What Happened to America?

[crimzonsol]

Can anyone say that they would be willing to place their lives in any politicions hands?
What about their Families lives?
Does anyone find it odd that we have people in our society whose job is to explain to us what the hell our leaders are doing?
We have people whose job is to tell the majority of people who to vote for. Odd?

Does anybody else find it odd that comedians making fun of our government qare starting to be a little too accurate?

That Senators dont have to vote based on what the people who voted them in want rather they vote based on there own judgement?
That fact that the majority of Americans feel that it doesnt matter who runs the show things are always going to be the same?

My final question is, Why did this happen? Or if you disagree, How could I come to this perception?

[4Reaganomics]

"That Senators dont have to vote based on what the people who voted them in want rather they vote based on there own judgement?"


This is called a "republic". America is a "republic"

remember the whole "...and to the republic for which it stands"

[bishop]

we're becoming, or have already become, a republic in name only..

http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/160594/chalmers_johnson_nemesis_on_the_imperial_premises

By the time I came to write Nemesis, I no longer doubted that maintaining our empire abroad required resources and commitments that would inevitably undercut, or simply skirt, what was left of our domestic democracy and that might, in the end, produce a military dictatorship or -- far more likely -- its civilian equivalent. The combination of huge standing armies, almost continuous wars, an ever growing economic dependence on the military-industrial complex and the making of weaponry, and ruinous military expenses as well as a vast, bloated "defense" budget, not to speak of the creation of a whole second Defense Department (known as the Department of Homeland Security) has been destroying our republican structure of governing in favor of an imperial presidency. By republican structure, of course, I mean the separation of powers and the elaborate checks and balances that the founders of our country wrote into the Constitution as the main bulwarks against dictatorship and tyranny, which they greatly feared.

We are on the brink of losing our democracy for the sake of keeping our empire. Once a nation starts down that path, the dynamics that apply to all empires come into play -- isolation, overstretch, the uniting of local and global forces opposed to imperialism, and in the end bankruptcy.

<snip>

As a form of government, imperialism does not seek or require the consent of the governed. It is a pure form of tyranny. The American attempt to combine domestic democracy with such tyrannical control over foreigners is hopelessly contradictory and hypocritical. A country can be democratic or it can be imperialistic, but it cannot be both.

crimzonsol, people either think things are hunky dory, or they're too afraid of voting for someone who represents true change (even if the media suggests/propogandizes that the candidate has no chance of winning). or, they're married to the sheepish "i vote for the lesser of two evils" practice.

[preservanation]

I think this dissatisfaction with our elected officials was the impetus behind Paul's popularity (and Kucinich's to a lesser extent)
If either party doesn't start appealing to their constituents...our two party system may be on the way out.
This might not be a bad thing.

[bishop]

and how long have people been saying that?

people in this country and by relation, the government, are reactionary. we react to events far more than making future-looking preventative decisions. with this in mind, the only time that americans would realistically dump the two dominant parties is AFTER they've completely ruined the country through their corruption and largesse.

[Scribbler1]

It is a two-party system in name only at this stage. Whichever party has the minority role publicly bitches and moans about the bad things the majority does, and when THEY get the majority, they fix nothing.

[preservanation]

Well, things don't happen overnight.
A tipping point approaches slowly, but once at the apex....change happens quickly.
Those points sneak up on us, but when they gets there "wham"

[bishop]

really great how people consistently fail to see beyond their noses... as far as our "leaders" go, reactionism is a piss poor way to lead one's country into the future..

also, when you've waited too long (i.e. when you're at the "apex"), sometimes it isn't possible to turn the boat around. the acceleratory effect that our addiction to oil has on global warming is one such example. same thing with our already bankrupt entitlement programs..

[preservanation]

Bishop...The tipping point I see is the demise of socialism, just the opposite of what you envision.

[Athena]

What happened to America is, things became very complex, and the masses are not educated in the really important matters.

Only a few years ago, when I said we are in trouble because of oil, people argued, we have plenty of oil. Finally just about everyone realizes we are not self sufficient when it comes to oil, but they still don't have a clue what that has to do with the economy. They do not realize Reagan guttered the alternative research program and put that money, plus more, into military spending, and that this is because of oil, and why Bush invaded Afghaniston and Iraq, and they don't talk about Hillary's campaign being support by the military industry. They talk about who went to bed with whom:evil::unreal: and have reduced politics to gossiping about the candidates.

[4Reaganomics]

right, and we have oil right below our feet in ANWR and haven't pulled it out of the ground

but I guess that was Reagan's fault?

[bishop]

Bishop...The tipping point I see is the demise of socialism, just the opposite of what you envision.


and, what do i envision? just want to make sure you understand my views here...

talk of "socialism" is largely babble as far as i'm concerned.. we had 8 years of reagan, 4 years of bush sr., 8 years of clinton (where the most significant reform was to lower welfare rolls), and 8 years of bush jr.... one would think that with such republican dominance that we'd have made good progress against socialism, but that certainly hasn't happened - yet the sheep keep voting for these failures and liars.. kind of pathetic if you ask me.

right, and we have oil right below our feet in ANWR and haven't pulled it out of the ground

anwr would take some 10 years to become productive, and the amount of oil estimated to be produced from the reserve would only supplant 3% of current oil consumption. whoop-dee-doo.. it's tantamount to putting a bandaid on a gaping wound.

[Scribbler1]

right, and we have oil right below our feet in ANWR and haven't pulled it out of the ground

but I guess that was Reagan's fault?Reagan was no more, or less blinded to the realities of what we face than most of the idiot sheep. Even if we put wells in every location which might have oil under it, we only prolong the inevitable. Eventually, even if there are new sources of oil to be found, it will be priced completely out of the reach of most people as a fuel. Also, the stuff is FAR too vital for almost everything in our lives to even THINK of continuing to waste it as a motor fuel.

[Buck Laser]

right, and we have oil right below our feet in ANWR and haven't pulled it out of the ground

but I guess that was Reagan's fault?Reagan was no more, or less blinded to the realities of what we face than most of the idiot sheep. Even if we put wells in every location which might have oil under it, we only prolong the inevitable. Eventually, even if there are new sources of oil to be found, it will be priced completely out of the reach of most people as a fuel. Also, the stuff is FAR too vital for almost everything in our lives to even THINK of continuing to waste it as a motor fuel.

Scribbler, the problem is that the right winger have this burning faith that there really is enough oil to go on pissing it a way the we've been doing for the las century or so. Since they decided not to believe in climate change, they see EVERY environmental concern as part of a nefarious plot to steal their SUVs. Talking reason to them is hopeless.

[4Reaganomics]

I believe I can drive whatever I want to drive Buck. If Al Gore is going to use 20 times the amount of a normal person, I'm certainly not going to listen to him tell me to ride a bicycle.

If it was that bad we wouldn't have our liberal spokesmen riding around on private jets, would we?

[Scribbler1]

The problem with that line of reasoning is that it ignores the fact that if gas goes to $5 or higher we will ALL pay for your excess. I don't give a damn whether it was Gore, Bush or Britney Spears who says we should conserve and drive less, it makes sense and saying you'll drive around in a tank, just because you CAN is just selfish and counterproductive.

[Elrathin]

I don't agree with telling people what cars they have to drive, but I do agree with putting limits and regulations on car manufacturers to meet a specified MPG rating with newer cars by a given date. They have the ability to do it.

I am also for government giving serious tax cuts to those companies that do it and to others that come up with alternative methods for energy.

[Scribbler1]

I don't agree with telling people what cars they have to drive, but I do agree with putting limits and regulations on car manufacturers to meet a specified MPG rating with newer cars by a given date. They have the ability to do it.
Yes, Congress did that once before. Pretty much the same way they do everything else.

Back in the 80s (I think) Congress passed the CAFE standards, but excluded trucks for obvious reasons. THEN, they declared SUVs as "small trucks" thereby exempting them from the standards.

We have to just take it upon ourselves to NOT buy a gas hog or vehicles far larger than what we need.

[preservanation]

and, what do i envision? just want to make sure you understand my views here...If you envision socialism in America being brought about quicker in America under Conservatism...I disagree. Most libs I hear would be in favor of a more collective society.
In order to understand your views better, you are going to have to spell them out.
I have Libertarian views as well.
I think we might agree on most, so I don't understand this... the acceleratory effect that our addiction to oil has on global warming is one such example.Libertarians usually don't fall for such Marxist hoaxes. The solutions proposed under the concept of MMGW is an assault upon our freedoms and individual rights. Why would a libertarian support that?talk of "socialism" is largely babble as far as i'm concerned.. we had 8 years of reagan, 4 years of bush sr., 8 years of clinton (where the most significant reform was to lower welfare rolls), and 8 years of bush jr.... one would think that with such republican dominance that we'd have made good progress against socialism, but that certainly hasn't happened - yet the sheep keep voting for these failures and liars.. kind of pathetic if you ask me.
I see your point and we have gotten away from our founding principles.

[4Reaganomics]

The term "politically correct" certainly hasn't helped either

[bishop]

Libertarians usually don't fall for such Marxist hoaxes. The solutions proposed under the concept of MMGW is an assault upon our freedoms and individual rights. Why would a libertarian support that?

mine wasn't a statement of policy, but scientific fact. humanity's use of oil is accelerating global warming.

I see your point and we have gotten away from our founding principles.

and what are voters doing about it aside from continuing to support the very people who created the current situation? as far as i'm concerned, it's one thing to call yourself a conservative, and an entirely different thing to actually be one - i.e. voting for conservatives... but alas, these days to be a conservative solely means that you're a neocon in terms of using warfare to maintain our empire, and that you're a self-proclaimed christian who's "pro-family" and "pro-life".. does that about sum it up in a nutshell?

one thing's for sure, today's "conservatives" don't have any credibility when it comes to limiting the size of government and being fiscal conservatives (not to mention securing our borders).. from a libertarian-leaning voter's perspective, you all are no different than the liberals you like to focus on and are full of hot air.

amazing too that, imo, the main reason why "conservatives" didn't support paul was because he isn't pro-empire.. i'd like to hope that "conservatives" aren't also statists looking for nanny to tuck them into their beds at night...

it is, imo, the absence of true conservatism that has led our country to its current state. one where we're indebted up to our eyeballs, scrambling all over the world to protect our oil supplies, dependent on foreigners to finance our largesse and are obese and lagging in education while competing countries improve themselves.

[preservanation]

Yeah, Scrib...How would you describe yourself in American politics.
Just curious.

[Scribbler1]

Yeah, Scrib...How would you describe yourself in American politics.
Just curious.
Myself?
Nobody important.

[preservanation]

Thanks, that helps.:thumbsup:

I never understood how some people aren't able to describe their own political bent, especially when they feel so strongly about their views.
Must be lonely.
Army of one, I guess.

[Scribbler1]

Or I completely misunderstood the question, which I think I did.

I'm registered Libertarian and believe in much of what the party espouses. But anytime I see something that doesn't fit any political precept I just wing it based on logic and a sense of right and wrong.

I'm EXTREMELY skeptical of politicians and political parties.

I'm big on common sense and observation. If something seems wrong or idiotic to me there is no politician I have ever seen who can convince me differently.

Hopefully, whatever ends up as being my strongly felt opinions at that point are as right as they can be. Hopefully.

Better?

[preservanation]

I kinda knew that, Scrib.
You and I are pretty much on the same coin.
I have Libertarian friends who are adamant that I am one of them, but I just don't know it yet.
Events have been pulling me away from the traditional GOP format.
My Conservatism is unchanging, but political parties change all the time.
If I ever see another viable party which more accurately represents my ideology, I will have absolutely no compunction jumping the fence.

[bishop]

key word: viable.

so long as people keep slinging that one around, rather than simply voting for those they believe in, no third party will every be deemed "viable".

[Scribbler1]

I kinda knew that, Scrib.
You and I are pretty much on the same coin.
I have Libertarian friends who are adamant that I am one of them, but I just don't know it yet.
Events have been pulling me away from the traditional GOP format.
My Conservatism is unchanging, but political parties change all the time."Conservatism" doesn't need to change. It just needs to cleanse itself of the far right radicals who have no solutions yet demonize the "libs" to mask the fact that they have nothing to offer.
I consider myself a conservative, or at least leaning a fair amount right of center. Yet, you'd be surprised how many people have called me a "lib", as well as all of its insulting variations, on Internet forums, simply because I don't swallow their brand of bullshit.
Of course I've been called a "right winger" when I don't buy the crap from the far left either.
I never sweat it, mind you. I just note it.If I ever see another viable party which more accurately represents my ideology, I will have absolutely no compunction jumping the fence.That's why I have been personally banging my head against the wall supporting the Libertarian Party. Despite all its many flaws, it's a hell of a lot better than what we have now.
No party will ever, EVER become "viable" until people look at what we have and stop voting on phony ideologies and lies or pretending they're at the track and voting for whoever is the most likely "winner".

[potter]

I think this dissatisfaction with our elected officials was the impetus behind Paul's popularity (and Kucinich's to a lesser extent)
If either party doesn't start appealing to their constituents...our two party system may be on the way out.
This might not be a bad thing.


Yup.......

[preservanation]

I think this dissatisfaction with our elected officials was the impetus behind Paul's popularity (and Kucinich's to a lesser extent)
If either party doesn't start appealing to their constituents...our two party system may be on the way out.
This might not be a bad thing.


Yup.......
I am a small gov, low tax strong defence, constitutionalist conservative.
I am not a social conservative (ie Religious Right) but support their right to be represented, and practice or believe how they want to do.
My nominee has authored the largest assault on free speech in my lifetime via Campaign finance reform...WTF?
I do not support gay marriage.
I do not support a flag burning amendment.
I wholeheartedly disagree with this new form of big gov republicanism.
Why support them if there isn't a dimes bit of difference between them and the left?

[cronic]

What Happened to America?


greed in many respects

[Coulter Enwrong]

I think this dissatisfaction with our elected officials was the impetus behind Paul's popularity (and Kucinich's to a lesser extent)
If either party doesn't start appealing to their constituents...our two party system may be on the way out.
This might not be a bad thing.

Assuming, of course, that the one party left standing were a conservative one. :thumbsup:

[bishop]

i wonder whether/not it's a "conservative" ideal to practice an imperialist foreign policy... one where we manipulate multiple countries, have bases all across the globe, and go to war with anyone we choose. a foreign policy that regularly doles out hundreds of billions of dollars to other (often unfriendly/hostile) countries in the form of economic and/or military welfare. a foreign policy embroiled in foreign entanglements.

i also wonder how one can claim to be a constitutionalist, yet support politicians who regularly encroach on the constitution. hypocrisy is a pretty easy thing to spot. here's just a brief run-through of some of the ways our great government has continued to weaken the very fabric of our form of government:

1. congress abdicated its separation of powers by granting bush the sole authority to wage war against iraq - rather than requiring a congressional declaration of war, mandated by the constitution.
2. patriot act permits "sneak and peek" searches that don't require a warrant (i.e. searches that don't require probable cause mandated by the constitution).
3. the government can now monitor attorney-client conversations, violating the constitutional mandates of due process and right to counsel.
4. jose padilla, a u.s. citizen, is not given constitutionally mandated due process by being labeled as an "enemy combatant".


the great work of republicans right here... and after they've been given their chance to ruin the country thanks to legions of sheep - then, the democrats will be given the reigns to enact their own laundry list of anti-constitutional changes. there comes a point in time where voters have been repeated fooled by politicians so many times, that they themselves are the real fools..

[4Reaganomics]

eh, at least I'll have more money in my pocket and be safe from terrorists rather than friendly with them, with my choice for pres.

[bishop]

more money in your pocket... heh...

the only thing i'm hopeful of when it comes to mccain is that he'll live up to his record in the senate and be a true fiscal conservative.

and honestly, i'm much more afraid of the dollar's collapse and a war with iran than i am of the boogeyman/terrorists.. but alas, good thing we have that bloated homeland defense department to "protect" us.. more bureaucracy is always the best, most conservative answer to our problems - just like pouring money into education while test scores continue to maintain their subpar status.

[preservanation]

i wonder whether/not it's a "conservative" ideal to practice an imperialist foreign policy... one where we manipulate multiple countries, have bases all across the globe, and go to war with anyone we choose. a foreign policy that regularly doles out hundreds of billions of dollars to other (often unfriendly/hostile) countries in the form of economic and/or military welfare. a foreign policy embroiled in foreign entanglements.

i also wonder how one can claim to be a constitutionalist, yet support politicians who regularly encroach on the constitution. hypocrisy is a pretty easy thing to spot. here's just a brief run-through of some of the ways our great government has continued to weaken the very fabric of our form of government:

1. congress abdicated its separation of powers by granting bush the sole authority to wage war against iraq - rather than requiring a congressional declaration of war, mandated by the constitution.
2. patriot act permits "sneak and peek" searches that don't require a warrant (i.e. searches that don't require probable cause mandated by the constitution).
3. the government can now monitor attorney-client conversations, violating the constitutional mandates of due process and right to counsel.
4. jose padilla, a u.s. citizen, is not given constitutionally mandated due process by being labeled as an "enemy combatant".


the great work of republicans right here... and after they've been given their chance to ruin the country thanks to legions of sheep - then, the democrats will be given the reigns to enact their own laundry list of anti-constitutional changes. there comes a point in time where voters have been repeated fooled by politicians so many times, that they themselves are the real fools..

I see you took some time and thought to present this post.
I will give a shorter and less thoughtful response...I hope it suffices in some way.
IMO
What you described at the beginning was Neo-Conservatism...the thought that we could free oppressed and threatening nations by introducing democracy...once a liberal goal.
Most Reagan cons such as myself tend to agree with this because it speaks directly to our nations security and defense. A free and prosperous nation is less likely to wage war on us or their neighbors. Hopefully they see trade and economic freedom and their acceptance into the world community as a better way to exist rather than suppression of their populace and aggressive actions.

Where my brand of conservatism has broken down in the GOP is the outrageous spending on earmarks and domestic spending and "some" social programs.
Tax cuts have produced increased revenue but Wash spends it faster than they get it, hence deficits (BTW...the 800lb chihuahua in the room is social security, medicare, medicaid..those are just going to collapse under their own weight eventually, but in an election year, it's just better for the politicians to hand us some check in the name of econ stimulus, rather than adress the real tough issues hanging over our heads)
1,2,3,4,...National security.

"Some" in congress just shot down the Terrorist surveillance Act...this was to appease the trial lawyers who want to sue the telecom comps, plan and simple. Siding with one of their largest donor constituencies.

Lastly, You are confusing Conservative ideology with Republicanism...

[Truth_and_Power]

Bishop...The tipping point I see is the demise of socialism, just the opposite of what you envision.


You speak like continuous war is a Laissez-faire ideal or something..

[Truth_and_Power]

1,2,3,4,...National security.

"Some" in congress just shot down the Terrorist surveillance Act...this was to appease the trial lawyers who want to sue the telecom comps, plan and simple. Siding with one of their largest donor constituencies.
[/quote]

It seems like our policies are aimed more at Global Security than national security. I don't think 50,000 troops in korea and 50,000 troops in germany is helping our national security.. not to mention those in iraq.

[preservanation]

I see that...
I'm describing the neocon position that a secure globe=a secure America.
Whether the cost outweighs the benefits is an issue up for debate.
As you know better than any, T&P, Paul's campaign was based around that.

[bishop]

What you described at the beginning was Neo-Conservatism...the thought that we could free oppressed and threatening nations by introducing democracy...once a liberal goal.
Most Reagan cons such as myself tend to agree with this because it speaks directly to our nations security and defense.

in that sense, we've been practicing neo-conservatism for decades now.. one cannot help but draw very strong parallels between iraq and vietnam. in fact, today's arguments for the "war on terror" represent the same old domino theory - the only difference is in the packaging. same with reagan's iran-contra/death-squad policies. the actions and realpolitik goals continue to be the same, unless you're easily persuaded by rhetorical b.s. that politicians spew.

Tax cuts have produced increased revenue but Wash spends it faster than they get it, hence deficits

economic growth has resulted in increased tax revenue. i'd challenge you to quantify the impact that the tax cuts have had on growth - particularly in comparison to the fed's rate cuts.

and, the deficits are helped in no small part due to republican waste - iraq, homeland defense, foreign economic/military welfare, the republican prescription drug program and pork.

Lastly, You are confusing Conservative ideology with Republicanism...

it would seem that today's republican voters are the ones confusing conservatism with republicanism.. i don't vote republican for a reason - they aren't in line with my conservative-leaning ideology. today's republicans represent the same as today's democrats - imperialist foreign policy, continued deficits/debt, continued corporatism, continued weakening of the constitution, and the promise of liberty, freedom and justice for all...

[Osborn F. Enready]

Bishop said:
it would seem that today's republican voters are the ones confusing conservatism with republicanism.. i don't vote republican for a reason - they aren't in line with my conservative-leaning ideology.

Right on point, and well said. :thumbsup:

Neither the democrats or the republicans have anything in common with conservatism anymore, and its been quite some time since either did.

[preservanation]

in that sense, we've been practicing neo-conservatism for decades now..
No, "some" were spouting bringing freedom to the world in the 70's...but now they seem just fine with them living is squalor and under oppression.
My, how thing have changed.
economic growth has resulted in increased tax revenue. I'd challenge you to quantify the impact that the tax cuts have had on growthWe've been over this before. Tax cuts always raise revenue... basic economic principles. I know this is counter-intuitive to most, but I think you have an understanding of empirical data.
Revenue has tidal waved into the treasury this decade under Bush's, JFK's and Reagan's tax cuts...you've seen the #s...unfortunately spending has outpaced it however!

I agree with you on the Fed base interest cuts...what happens when it gets to zero, what then will Bernanke do then?
Let the natural correction occur...we don't know where the bottom is and investors hate that.
it would seem that today's republican voters are the ones confusing conservatism with republicanism.. Not me, never have...well, that's not true. When Reagan was in office he was Republicanism to me and embodied my ideology, but we've come a long way (down) since then.

[Coulter Enwrong]

Bishop...The tipping point I see is the demise of socialism, just the opposite of what you envision.


You speak like continuous war is a Laissez-faire ideal or something..


Continuous war has been an essential part of civilization for centuries, if not longer. It keeps the population in check.

[bishop]

We've been over this before. Tax cuts always raise revenue... basic economic principles. I know this is counter-intuitive to most, but I think you have an understanding of empirical data.

i have a master's degree in this stuff, and know for a fact that the laffer curve is a theory - not a basic economic principle. theory is nothing unless you can quantify it, and in this case that means showing the impact the tax cuts have had on gdp growth. if you can't, then your argument remains a hollow theory that cannot be quantitatively substantiated - much like the laffer curve. i do not ascribe to faith-based economics.

Not me, never have...well, that's not true. When Reagan was in office he was Republicanism to me and embodied my ideology, but we've come a long way (down) since then.

so maybe this site's affiliations should be changed so that the actual conservatives can characterize themselves accordingly - and so that the republicans can do the same.. it seems apparent to me that most voters support the party, regardless of its record.

[Scribbler1]

No, "some" were spouting bringing freedom to the world in the 70's...but now they seem just fine with them living is squalor and under oppression.
My, how thing have changed.I think it more accurate to say "some", then just as now, were/are spouting bringing freedom to the world. But it always seems that we have always been very selective as to whom we bring this "gift". By that, I mean it always looks like when we are altruistically talking freedom for SOME parts of the world, and most certainly not some parts which need it the most, we always end up benefiting by it in some way.
In other words, we're only in it for ourselves. "Bringing freedom" is always a much nicer phrase than "self interest", isn't it?

[NoMoreDems-Reps]

"That Senators dont have to vote based on what the people who voted them in want rather they vote based on there own judgement?"


This is called a "republic". America is a "republic"

remember the whole "...and to the republic for which it stands"


A republic created by and for the people !
Right?

For some interseting thoughts. (Can't confirm, but some good points
to consider).
http://usa-the-republic.com/items%20of%20interest/US%20v%20USA/USA_1.html

[NoMoreDems-Reps]

Can anyone say that they would be willing to place their lives in any politicions hands?
What about their Families lives?
Does anyone find it odd that we have people in our society whose job is to explain to us what the hell our leaders are doing?
We have people whose job is to tell the majority of people who to vote for. Odd?

Does anybody else find it odd that comedians making fun of our government qare starting to be a little too accurate?

That Senators dont have to vote based on what the people who voted them in want rather they vote based on there own judgement?
That fact that the majority of Americans feel that it doesnt matter who runs the show things are always going to be the same?

My final question is, Why did this happen? Or if you disagree, How could I come to this perception?


In short the REPS&DEMS have a monopoly on the US government!
So they don't really have to do a good job! Just as long as the are
preseived to be better than the other party! Thus the taxpayers pay
and the political machine gets rich and powerful. And when it comes
time to pay for the mess that the REPS&DEMS have created it
will be us the American taxpayers that will be responcible for the
bill.

And I bet there will still be Americans still fighting over which party was
worse !

We should vote in R. Paul or Nader. Those are the only prez candidates
that will bring America back to a constitutional form of Government!

[Phyxius]

Bishop...The tipping point I see is the demise of socialism, just the opposite of what you envision.


Really? Because it seems to be capitalism that's taking it in the ass right now... :ponder:

[HumanBeast]

Can anyone say that they would be willing to place their lives in any politicions hands?
What about their Families lives?
Does anyone find it odd that we have people in our society whose job is to explain to us what the hell our leaders are doing?
We have people whose job is to tell the majority of people who to vote for. Odd?

Does anybody else find it odd that comedians making fun of our government qare starting to be a little too accurate?

That Senators dont have to vote based on what the people who voted them in want rather they vote based on there own judgement?
That fact that the majority of Americans feel that it doesnt matter who runs the show things are always going to be the same?

My final question is, Why did this happen? Or if you disagree, How could I come to this perception?

That's called freedom of speech?

[4Reaganomics]

Bishop...The tipping point I see is the demise of socialism, just the opposite of what you envision.


Really? Because it seems to be capitalism that's taking it in the ass right now... :ponder:


When compared to who? Which socialist country is more prosperous than the United States?

I love how it taken an entire Europen Union to compete with one old U S of A.

Do you know what capitalism produced? I have a question for you, Which president holds the record for consecutive months of job growth?

You'll be surprised.

And pres, the Laffer curve is theory and bishop is right.

But the generated Economic growth from tax cuts always gets some of the cost of lost revenue back to the government, ALWAYS. And thus the growth in Economic expenditures, the expanded tax base, the growth in GDP, etc. all come at much less of an expense to the federal government than the initial nominal cost.

Relatively, cutting taxes is great, as long as you roll back spending a little bit afterwords.

[4Reaganomics]

Bishop...The tipping point I see is the demise of socialism, just the opposite of what you envision.


Really? Because it seems to be capitalism that's taking it in the ass right now... :ponder:


When compared to who? Which socialist country is more prosperous than the United States?

I love how it taken an entire Europen Union to compete with one old U S of A.

Do you know what capitalism produced? I have a question for you, Which president holds the record for consecutive months of job growth?

You'll be surprised.

And pres, the Laffer curve is theory and bishop is right.

But the generated Economic growth from tax cuts always gets some of the cost of lost revenue back to the government, ALWAYS. And thus the growth in Economic expenditures, the expanded tax base, the growth in GDP, etc. all come at much less of an expense to the federal government than the initial nominal cost.

Relatively, cutting taxes is great, as long as you roll back spending a little bit afterwords.

[RWallace]

What Happened to America?


greed in many respects


Greed is what made America work in the first place. Greed is the reason that capitalism prevails and communism and socialism does not. Without greed, there would be nothing driving the enterprising wheels of innovation and technology. Michael Douglas was right: "Greed is good".

[Scribbler1]

What Happened to America?


greed in many respects


Greed is what made America work in the first place. Greed is the reason that capitalism prevails and communism and socialism does not. Without greed, there would be nothing driving the enterprising wheels of innovation and technology. Michael Douglas was right: "Greed is good".
I would disagree with that position. I don't think, in the past anyway, greed would be the word. Inventors and entrepreneurs would do something no one else had done or make something no one else made, or make something better, and reap the rewards. Now it seems a bit different. We don't make much at all anymore, and the biggest moneymaker in the country today appears to be moving money around and charging people to do it, with the governments full support and assistance.
No bail outs or corporate welfare back then, I would think. No megacorporations, which should not have been allowed to exist in the first place, when faced with collapse would seriously harm the economy.

[Buck Laser]

I would disagree with that position. I don't think, in the past anyway, greed would be the word. Inventors and entrepreneurs would do something no one else had done or make something no one else made, or make something better, and reap the rewards. Now it seems a bit different. We don't make much at all anymore, and the biggest moneymaker in the country today appears to be moving money around and charging people to do it, with the governments full support and assistance.
No bail outs or corporate welfare back then, I would think. No megacorporations, which should not have been allowed to exist in the first place, when faced with collapse would seriously harm the economy.

Scribbler, I think you look at history in a bit too rosy a light. The nineteenth century was really the time of corporate growth in America. I think a good many industries enjoyed massive government protection in those days. I'm thinking particularly of the railroads, who pretty much enjoyed carte blanche in deciding routes and taking whatever land they wanted for their rights of way. My great grandfather was a railroad lawyer and a Texas state senator. In his unpublished memoirs, he describes himself unashamedly as a "senator for the railroad." So far as I know, he wasn't an evil man, but it seems strange for a man to declare his allegiance to the railroads.

Many corporations enjoyed monopolies with government protection during that century. So perhaps we may not have had the same mechanisms as now, I'd have to argue that the corporations held a better hand in the 19th century than individuals or small businesses.

[4Reaganomics]

Protectionism, it always sucks

[Scribbler1]

I would disagree with that position. I don't think, in the past anyway, greed would be the word. Inventors and entrepreneurs would do something no one else had done or make something no one else made, or make something better, and reap the rewards. Now it seems a bit different. We don't make much at all anymore, and the biggest moneymaker in the country today appears to be moving money around and charging people to do it, with the governments full support and assistance.
No bail outs or corporate welfare back then, I would think. No megacorporations, which should not have been allowed to exist in the first place, when faced with collapse would seriously harm the economy.

Scribbler, I think you look at history in a bit too rosy a light. The nineteenth century was really the time of corporate growth in America. I think a good many industries enjoyed massive government protection in those days. I'm thinking particularly of the railroads, who pretty much enjoyed carte blanche in deciding routes and taking whatever land they wanted for their rights of way. My great grandfather was a railroad lawyer and a Texas state senator. In his unpublished memoirs, he describes himself unashamedly as a "senator for the railroad." So far as I know, he wasn't an evil man, but it seems strange for a man to declare his allegiance to the railroads.

Many corporations enjoyed monopolies with government protection during that century. So perhaps we may not have had the same mechanisms as now, I'd have to argue that the corporations held a better hand in the 19th century than individuals or small businesses.
I was actually thinking of the early part of the 20th century. But I agree, there were quite a few "robber barons" and such. Hell, even Thomas Edison was an opportunist who took credit for others' inventions.
But you also have people who made it on their own (pretty much), such as Charles Goodyear, Clarence Birdseye and Edwin Land.