I'm back. Before I begin addressing some of your points I'd like to state that I'm not against the Republican party on principle. I admired what the party once was and my beef is really with my perception of what it has become, meaning I perceive it has deteriorated. I admire people like William F. Buckley and Barry Goldwater for being intellectuals and standard bearers for the conservative cause, even if those two were not always right on every single issue; for example civil rights. Buckley later regretted not having supported the civil rights act, I'm not sure if Goldwater did or not. Civil rights is an example of an issue that, I feel, could only have been dealt with by the federal government. Another such issue is a coherent, comprehensive energy policy. I digress...These two are an example of a thoughtful, principled, intellectual Republican that I believe we've seen less and less of as time has gone by. When Reagan opened the door to the Christian Coalition to help himself get elected, he also opened the door to a lot of religious radicalism, extremism and ignorance that helped hijack the Republican party from its proud roots. This new crop of Tea Partiers is doing the same, with the rise of what I and many others like to refer to as the "know-nothings", the likes of Sarah Palin, Christine O'Donnell and Carl Paladino.
It sounds to me like you guys are Classical Liberals and fiscal Conservatives. Which is fine to me, my beef is with social conservatives, religious fundamentalists and the "know-nothings" who make a virtue out of ignorance.
Regarding my e-mail, since that has become an issue amongst some of you. What exactly is the problem? All of you seem proud of labeling yourself conservatives yet you seem offended that my e-mail is derogatory towards George W. Bush, a big-government Republican responsible for championing big-government policies such as the Patriot Act and TARP. Since I assume you are loyal to conservatism and not simply to party affiliation, I expect you to put your money where your mouth is and admit that George W. Bush was no real friend to small-government conservatism. Along this same train of thought, the current Majority leader in the House as well as the majority whip were both proponents of TARP, they argued passionately for its passage during the economic meltdown of 2008. So, again I am left to wonder, do you reflexively defend every politician with an R next to his name no matter their policies or will you criticize big-government Republicans as you do big-government Democrats? OK, onward to addressing some of your replies. Let's go in chronological order:
Calling the left socialist is accurate because the left wants to tax the producers and redistribute the wealth, mostly to the 'poor,' who are filthy rich compared to the real poverty that is found in third world countries. Taxing the producers is a strong dis-incentive to hiring more people, or even trying to be successful. Why make a lot of money, if most of it is going to be stolen for the 'common good?'
I think the goal right now is to stabilize the middle class, not so much to elevate the poor. I disagree that "most" of their money is being stolen. I've personally seen many times, the rich say "tax me more. I can afford it." Granted these are leftists, and not captains of industry. If we simply return to the tax rates for the rich that were in place under Clinton, it wouldn't break the back of the employers. when the bush tax rates were put in place they were originally set to expire in ten years, they were never meant to be permanent. If we keep giving tax cuts without ever raising taxes, it makes no sense to me, there has to be some sort of point where even conservatives say "we're bankrupt. We either need to seriously find some massive spending programs to cut, or raise taxes."
Venezeula is on food rations because Hugo Chavez nationalized the economy and drove the producers out.
ok? Nobody is proposing that we nationalize any industry, that I'm aware of.
In addition to creating mutual poverty for all, wealth redistribution requires a powerful government by necessity, with a strong enforcement arm. The result is a ready made dictatorship that always ends up becoming a dictatorship.
A powerful federal government, we have. I don't think we're in any danger of becoming a dictatorship. The way I see it, we're in greater danger of becoming a plutocracy. A great argument can be made that we already are.
If left to his own devises Obama would take away ever-increasing swathes of our economic and political freedoms.
If that taints him with the reek of such people as the Central and South America tin pots that he can shake hands with while reserving terms like "enemies" for (fellow) Americans then that is how he smells.
Don't like it?
Then tell YOUR president to stop stealing our property and our rights.
It's commonly said that once an expansion of federal government is made, it's very hard to reign it back in. I criticize Obama for not amending the patriot act, for example, that was passed under the Bush presidency as I see certain portions of it as a big over-reach. But if you criticize Obama for something like that you also have to criticize Bush. What other freedoms, economic or political, has Obama taken from you?
BTW - if you're so wound-up about this term please explain his glowing accounts of such people as Frank Marshall Davis, Saul Alinsky, Bill Ayers, Rev. Wright, Bernadine Dohrn, Van Jones, etc etc etc
These are not casual acquaintances, these are people who chosen to work with or have work for him.
If Obama/you are so nervous about the reek of socialism stop working with commie shit bags.
Hmm, well I'm not familiar with some of these names. Some I recognize, but I was not aware that Obama worked closely with them. I'm not sure it's fair to characterize the relationship with rev. Wright and Bill Ayers as a working relationship, for example. From what I've seen of Obama, he's big on that whole "let's find common ground and work together" thing. The fact that he once stood next to Bill Ayers or Saul Alinsky at some gathering is not sufficient enough evidence for me to damn him, it sounds more like guilt-by-association. If he isn't letting Bill Ayers or Saul Alinsky influence legislation then what exactly is the big deal? You all seem to think Obama is a big radical scary lefty pinko commie bastard, but I don't see him that way, I view him closer to being a moderate actually. He's remarkably moderate and rather milquetoast.
Perhaps the bank takeovers...trying to limit what CEO's can make...placing restrictive regulations on Wall Street and the fact that under this President and his merry band of Socialists...that's right I said Socialists...they muscled their way into majority owner of two car companies.
Then theres universal (socialized) healthcare that punishes people and employers for not bowing to the will of the Federal Government and forcing them to carry insurance or get fined.
You said a lot of stuff here so I'll try to dissect it point by point. The measures taken to stabilize the economy were necessary, and they were started under George W. Bush with approval and support from the Republican leadership. Obama did not nationalize the banks, but he did continue what Bush started, which was stabilizing them and giving them a ton of money to help spur lending and prevent panic and a run on the banks. This was very clearly a bi-partisan effort to prevent a complete collapse of our capitalistic system and it worked.
Increased regulations is a desirable thing from my viewpoint as these companies are not capable of self-regulating. The federal government plays an important role here protecting the interests of the common man. I offer up an example in the form of the Federal Trade Commission, which protects consumer interests from unfair practices that would take advantage of the little man. Too much regulation is as bad as too little regulation, a light touch is required.
Bailing out the car companies, like bailing out the banks, was a necessity imo. The president has stated that he has no interest in keeping the federal government in the car business, but letting these companies collapse would have been much worse than bailing them out. Presently, both companies have stabilized and are in the process of paying the government back. I know you are for free-market solutions but would it really have been the ideal solution to see both these companies collapse? Wouldn't unemployment be still higher than it is today had we done that?
Proof?
Well, Hamilton proposed a national bank and proposed for the federal government to assume the debt of all the states, which helped them tremendously after being bankrupted by the revolutionary war. then-President George Washington went along with these Federalist policies. So I guess you would and could call our first President a (dirty, rotten) socialist.
this post is pretty long so I'll cut it off here
