# What have they done



## young guy (Jan 6, 2005)

i am genuinely interested to know what public good has the republican party done for the average person in American. 

its easy to list Democratic contributions, ending child labor, social security, medicare, passing voter rights acts and other civil rights laws (to name a few) but i cant think of too many republican contributions

OK eisenhower created the interstate highways for the military but the result was benefit for everyone, and teddy Roosevelt passed anti-trust laws even though his republican party was against it. so here you go: give me a list of republican contributions


----------



## agnash (Jul 24, 2006)

Ending slavery?


----------



## agnash (Jul 24, 2006)

*Civil Rights Acts*

1866, 1871 and 8175 Civil Rights Acts passed by Republican majorities.

1964 Civil Rights Act: 80% of Republicans voted in favor, 60% of Democrats voted in favor. Despite being the majority party, the Democrats could not have passed the legislation without the support of the Republicans.


----------



## Dhaller (Jan 20, 2008)

Yes, ending slavery is the big one.

People tend to forget - understandably - that the Republican Party was the original civil rights party; it was quite progressive.

Which shows us how much things change with time - the current, conservative Republican Party would certainly never have achieved any of those things.

DH


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

young guy said:


> i am genuinely interested to know what public good has the republican party done for the average person in American.
> 
> its easy to list Democratic contributions, ending child labor, social security, medicare, passing voter rights acts and other civil rights laws (to name a few) but i cant think of too many republican contributions
> 
> OK eisenhower created the interstate highways for the military but the result was benefit for everyone, and teddy Roosevelt passed anti-trust laws even though his republican party was against it. so here you go: give me a list of republican contributions


The ending of slavery is probably the best example. Things were very different in the past, e.g. during the civil rights movement of the late 1950's and 60's, the main objection to it came from southern Democrats, not Republicans. And historically, the Republican Party has always been the party of civil rights and social progress, until it was hijacked by the globalist "supply-side" fringe during the Nixon administration.

I used to think like you, but when I started to look closer the picture became very different. Just to give one silly example, try doing some research into Al Gore's utility bills. And then look at what GWB has done to his home to make it energy self-sufficient. It surprised the heck out of me.


----------



## chatsworth osborne jr. (Feb 2, 2008)

*overall a disppointment of late, I agree*

In the last decade or so, gradual restoration of second amendment rights and nipping away at abortion are all that comes to mind on the national scale.


----------



## smujd (Mar 18, 2008)

young guy said:


> its easy to list Democratic contributions, ending child labor, social security, medicare, passing voter rights acts and other civil rights laws (to name a few) but i cant think of too many republican contributions


Ahh, yes. Thank goodness for social security and medicare... 

And yet, what have those dastardly Republicans done? Opened trade with China. Liberated Kuwait. Appointed the first female to the Supreme Court. Appointed the first (and second) black Secretary of State. Ended Vietnam.

Also, maybe you've heard of this big ditch called the Panama Canal? I guess the past ~25 years of prosperity might qualify, too. Might add releasing thousands of Japanese from internment camps to the list. I guess, if really pushed to the extreme, one might admit that liberating hostages held for 444 days was a good thing.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

smujd said:


> And yet, what have those dastardly Republicans done? Opened trade with China.


Yes, and Nixon took us off the gold standard in 1971, when 35 U.S. dollars bought an ounce of gold.

Now it takes 1100 dollars, and our manufacturing sector has been reduced to rubble.

Just look at how well it turned out.


----------



## smujd (Mar 18, 2008)

FrankDC said:


> Yes, and Nixon took us off the gold standard in 1971, when 35 U.S. dollars bought an ounce of gold.
> 
> Now it takes 1100 dollars, and our manufacturing sector has been reduced to rubble.
> 
> Just look at how well it turned out.


A few notes:
1. The question was what have Republicans done?
2. I doubt you will ever find a politician or party who/which has done everything well.
3. Correlation does not equal causation.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

smujd said:


> A few notes:
> 1. The question was what have Republicans done?


What's your point, Nixon was not a Republican?



smujd said:


> 2. I doubt you will ever find a politician or party who/which has done everything well.


That is not the claim I made.



smujd said:


> 3. Correlation does not equal causation.


In this case, you bet your bippy it does.


----------



## rnoldh (Apr 22, 2006)

Dhaller said:


> Yes, ending slavery is the big one.


No, giving Manton, Medwards, and others to the world is their great achievement.

Even a few guys from Texas.


----------



## agnash (Jul 24, 2006)

smujd said:


> A few notes:
> 2. I doubt you will ever find a politician or party who/which has done everything well.


I doubt you will ever find a political party that has done anything well.

Occasionally, an individual will rise above the collective incompetence of his/her party and do something for the good of the nation, but not often, and rarely on purpose.


----------



## Nicesuit (Apr 5, 2007)

So basically you want to take credit for EVERY socialist program aimed at creating a nanny state? Great, have at it if that's what you're proud of!!

The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of 'liberalism' they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation, without knowing how it happened.--Norman Thomas, Presidential candidate for the Socialist Party of America.

By the way, he quit running for President when he got a gander at FDR and his "liberal" agenda, because he said he no longer had to.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Nicesuit said:


> So basically you want to take credit for EVERY socialist program aimed at creating a nanny state? Great, have at it if that's what you're proud of!!
> 
> The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of 'liberalism' they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation, without knowing how it happened.--Norman Thomas


You should have told that to our last president, before he extorted us for $1.5 trillion to pay off his banking and investment buddies on his way out of office.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

FrankDC said:


> You should have told that to our last president, before he extorted us for $1.5 trillion to pay off his banking and investment buddies on his way out of office.


Frank, you assume we didn't?


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

By protecting some semblance of the capitalist system, the GOP has enabled the private sector to make the immense advances in just about every aspect comprising the standard of living we enjoy today. But it's not so easy to identify since "the government" didn't do it.

And let's not forget that America (and its market) has benefitted the rest of the world not only in the scientific, medical, and technological advancements, but through the peace created by the American military and the downfall of the Soviet Union and the moderation of the Chinese communists, not to mention all the third-world revolutaries who were bankrolled or inspired by the communists, etc., etc.

Considering "the government's" track record as far as standard of living goes, this is no small accomplishment, unless you like the idea of living it up like people in the 70s-era communist states did.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

"forge[ing] a bipartisan agreement on welfare."

"transforming our Nation's welfare system into one that requires work for time-limited assistance."


----------



## Nicesuit (Apr 5, 2007)

FrankDC said:


> You should have told that to our last president, before he extorted us for $1.5 trillion to pay off his banking and investment buddies on his way out of office.


Yes, who exactly says we didn't. By the way, Bush is no longer here, and Obama is nothing more than Bush on steroids.

https://blog.heritage.org/2009/03/24/bush-deficit-vs-obama-deficit-in-pictures/

Please see the chart for your reality check of the day.


----------



## Nicesuit (Apr 5, 2007)

PedanticTurkey said:


> By protecting some semblance of the capitalist system, the GOP has enabled the private sector to make the immense advances in just about every aspect comprising the standard of living we enjoy today. But it's not so easy to identify since "the government" didn't do it.
> 
> And let's not forget that America (and its market) has benefitted the rest of the world not only in the scientific, medical, and technological advancements, but through the peace created by the American military and the downfall of the Soviet Union and the moderation of the Chinese communists, not to mention all the third-world revolutaries who were bankrolled or inspired by the communists, etc., etc.
> 
> Considering "the government's" track record as far as standard of living goes, this is no small accomplishment, unless you like the idea of living it up like people in the 70s-era communist states did.


:icon_cheers: :icon_hailthee::aportnoy::teacha:

All this is going to leave them feeling :crazy:


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Nicesuit said:


> Yes, who exactly says we didn't. By the way, Bush is no longer here, and Obama is nothing more than Bush on steroids.
> 
> https://blog.heritage.org/2009/03/24/bush-deficit-vs-obama-deficit-in-pictures/
> 
> Please see the chart for your reality check of the day.


Mr. Nicesuit, president Obama is doing everything he can to undo the catastrophic damage caused by GWB's administration and 12 years of a Republican controlled Congress. Republicans did in 12 years of borrow-and-spend socialism what the Democrats were unable to do in 40+ years of tax-and-spend socialism.

So if your overall point is that Republicans are somehow preferable to Democrats, their own record completely disproves that notion. The globalist supply-siders have gained control not once but twice in the last 30 years, and both times it's been an unqualified disaster.


----------



## Nicesuit (Apr 5, 2007)

FrankDC said:


> Mr. Nicesuit, president Obama is doing everything he can to undo the catastrophic damage caused by GWB's administration and 12 years of a Republican controlled Congress. Republicans did in 12 years of borrow-and-spend socialism what the Democrats were unable to do in 40+ years of tax-and-spend socialism.
> 
> So if your overall point is that Republicans are somehow preferable to Democrats, their own record completely disproves that notion. The globalist supply-siders have gained control not once but twice in the last 30 years, and both times it's been an unqualified disaster.


So now you've gone and stepped in it, Frankie. You're suggesting to us, that it's OK, for Obama to spend more than every other President in the history of our country combined in less than 6 months, while at the same time it's OK for you bone heads to ***** about the comparatively paltry sums of Bush?? How obtuse can a person get? You've become completely unhinged from reality, Frankie. This is ignorance incarnate. I didn't even like Bush and even I can see how ludicrous this is.

Also, can you tell us how the economic crises came to be? In detail please. You seem awfully sure of your version of history so tell us how the meltdown was caused, Frankie.

While you're at it, go ahead and explain your version of what supply-siders are and how those supply-siders turned out to be disastrous the two times they took control. You throw out a lot of accusations, so lets see those cards you seem to think you're holding, Ace.


----------



## young guy (Jan 6, 2005)

Nicesuit said:


> So now you've gone and stepped in it, Frankie. You're suggesting to us, that it's OK, for Obama to spend more than every other President in the history of our country combined in less than 6 months, while at the same time it's OK for you bone heads to ***** about the comparatively paltry sums of Bush?? How obtuse can a person get? You've become completely unhinged from reality, Frankie. This is ignorance incarnate. I didn't even like Bush and even I can see how ludicrous this is.
> 
> Also, can you tell us how the economic crises came to be? In detail please. You seem awfully sure of your version of history so tell us how the meltdown was caused, Frankie.
> 
> While you're at it, go ahead and explain your version of what supply-siders are and how those supply-siders turned out to be disastrous the two times they took control. You throw out a lot of accusations, so lets see those cards you seem to think you're holding, Ace.


gosh, doesnt like obama, doesnt like bush, life must be hell for you...here let ne quote keith olbermann or rush limbaugh for you


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Nicesuit said:


> So now you've gone and stepped in it, Frankie. You're suggesting to us, that it's OK, for Obama to spend more than every other President in the history of our country combined in less than 6 months, while at the same time it's OK for you bone heads to ***** about the comparatively paltry sums of Bush?? How obtuse can a person get? You've become completely unhinged from reality, Frankie. This is ignorance incarnate. I didn't even like Bush and even I can see how ludicrous this is.
> 
> Also, can you tell us how the economic crises came to be? In detail please. You seem awfully sure of your version of history so tell us how the meltdown was caused, Frankie.
> 
> While you're at it, go ahead and explain your version of what supply-siders are and how those supply-siders turned out to be disastrous the two times they took control. You throw out a lot of accusations, so lets see those cards you seem to think you're holding, Ace.


The name is Frank, and this isn't the first time a new user has introduced himself to this forum with a non-stop barrage of personal attacks. Generally they have wound up suspended or barred altogether.

The root causes of our economic problems have been discussed repeatedly in previous discussions. Do your homework and start looking up those threads. But as an aside, I find it incredible that anyone could still be seriously spouting the supply-side line, given the events of the last 12 years. Simply astonishing. By any measure one wishes to use -- trade deficits, job creation, currency valuation etc etc etc -- the theory has sounded good on paper but in practice it's been catastrophic.


----------



## Nicesuit (Apr 5, 2007)

FrankDC said:


> The name is Frank, and this isn't the first time a new user has introduced himself to this forum with a non-stop barrage of personal attacks. Generally they have wound up suspended or barred altogether.
> 
> The root causes of our economic problems have been discussed repeatedly in previous discussions. Do your homework and start looking up those threads. But as an aside, I find it incredible that anyone could still be seriously spouting the supply-side line, given the events of the last 12 years. Simply astonishing. By any measure one wishes to use -- trade deficits, job creation, currency valuation etc etc etc -- the theory has sounded good on paper but in practice it's been catastrophic.


SO... in other words you don't have a clue, Frankie. Why didn't you just say so instead of wasting my time with your ignorance? By the way Frankie, I haven't even started with the personal attacks. Although, that's the typical democrat method of dealing with losing an argument and being made a fool of, start yelling about how persecuted and mistreated you are at the hands of the big bad boogie man. Keep it up, Frankie!!!

Forsbergacct2000:

*Please watch the name calling; if you refer to another by name, please avoid using names you have been told are not appreciated.*

By the way Frankie, you throw out words like deficits, trade, job creation, yadda, yadda, yadda.... But you don't tell us how it fits together. Why don't you throw that out for us. That should be easy for you, you sound highly intelligent about such things. This is a very difficult puzzle to piece together, so I'm really hoping you can show me the light!!!!! Lay out the last 12 years for us so we'll know!!


----------



## young guy (Jan 6, 2005)

Nicesuit said:


> SO... in other words you don't have a clue, Frankie. Why didn't you just say so instead of wasting my time with your ignorance? By the way Frankie, I haven't even started with the personal attacks. Although, that's the typical democrat method of dealing with losing an argument and being made a fool of, start yelling about how persecuted and mistreated you are at the hands of the big bad boogie man. Keep it up, Frankie!!!


actually if democrats did in fact deal that way it would be because they learned it fron karl rove


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Nicesuit said:


> SO... in other words you don't have a clue, Frankie. Why didn't you just say so instead of wasting my time with your ignorance? By the way Frankie, I haven't even started with the personal attacks.


Oh no, another one.

Live, learn and love.


----------



## Nicesuit (Apr 5, 2007)

And if you'll remember Frankie, you jumped into my conversation, wanting my attention. Well now you have it, Frank. And here you are bitching some more about getting your way.


----------



## Nicesuit (Apr 5, 2007)

young guy said:


> actually if democrats did in fact deal that way it would be because they learned it fron karl rove


Is that right? Do tell? Well, I suppose you could whip up an example then. I never really paid much attention to him, so perhaps you could help me form an opinion of the man based on your past experience's.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Nicesuit said:


> And if you'll remember Frankie, you jumped into my conversation, wanting my attention. Well now you have it, Frank. And here you are bitching some more about getting your way.


Excuse me, your conversation? If you post in a thread that wasn't started by you, it's not your conversation.


----------



## Nicesuit (Apr 5, 2007)

FrankDC said:


> Oh no, another one.
> 
> Live, learn and love.


Sound advice to follow BEFORE you make yourself look like a fool, Frankie. :teacha:

Are you going to help me with this or not:

By the way Frankie, you throw out words like deficits, trade, job creation, yadda, yadda, yadda.... But you don't tell us how it fits together. Why don't you throw that out for us. That should be easy for you, you sound highly intelligent about such things. This is a very difficult puzzle to piece together, so I'm really hoping you can show me the light!!!!! Lay out the last 12 years for us so we'll know!!


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Nicesuit said:


> Sound advice to follow BEFORE you make yourself look like a fool, Frankie. :teacha:


Well, so far you've contributed absolutely nothing to the conversation, other than ad hominems and flagging your genitalia in everyone's faces.

I'll leave it to everyone else to judge who the fool is.


----------



## young guy (Jan 6, 2005)

Nicesuit said:


> Is that right? Do tell? Well, I suppose you could whip up an example then. I never really paid much attention to him, so perhaps you could help me form an opinion of the man based on your past experience's.


yes he was senior advisor and depuity chief of staff to the former president,

maybe if kept more current with politics in this country your arguements would make more sense


----------



## Nicesuit (Apr 5, 2007)

young guy said:


> yes he was senior advisor and depuity chief of staff to the former president,
> 
> maybe if kept more current with politics in this country your arguements would make more sense


Seems to me I asked for an example, not an explanation of who he was. Reading comprehension is our friend, little buddy.


----------



## Nicesuit (Apr 5, 2007)

FrankDC said:


> Well, so far you've contributed absolutely nothing to the conversation, other than ad hominems and flagging your genitalia in everyone's faces.
> 
> I'll leave it to everyone else to judge who the fool is.


You're off message, Frankie. Stop rambling.

Are you going to help me with this or not:

By the way Frankie, you throw out words like deficits, trade, job creation, yadda, yadda, yadda.... But you don't tell us how it fits together. Why don't you throw that out for us. That should be easy for you, you sound highly intelligent about such things. This is a very difficult puzzle to piece together, so I'm really hoping you can show me the light!!!!! Lay out the last 12 years for us so we'll know!!


----------



## young guy (Jan 6, 2005)

young guy said:


> yes he was senior advisor and depuity chief of staff to the former president,
> 
> maybe if kept more current with politics in this country your arguements would make more sense





Nicesuit said:


> Seems to me I asked for an example, not an explanation of who he was. Reading comprehension is our friend, little buddy.


sorry my mistake i thought you might like to know something about him first since you said you weren't familiar with him, oh and as for your example:

1986 William Clements, Jr. gubernatorial campaign
In 1986, Rove helped Clements become governor a second time. In a strategy memo Rove wrote for his client prior to the race, now among Clements's papers in the Texas A&M University library, Rove quoted Napoleon: "The whole art of war consists in a well-reasoned and extremely circumspect defensive, followed by rapid and audacious attack."

In 1986, just before a crucial debate in campaign, Rove claimed that his office had been bugged by Democrats. The police and FBI investigated and discovered that the bug's battery was so small that it needed to be changed every few hours, and the investigation was dropped.[26] Critics, including other Republican operatives, suspected Rove had bugged his own office to garner sympathy votes in the close governor's race.[27]

please note especially "Rove quoted Napoleon: "The whole art of war consists in a well-reasoned and extremely circumspect defensive, followed by rapid and audacious attack."

i still suggest you keep more current with politics then people wouldnt have to explain so much recent history to you


----------



## TBOWES (Nov 29, 2007)

You are truely a "young Guy". Read some history before you foam at the mouth.


----------



## young guy (Jan 6, 2005)

TBOWES said:


> You are truely a "young Guy". Read some history before you foam at the mouth.


and you are ?


----------



## TBOWES (Nov 29, 2007)

FrankDC said:


> Yes, and Nixon took us off the gold standard in 1971, when 35 U.S. dollars bought an ounce of gold.
> 
> Now it takes 1100 dollars, and our manufacturing sector has been reduced to rubble.
> 
> Just look at how well it turned out.


You can blame the manufacturing decline on Democratic supported unions. Priced themselves right out of the market. think a little more my friend.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

TBOWES said:


> You can blame the manufacturing decline on Democratic supported unions. Priced themselves right out of the market. think a little more my friend.


Try and remember that next time you step into Walmart.

And as for unions, they were the only thing that kept what's happening now from happening several decades ago. You better teach your kids how to flip hamburgers, because if you people get your way, those are going to be the only jobs left in our country.


----------



## MarkfromMD (Nov 5, 2008)

More like: as for unions, you better teach your kids whatever you want them to learn because teachers unions are the downfall of the public school system.


----------



## TBOWES (Nov 29, 2007)

young guy said:


> and you are ?


Older with history and wisdom while you are just a little boy who needs to listen more and retain some wisdom.


----------



## TBOWES (Nov 29, 2007)

FrankDC said:


> Try and remember that next time you step into Walmart.
> 
> And as for unions, they were the only thing that kept what's happening now from happening several decades ago. You better teach your kids how to flip hamburgers, because if you people get your way, those are going to be the only jobs left in our country.


Unions are what buried GM. Think again.


----------



## TBOWES (Nov 29, 2007)

FrankDC said:


> Try and remember that next time you step into Walmart.
> 
> And as for unions, they were the only thing that kept what's happening now from happening several decades ago. You better teach your kids how to flip hamburgers, because if you people get your way, those are going to be the only jobs left in our country.


They will be flipping burgers because the union doesn't understand the free market. Apparently you don't either. Go get an education and stop asking the govt to bail your butt out.


----------



## young guy (Jan 6, 2005)

TBOWES said:


> Older with history and wisdom while you are just a little boy who needs to listen more and retain some wisdom.


ROTFLMAO, yes i see by you posting history you have contributed many serious and deep thoughts on the interchange - LOL


----------



## TBOWES (Nov 29, 2007)

young guy said:


> ROTFLMAO, yes i see by you posting history you have contributed many serious and deep thoughts on the interchange - LOL


Your history is embarrassing as you are a little tot with no history. LOL


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

TBOWES said:


> They will be flipping burgers because the union doesn't understand the free market. Apparently you don't either. Go get an education and stop asking the govt to bail your butt out.


Where was this call for free markets last October?

There goes my stomach again. Absolute, utter hypocrisy!


----------



## young guy (Jan 6, 2005)

TBOWES said:


> Your history is embarrassing as you are a little tot with no history. LOL


perhaps, better to not know so much than make it up, thanks Glenn


----------



## TBOWES (Nov 29, 2007)

young guy said:


> perhaps, better to not know so much than make it up, thanks Glenn


Was that supposed to be clever? Need clarification to find somthing intelligent there. Think before you speak oh young one. LOL


----------



## TBOWES (Nov 29, 2007)

young guy said:


> perhaps, better to not know so much than make it up, thanks Glenn


If I said you are intelligent then I would be making something up. LOL


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

TBOWES said:


> If I said you are intelligent then I would be making something up. LOL


Welcome to my Ignore List.

*PLONK*

Ah, much better.


----------



## young guy (Jan 6, 2005)

FrankDC said:


> Welcome to my Ignore List.
> 
> *PLONK*
> 
> Ah, much better.


excellent idea


----------



## TBOWES (Nov 29, 2007)

FrankDC said:


> Welcome to my Ignore List.
> 
> *PLONK*
> 
> Ah, much better.


Thank you


----------



## TBOWES (Nov 29, 2007)

FrankDC said:


> Where was this call for free markets last October?
> 
> There goes my stomach again. Absolute, utter hypocrisy!


Where was it when Obama bailed out unions at the expense of the bondholders. More Hypocrisy.


----------



## Pentheos (Jun 30, 2008)

Don't feed the trolls, and the young guy is one of them.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

young guy said:


> i am genuinely interested to know what public good has the republican party done for the average person in American.
> 
> its easy to list Democratic contributions, ending child labor, social security, medicare, passing voter rights acts and other civil rights laws (to name a few) but i cant think of too many republican contributions
> 
> OK eisenhower created the interstate highways for the military but the result was benefit for everyone, and teddy Roosevelt passed anti-trust laws even though his republican party was against it. so here you go: give me a list of republican contributions


I was trying to think of a very good example of partisanship and sophistry. I was stumped...and then came across this. :teacha:


----------



## MarkfromMD (Nov 5, 2008)

FrankDC said:


> Where was this call for free markets last October?
> 
> There goes my stomach again. Absolute, utter hypocrisy!


This is the problem with our policymaking. If we are going to have free markets we need free markets all the time. Last October was the free market working perfectly.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

MarkfromMD said:


> This is the problem with our policymaking. If we are going to have free markets we need free markets all the time. Last October was the free market working perfectly.


Amen! Losers need to lose something for winning to have meaning.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> I was trying to think of a very good example of partisanship and sophistry. I was stumped...and then came across this. :teacha:


"YOU WANT ANSWERS?" :devil:


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

ksinc said:


> Amen! Losers need to lose something for winning to have meaning.


Exactly. A friend of mine (during the last outrageous "supply-side" catastrophe, the S&L bailout) called it "socialism for the rich, and capitalism for the poor".


----------



## MarkfromMD (Nov 5, 2008)

This is a rare moment. Forum members from across the aisle agreeing on something. :icon_smile_big:


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

MarkfromMD said:


> This is a rare moment. Forum members from across the aisle agreeing on something. :icon_smile_big:


The timing of what occurred last year still confuses me. GWB and Henry Paulson sprang this "crisis" literally out of nowhere, a month before the election, to the tune of $1.5 trillion. And poor John McCain was left looking like a complete idiot after he flew back to D.C., pretending to be some kind of economic messiah, to "deal with the crisis". Just when he was drawing very close to Obama in the election polls.

It just doesn't make any sense, unless it was a concerted effort to throw the election. But why would they do that?

One other result of the "crisis" was giving Obama a green light to implement pretty much whatever spending proposals he wanted. Everyone I knew was extremely upset about Bush's welfare for rich people, and they felt it was their turn to get some economic help. It caused a drastic change in popular opinion and attitude toward spending.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

FrankDC said:


> The timing of what occurred last year still confuses me. GWB and Henry Paulson sprang this "crisis" literally out of nowhere, a month before the election, to the tune of $1.5 trillion. And poor John McCain was left looking like a complete idiot after he flew back to D.C., pretending to be some kind of economic messiah, to "deal with the crisis". Just when he was drawing very close to Obama in the election polls.
> 
> *It just doesn't make any sense*, unless it was a concerted effort to throw the election. But why would they do that?
> 
> One other result of the "crisis" was giving Obama a green light to implement pretty much whatever spending proposals he wanted. Everyone I knew was extremely upset about Bush's welfare for rich people, and they felt it was their turn to get some economic help. It caused a drastic change in popular opinion and attitude toward spending.


https://townhall.com/columnists/RobertNovak/2007/10/01/hank_paulsons_dna


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

MarkfromMD said:


> This is a rare moment. Forum members from across the aisle agreeing on something. :icon_smile_big:


Yes; it's rare, but it happens! https://askandyaboutclothes.com/community/showpost.php?p=1015059&postcount=125


----------



## nick.mccann (May 3, 2009)

young guy said:


> i am genuinely interested to know what public good has the republican party done for the average person in American.
> 
> its easy to list Democratic contributions, ending child labor, social security, medicare, passing voter rights acts and other civil rights laws (to name a few) but i cant think of too many republican contributions
> 
> OK eisenhower created the interstate highways for the military but the result was benefit for everyone, and teddy Roosevelt passed anti-trust laws even though his republican party was against it. so here you go: give me a list of republican contributions


Social Security=massive ponzi scheme I'm going to lose money on..THANKS Democrats! I love my hard earned dollars being stolen to pay for our grandparents ponzi scheme so when I retire I won't see as much as I put in! I'm all for helping people out, thats why donating to private charities is the solution, not stealing my money for a ponzi scheme.
Medicare-causes medical prices to rise massively.
Roosevelt also prolonged the longest depression in our history. Slaughtered live stock to raise prices while people went hungry, great American!


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

ksinc said:


> https://townhall.com/columnists/RobertNovak/2007/10/01/hank_paulsons_dna


Thanks for those links. I don't have time to read them now, do either mention Paulson's longstanding relationship he's had with the Chinese government?


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

FrankDC said:


> Thanks for those links. I don't have time to read them now, do either mention Paulson's longstanding relationship he's had with the Chinese government?


No, but I've read a lot of that stuff elsewhere ... ties to Nixon(Kissinger), liberal democrat from Chicago/GS Office, ties to China, amassed a $500M fortune, tight with Corzine, Bush Bundler ...

Same with Geitner ... ties to Kissinger and asia, blah blah ... it's the same tune over and over.

And people think Prescott Bush, Sons, & Associates don't still run the world ... Hope AND Change! Oh yeah baby! 

And Obama supporters are stuck with Defense Secretary Robert Gates! LOL


----------



## burnedandfrozen (Mar 11, 2004)

Of course Frank being the true Democrat he is still fails to back up his claims and has to resort to class warfare to justify his desire for the US to become socialist. Yawn! Maybe tomorrow he will (finally) show us how hopelessly off course us less government more free market folks are.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> I was trying to think of a very good example of partisanship and sophistry. I was stumped...and then came across this. :teacha:


Wayfarer: It is great to see you posting again. We missed your contributions! Welcome back.


----------



## Liberty Ship (Jan 26, 2006)

Why, do you think, was Martin Luther King Sr. and Jr. a Republican?


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

burnedandfrozen said:


> Of course Frank being the true Democrat he is still fails to back up his claims and has to resort to class warfare to justify his desire for the US to become socialist. Yawn! Maybe tomorrow he will (finally) show us how hopelessly off course us less government more free market folks are.


Q. What's a US dollar worth?
A. A dollar is worth what the currency market says it's worth.

Q. What's a euro worth?
A. A euro is worth what the currency market says it's worth.

Q. What's a yen worth?
A. A yen is worth what the currency market says it's worth.

Q. What's a yuan worth?
A. A yuan is worth what the Chinese government says it's worth.

We've been playing with a stacked deck all along, and the only possible outcome is eventual bankruptcy for the U.S. and other countries who're careening down the same path. Our annual trade deficit with China is now approaching a trillion dollars a year.


----------



## PetroLandman (Apr 21, 2006)

*Amazing*

Frank: In a country in which a 'closed shop' exists, the unions must be blamed for something.

young guy: I see that you have not learned to spell or to write. Please do so.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

PetroLandman said:


> Frank: In a country in which a 'closed shop' exists, the unions must be blamed for something.


Oh please, the largest labor union in the world is in China (currently 134 million members and growing fast).

If anything, unions may be the solution not the problem.

https://www.ventureoutsource.com/co...-china-s-growing-labor-unions-on-your-company


----------



## PetroLandman (Apr 21, 2006)

*China?*

That's your example? That explains a lot.


----------



## burnedandfrozen (Mar 11, 2004)

The LA unified school district has among the highest paid teachers in the nation. It also has among the worst test scores and highest drop out rates in the nation as well. So how do the teachers and their union want to remedy this problem? More pay and perks for the teachers and more spending per student. Needless to say, students in private school out perform public school students despite the fact less is spent on them per pupil.


----------



## smujd (Mar 18, 2008)

FrankDC said:


> The timing of what occurred last year still confuses me. GWB and Henry Paulson sprang this "crisis" literally out of nowhere, a month before the election, to the tune of $1.5 trillion. And poor John McCain was left looking like a complete idiot after he flew back to D.C., pretending to be some kind of economic messiah, to "deal with the crisis". Just when he was drawing very close to Obama in the election polls.


Of course, the fact that John McCain is a complete idiot may have played some minor role in that as well.


----------



## young guy (Jan 6, 2005)

smujd said:


> Of course, the fact that John McCain is a complete idiot may have played some minor role in that as well.


i for one dont think hes an idiot even thought i disagree with all his policy issues, he did great service for his country but now is just not current or up to date, i dont mean hes too old necessarily, hes just wasnt in step with the country or really his own party during the last election


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

young guy said:


> i for one dont think hes an idiot even thought i disagree with all his policy issues, he did great service for his country but now is just not current or up to date, i dont mean hes too old necessarily, hes just wasnt in step with the country or really his own party during the last election


Agreed. McCain is not an idiot, as is demonstrated by his high IQ; he's just a pathetic throwback to a backward era when educated people could spell and parse a sentence, and even knew what parse meant. McCain doesn't Twitter and probably has no Facebook page. He deprived a special needs Indian child of her heritage by adopting her even though neither he nor his wife is Indian. I'm sure he meant well, but when "out of step" results in hurtful and damaging behavior, especially insensitivity, it calls into question his suitablity for leadership. Moreover he dresses in suits that do not appear up to date at all. Very sad.


----------



## DCLawyer68 (Jun 1, 2009)

young guy said:


> actually if democrats did in fact deal that way it would be because they learned it fron karl rove


"Young Guy" is a good name for you. When I think of myself as a younger man, I was very sure of myself and thought "my side" in politics represented the good and true, while the other side represented darkness.

Hopefully the years will, if they are good to you, give you reason reassess your prejudices and self assurance.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Or another way of putting it, "I used to be disgusted, but now I'm just amused."


----------



## Pentheos (Jun 30, 2008)

Mike Petrik said:


> Agreed. McCain is not an idiot, as is demonstrated by his high IQ; he's just a pathetic throwback to a backward era when educated people could spell and parse a sentence, and even knew what parse meant. McCain doesn't Twitter and probably has no Facebook page. He adopted a special needs child from India even though neither he nor his wife is Indian, thereby insensitively depriving her of her heritage. He dresses in suits. Not up to date at all. Very sad.


At first I thought you were serious. Then I laughed.


----------



## Intrepid (Feb 20, 2005)

Very interesting thread. Can't help but notice that most of the accomplishments attributed to either party often go back decades.

Those of us that watch the scene closely have unfortunately drifted into the camp of "a pox on both of their houses".

It is necessary to go back a long time to find political leaders of either party that seem to be interested in the welfare of the Republic. At one time it was easy to find leaders of both parties that were genuine statesmen, that seemed to wake up every day motivated by trying to determine the best direction for the good of the nation. They differed in approaches, but that gave the public a choice that they could make at the polls.

Make your own list, but it might include; Daniel Patrick Moynahan, Howard Baker, Sam Nunn, and naturally FDR, Linclon, etc. List would probably include about an equal number from each party.

Now, it is extremely difficult to find leaders of either party that seem to be interested in much except enhancing their own power. The ones that go to Washington usually are beholden to enough special interests, because of funds necessary to get elected, that they usually leave Washington either rich, or indicted. (Yesterday, Congressman from La. sentenced to 13 years for bribery, etc. He may well share a cell with a former congressman from the other party.)

Originally, Congress was designed for one term of genuine service, then return to your real job. Thus, people in Congress understood how the real world worked. One of the first to seek two terms was Linclon, and that raised a lot of concern, at the time.

Look at the leaders of both parties. Most have NEVER HAD A REAL JOB. They pass laws that affect the rest of us, and they have no idea what the real world impact is.

You have to go back a looong way to find a candidate for the office of President that has ever had a real job in the world, where you have to meet payrolls, comply with myriad regulations, etc.

A third party is not the answer. The two parties control the process, and a vote for a third party candidate may be excellent therapy, but a waste of a vote, often helping to elect the candidate that you oppose.

In NJ there was a third party candidate for Governor recently, that cynics felt was financed by one of the candidates, to draw votes from his opponent.

It's hard to escape the view of Plato that a democracy (we are theoretically not a democracy, but a democratic republic) will fail after @200 years. The failure will occur when the people realize that they can vote themselves largess from the Federal Treasury.

It would appear that that is where we are, and are now about 50 years past the "sell by" date. Wish it was possible to find a ray of hope in either party.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

^^
Well said. Very discouraging but, very well said and spot-on! The solution: establish term limits, prohibit our elected leadership from accepting third party contributions and eliminate the potential for any elected official to gain a retirement income from such service. Members of Congress should be serving out of a wish to promote the public good, not to line their own pockets or make a career out of it! With the foxes literally guarding the hen house, that will be the day, when we can get any such suggested changes implemented!


----------



## Intrepid (Feb 20, 2005)

*Think It Over*

Eagle, your point about term limits would go a long way toward solving the problem.

The law could be written in such a way as to overcome the problem that few legislators would vote for term limits, that applied to them. It could be written so as to grandfather present legislators, but impose term limits starting with the next legislature. Many would vote for it, as long as it didn't affect them, personally.

Another thing that might be of help, would be to subject members of Congress to the same conditions that are imposed on the general citizenry. You and I will remember from our service days, that there were some symbolic things that took place that were extremely important; such as, the troops always ate first; in formation the troops always faced out of the sun; and when you went in harms way, you were always in front of the formation. To ignore these seemingly insignificant symbols led to contempt of the leadership.

With Congress, it would be positive if:
>They were compelled to personally complete their own income tax returns.

>Each legislator had to certify that they had personally read every word in every piece of legislation that was passed.

>Congressional perks were the same as those imposed on the citizenry. IE, the health care in the proposed public option has been written in such a way as to specifically exempt members of Congress from having to be covered by this plan. They have written the proposed legislation, so as to be able to keep their present very generous health insurance coverage. ( It was proposed that they be covered by the same plan as the general public, but was quickly voted down.)

The line item veto would go a long way to getting a handle on the financial reins. Most state governors can eliminate specific items from the proposed budget. The President can't. He must veto the entire budget, which can lead to Congress forcing an entire shut down of the entire Federal Government. This allows all of the disgraceful "earmarks" to be included in the federal budget. EG a bridge to nowhere, an airport in Penna that is almost never used, etc. Hugely expensive to the tax payers, in aggregate.

Bill Clinton got the line item veto enacted, but it was overturned by the Supreme court on the grounds that the representatives of the states had the constitutional right not to be overruled by the President.

As you know, most state governors have line item veto power, and it could be written in such a way nationally, to overcome the grounds that the Supreme court used to overcome the law that Clinton got enacted.

State voting districts could be drawn objectively by computer, to reflect actual population distribution, as is the case in Iowa, rather than by the party in power. Many districts are gerrymandered, so that some congressional seats are "safe", and it doesn't much matter what the voters want.

The bottom line is that too many voters become cynical, and apathetic. They hold Congress in contempt, based on the results of the opinion polls, and the real voice in the Congress is not the citizenry, but special interests that have objectives that are often contrary to the will of the people.

Unfortunately, here we are engaged in polemics, when we generally agree on what we want for the US, although we may disagree philosophically on how to get there.

Those that are really in control feel free to generally ignore us, realizing that the power is with the legislators, and no longer with "We The People". It may not be too late, but it seems that time is running out.


----------



## medwards (Feb 6, 2005)

rnoldh said:


> No, giving Manton, Medwards, and others to the world is their great achievement.


I think not


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Intrepid said:


> The line item veto would go a long way to getting a handle on the financial reins. Most state governors can eliminate specific items from the proposed budget. The President can't. He must veto the entire budget, which can lead to Congress forcing an entire shut down of the entire Federal Government. This allows all of the disgraceful "earmarks" to be included in the federal budget. EG a bridge to nowhere, an airport in Penna that is almost never used, etc. Hugely expensive to the tax payers, in aggregate.
> 
> Bill Clinton got the line item veto enacted, but it was overturned by the Supreme court on the grounds that the representatives of the states had the constitutional right not to be overruled by the President.
> 
> As you know, most state governors have line item veto power, and it could be written in such a way nationally, to overcome the grounds that the Supreme court used to overcome the law that Clinton got enacted.


If we're going to transfer that amount of power to the Executive Branch, we might we well rename the office dictator instead of president. The Constitution gives presidents two options, and only two options when they receive a bill: sign it or veto it.

The last administration is the clearest example America has ever seen of an Executive Branch who uses signing statements, claims of executive privilege and other trickery to avoid following the law, and essentially create a government within a government.


----------



## mbebeau (Feb 6, 2009)

@ Intrepid: That sir is the most clear articulation of the major issue that is being faced today, those in power want to keep power at the expense of thee citizenry. Today, the fundamental truth is that special interests dominate the political landscape through the executive, legislative, and yes...even our 'impartial' judiciary (See: Justices Scalia and Souter.) This issue is NOT restricted to one party nor one set of individuals. 

@Frank's last comment: I fail to see how restricting the ability of a congress to spend at will would create a dictatorship. 

I truly believe that you are subscribing to personality politics of Bush = BAD, Obama = Good. If you want to look at individuals who did as much as GWB to expand role of the executive, you can look at JFK or LBJ. 

If you want to look at a President who made a major grab for power under executive privlage and stripped the rights of his citizens....look at FDR! Internment of US Citizens based on race, breaking with tradition to seek further terms in office, keeping people outside of his inner circle (Including his own Vice President) out of major security decisions, etc. Yet I would assume you praise him because of that little (D) after his name.


----------



## agnash (Jul 24, 2006)

*Moynihan*

The mention of Moyniham in a previous post brought to mind an article I read over at Politico, and this quote from Moyniham:

"Never pass major legislation that affects most Americans without real bipartisan support. It opens the door to all kinds of political trouble."

https://www.politico.com/news/stories/1109/29546.html

I believe that the problem both parties have is gerrymandering. Both sides have created Congressional boundaries so safe that candidates no longer have to worry about appealing to anything but the political fringes. Senators and presidents do have to make a broader appeal, and when they do so they are branded as sell outs.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

mbebeau said:


> @Frank's last comment: I fail to see how restricting the ability of a congress to spend at will would create a dictatorship.


How would it not be a dictatorship? You'd be giving one person the power to recraft legislation voted on and passed by 535 people. That's not how our system works, or is supposed to work.


----------



## smujd (Mar 18, 2008)

FrankDC said:


> How would it not be a dictatorship? You'd be giving one person the power to recraft legislation voted on and passed by 535 people. That's not how our system works, or is supposed to work.


While I don't think we see eye-to-eye on much, on this I do whole-heartedly agree.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Yep. While it's pretty easy to see how the line-item veto is appropriate for Governors of States; it's hard to see how it could work for the President.

The line-item veto at the Federal level is not a root cause solution. Term limits and some strategic prosecutions might work ... I'd start with Murtha, but that's just me.

In the final outcome, we get the government we deserve based on the education, awareness, and involvement of the American electorate. Instead of "vote the bums out!" we need to "out the bums that vote!" or something like that


----------

