necessarily a bad thing either if it doesn't get too strong. A stable dollar is good both for us and our international trading partners.

Meanwhile, if you are so concerned about taxes being too low, why don't you start a drive for like minded individual to contribute to the government? Just send them whatever you think you should be paying.

But please leave me out of it.