Socialism: Whats wrong with it?

[Saxon]

The Great Depression spurred State ownership in Western capitalist countries. Germany was no exception; the last governments of the Weimar Republic took over firms in diverse sectors. Later, the Nazi regime transferred public ownership and public services to the private sector. In doing so, they went against the mainstream trends in the Western capitalist countries, none of which systematically reprivatized firms during the 1930s. Privatization in Nazi Germany was also unique in transferring to private hands the delivery of public services previously provided by government.


As big business became increasingly organized, it developed an increasingly close partnership with the Nazi government. The government pursued economic policies that maximized the profits of its business allies, and, in exchange, business leaders supported the government's political and military goals.


In general, apart from the nationalizations of some industries, fascist economies were based on private property and private initiative, but these were contingent upon service to the state.

Why do the morons here keep insisting that the Nazis owned all businesses when no such thing occurred? WTF? Read a book. There was no 'nationalisation' of business. The Nazis even pushed for more private enterprises, as long as their existence would benefit the State. Please people, learn to read books, or shut up. Upon review of the many posts regarding Nazi Germany, it seems I am the ONLY ONE who knows anything about the Nazis. The rest of you dip****s are nothing but mere wannabes.

 

[GenSeneca]

I think I would be included in the some MODS clause to your opening paragraph.

LOL, Sorry Bunz... That really isn't how I meant it and didn't even think about it till you said something... When I used "Mod" I was referring to "Moderates" in the Republican party. I'll respond to your other comments later, don't have time now but wanted to appologize for the Mod comment not being clear.

 

[Pandora]

LOL, Sorry Bunz... That really isn't how I meant it and didn't even think about it till you said something... When I used "Mod" I was referring to "Moderates" in the Republican party. I'll respond to your other comments later, don't have time now but wanted to appologize for the Mod comment not being clear.

See now if you called them RINO's there would have been no confussion

 

[GenSeneca]

It is still about promoting it. There is nothing saying that private enterprise is out of the game.

The Constitution never mentions private enterprise as responsible for promotion of the general welfare.

Looking up the definitions of promote and define, then comparing them to what we're doing with the welfare state: We are providing.

Well the various lobby groups that support our continued broken system first off.

How exactly are they stopping us from becoming a total welfare state like that of Soviet Russia?

But also, I dont think the average American, even the most liberal want to provide the level of governance that you compare to the modern US government.

Look at the pattern. Some is never enough and with every election comes calls for more. Its only a matter of time.

Well in some cases I am alright with that.
I cant expect someone with a physical disability to produce as much as me. But I wouldnt want them to have less quality of life than me.

1. Stephen Hawking
2. You care so much about providing them with charity that you will put a metaphorical gun to my head and force me to contribute to your cause rather than simply donating to, or starting your own, charity to pay for such things out of your own pocket?

Well, a wealth tax, I am not sure at this point. ... Those people came through the wealth the inheritance, not through thier own work.

You didn't work for it either. Why do you feel you have a right to any property that is not yours?

The end goal should be the benefit of the consumer whoever the owner is.

So more of the fascist than communist principle? The owner can be private so long as the owner is acting in the best interest of society (fascist) rather than his own best interest (capitalist principle)?

I am not thrilled by it. But putting money and efforts into the various "bailout" companies to help them through tough times will prevent a considerable amount of hardship on a number of other industries therefore, making the problem much worse.

Patently false. We spent billions we didn't have only to see them go to bankruptcy court anyway... Those of us who were against the bailouts said they should go directly to Bankruptcy court... do not pass go and do not collect 800 billion dollars.

I have no interest in overtaking any corporations or other businesses where it is unnecessary.

What decides necessity? If they fail? If we need the money and they have it?

I dont see why the two competing parties have the power and control they do. They are much more powerful than any politician and that is bothersome to me.

You think its a stretch that the two parties are becoming more similar than dissimilar? Rhetoric and a few social issues aside, their economic and foreign policy are almost identical.

I dont think realistically comparing the modern America to facist Germany or the Soviet Union are quite fair.

How about Fascist Italy? They were not militaristic, bigoted, genocidal maniacs... Mussolini and FDR were pals.

Both, which is something we can have. This is not a one or the other issue.

This is simply incorrect. At some point the rights of the individual will be sacrificed to accomplish something for the public good. You advocate for it yourself.

While I support wholeheartedly the notion of one to create thier own wealth and be successful

But not too successful? You do think that there is a point where their success is greed and must be curbed, correct?

I also support helping those at the bottom who struggle

Then do so with your own money by contributing to charities set up for that purpose. Do not use the power of government to force others to do that which you think is noble. Whether or not they would donate money anyway is irrelevant, you have taken away their individual right to choose by making it mandatory they contribute to what you see as the public good.

largely because thier efforts result in the wealth of the owner state.

Its the worker who is exploited for the benefit of the owner... Marx said that in Das Kapital.

Meaning that for example the Waltons, enjoy unimaginable wealth, whereas those who are actually there to create that wealth are left out. To the point where they cannot realistically afford to support a family.

If you are talking about working min wage jobs... why the hell are you so irresponsible that you have a family if you earn min wage? If you're talking about Walmart jobs in general, they have tremendous advancement opportunities and even schooling programs to help their employees go to college... Hardly the greedy corporation undercutting their employees to meet the greedy bottom line that the Walmart haters make it out to be.

Well ultimately I cannot support private industry pushing a product that is harmful to the consumer.

I was talking about government protecting you from yourself... because government thinks you are too stupid to make decisions in your own best interest. Seat belt laws, Helmet laws, Bans on Trans Fats and other Paternal Nanny State laws meant to coddle you and keep you safe by eliminating your individual right to choose.

You should check out the book "Nudge", its written by pragmatists and is about why government should play the paternalistic role of pushing you to making better decisions in your life and in some cases, making the decisions for you so that its more complicated to opt out of the path chosen than to follow the one they deem to be in your own best interest. Of course all that is completely outside the bounds of the constitution but who really cares about that 'flawed' document, written by a bunch of 'racists' in a bygone era anyway?

Ultimately I support maximing the revenue as you describe.

Democrats do not... at least the ones in power are quite open about taxes being about achieving some subjective level of fairness rather than being about maximizing revenue. A policy that all Americans should find abhorrent given our current, and ongoing, problems with debts and deficits.

Meaning that I dont like the various sin taxes, and have a major problem with the various drug laws that work to imprison a number a non-violent people because of this.

I think Bob totally missed you saying this... Here we agree 100%.

In all seriousness, I am a pragmatist. I search out the most realstic and effective solution to a problem that exists.

You and PLC1 both call yourselves pragmatists. I would forgo all other questions to dwell on just this topic of pragmatism because philosophy and ideology are so important to our way of thinking and our conclusions. Before I rail on about Pragmatism, I would like to know just how extensive is your knowledge of the philosophy and whos version of pragmatism do you follow? It covers many schools of thought...

Peirce, James, Mead, Dewey and Kant are just some of the ones part of the classical pragmatic movement, Putney, Quine, Haack and Rorty are some of the Neo-Pragmatists.

They all worked off of such concepts as the Good Reasons Approach (anything you do with good intentions is moral and ethical regardless of the outcome), Fallibilism (there is no right or wrong, no truth or lies), Justice as Fairness (those who are the least well off should benefit the most from the trappings of society)and Secular Humanism (A rejection of Christian morality and ethics)... I find all of these combine to be incompatible with maintaining individual rights.

They also worked from a premise that such concepts as "principles", "truth" and "value" were subjective terms with no real or lasting meaning. They flatly denied Law of Identity as being true and distorted the rules of logic in order to justify their denial of Realism (they promoted Anti-Realism) as rational and logical.

The Pragmatists crafted the philosophy as a way of thinking rather than specific set of doctrines because all the tested and accepted understandings of logic and reason were incompatible with the premises and conclusions drawn from pragmatism.

Turns out I did ramble on anyway... There's plenty more where that came from!

I am not a hard line idealist who thinks that thier political leanings along can solve an issue.

Pragmatists do pride themselves as being "reasonable" and "moderate", rejecting idealism as an impractical extreme view.... Yet, if I were to ask you about your position on Slavery you would likely choose the ideological position of being opposed to it rather than taking a pragmatic position on the subject and being open to compromise.

PLC1 takes a purely ideological position on Torture and for all his pragmatism, he's simply not open to moderating his views or accepting as reasonable any form of compromise.

Pragmatism is dangerous because it denies that there are principles and ideas worth fighting for and without ever compromising them. As I've demonstrated above, you both draw a line on your pragmatism and have an ideology at work that trumps pragmatism on certain issues. I know PLC1 is a Libertarian, Conservative like myself.... Bunz, what ideology do you hold that trumps pragmatism?

 

[GenSeneca]

Bunz, I forgot to thank you for participating in the thread and answering my questions. Even though we disagree on a great many things, I have a great deal of respect for you because of your willingness to actually carry on a discussion in such a manner. Much appreciated.

 

[GenSeneca]

In Soviet Russia, government provided General Welfare for all its citizens; healthcare, a place to live, a job and income, education etc.

What, if anything, is stopping America from providing its citizens with all of the same things via the General Welfare clause?

The answer to that question is: Individual Rights

Remember that rights are moral principles which define and protect a man’s freedom of action, but impose no obligations on other men. Private citizens are not a threat to one another’s rights or freedom. A private citizen who resorts to physical force and violates the rights of others is a criminal-and men have legal protection against him.

The Democrat party platform of 1960:

“1. The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation.

“2. The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation.

“3. The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living.

“4. The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home and abroad.

“5. The right of every family to a decent home.

“6. The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health.

“7. The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accidents and unemployment.

“8. The right to a good education.”

None of those are rights, they are in fact all violations of the rights of others.

If some men are entitled by right to the products of the work of others, it means that those others are deprived of rights and condemned to slave labor.

Any alleged “right” of one man, which necessitates the violation of the rights of another, is not and cannot be a right.

No man can have a right to impose an unchosen obligation, an unrewarded duty or an involuntary servitude on another man. There can be no such thing as “the right to enslave.”

A right does not include the material implementation of that right by other men; it includes only the freedom to earn that implementation by one’s own effort.

Which brings us to another question from the OP:

Which is more important, the public interest or the Individual Rights of minorities?

Clearly, those who support "rights" such as those proposed in the 1960 Democrat Platform, have chosen against Individual Rights. They have said that some men should be slaves to others, that some men deserve the unearned and at the expense of those who earned it... Slavery by any other name....

[Quotes are from: Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal by Ayn Rand]

 

[top gun]

The Progs (and some mods) around here claim what we're doing isn't Socialism. They also claim they don't support Socialism. They claim things like bailouts and the nationalization of industries are perfectly in line with the Constitution. Some even have the temerity to claim that America is not a Welfare State.

Fine.

For the purpose of this thread, I'll accept your premise. We're not descending into Marxism. Everything we do is completely constitutional and in line with the free market principles of Capitalism... The questions I have for you are in bold.

According to you, the General Welfare clause says government should PROVIDE (rather than simply promote) for the general welfare of all Americans.

In Soviet Russia, government provided General Welfare for all its citizens; healthcare, a place to live, a job and income, education etc.

What, if anything, is stopping America from providing its citizens with all of the same things via the General Welfare clause?

It's to address great and/or blatantly unfair inequities or possible major catastrophies... national security, economic or environmental or natural disasters that our government steps in to help it's people.

Socialism is not about addressing just certain major targeted things as they come & go. It's all inclusive. That is the difference.

In Soviet Russia, the government operated on the Marxist principle of "To each according to his need, from each according to their ability."

What, if any, problem do you have with America operating under the same principle?

When there is no financial incentive to achieve and no personal ownership things stagnate.

In Soviet Russia, there was a Progressive income tax, wealth tax and Death tax that effectively redistributed all wealth. (Wealth of the proles that is)

We have a Progressive tax and a Death tax that do the same thing on a different scale but we don't have a wealth tax - yet.

What, if any, opposition would you have to a full blown wealth tax? (this way billionaires and the idle rich are hit with taxes they could otherwise avoid by not having income and by not dieing)

The question is not clear but I'll give and overall opinion on taxes. A progressive tax rate is simply the only tax rate that will work. Neither Party would ever agree to cut so much government spending that a non-progressive tax would work.

The reason why they wouldn't cut that much. You have to hack away so severely (if not eliminate) major National Security military interests and Social Security & Medicare.

The reason why you can't have a non-progressive tax system. With any realistic & necessary government spending levels the "equal" tax rate would immediately throw millions of now out of poverty people into deep deep poverty.

In Soviet Russia, Public Utilities (energy, water, sewage etc.) were all owned by the state.

What, if any, opposition do you have to America nationalizing all Public Utilities?

Unless going out of business on their own they should be privately held businesses hence cultivating inovation & competition. This does not mean that for hundreds of reasons they should not be regulated. Furthermore if they were to go out of business for some reason the American people must be delivered their product by some means.

In Fascist Germany, major Corporations were jointly owned by government, the same way the major banks, AIG, GM, Chrysler and others are jointly owned by the American government today.

What, if any, opposition do you have to the American government taking the same kind of joint ownership over the rest of Americas major corporations? (They could take over partial ownership of the profitable corporations like Wal-Mart and Microsoft)

Fascist Germany forcefully took over businesses both profitable and not profitable. In America the government is stepping in to loan money to keep PRIVATE businesses from failing TOTALLY ON THEIR OWN. This is more of a loan situation. And as any banker would say if you are going to loan you need some combination of collateral and/or stake protecting your investment.

That's what the US government is doing.

In Soviet Russia, the state owned 100% of all corporations and business entities.

What, if any, opposition would you have to the American government taking 100% ownership of all corporations and business entities?

Obviously against it.

In both Soviet Russia and Fascist Germany, there was a one party system.

Should the Republican party disband so that the Democrats can be America's one and only party?

Obviously against it. Anyone with knowledge of American politics realizes that political Parties change. Not to even get into the Federalist Party, the Wig Party & the Democratic-Republican Party, at the time of Lincoln the Republicans were a more Liberal Party and the Democrats more Southern Conservative in their platforms. It's not that Party competition for ideas is bad... it's that bad ideas are bad ideas.

Do people hope that the Parties evolve in a positive manor and the good in both Parties is accentuated and the bad is diminished? Yes.

In both Soviet Russia and Fascist Germany, Altruism (the deliberate pursuit of the interests or welfare of others or the public interest.) was the guiding principle of their policies and programs but the public interest always infringes upon the individual rights of minorities. (Jews in Germany being the most well known)

Which is more important, the public interest or the Individual Rights of minorities?

Both must be fairly balanced. Extremeisum is the enemy here. The overall public interest is important but our government was also set up to not allow the minority to be unfairly victimized by the majority.

In both Soviet Russia and Fascist Germany, citizens were limited in both their freedom of speech and their freedom of action. Here in America, we pass laws that limit free speech by declaring some speech hate speech. We pass laws that limit our freedom of action by regulating or banning products and services deemed unhealthy or not in our best interest (Prostitution, Gambling, Smoking, Banning Trans-Fats etc).

What, if any, limits should we place on the governments ability to protect us from ourselves?

The line should be when someone or some thing's action directly harms another against their will with special consideration given to minor children. Hence I'm against motorcycle helmet and car seat belt laws for adults... but approve of them for minors.

In both Soviet Russia and Fascist Germany, taxes were not levied to maximize revenue to the government, they were used to punish or reward (control) the behavior of their citizens.

Should the American government have its power of taxation limited to maximizing revenue or should we continue to let the government use taxation to control our behavior, regardless of the effect it has on revenue?

Enough revenue must be raised to pay for programs. And that must be done in a way that does not tremendously increase poverty hence the progressive income tax. As far a "behavior" if the "behavior" is directly negatively affecting citizens taxation is a way to try and limit "bad behavior".

Lastly... Objectivism is the philosophy that most closely mirrors my own. If you read through the philosophy, or already are familiar with it, you will gain some perspective as to why I support the positions and issues that I do and why logic is important to me. Unlike many here on the forum, I'm not here to "debate" anything or convince anyone of anything but those who are here for those purposes are easy to spot because they employ logical fallacies and emotional appeals to support their positions. Understanding why people hold their positions on issues is more important to me than understanding what their positions on issues are.

What philosophy do you ascribe to, or comes closest to your own?

Regarding Objectivism there's a lot of good to it. As with anything it is not a "perfect" philosophy. The world creates ever evolving questions and unique circumstanses. I try to look at all sides of every specific situation and then make a decision in accordance to what I understand to be the the best choice available.

 

[GenSeneca]

Top Gun,

Thank you for answering the questions. This is one of the few posts you've made in reply to one of mine where I get the sense you were being honest and not looking to score cheap political points. I wish we could have more exchanges such as this because they are far more gratifying than our usual exchanges.

It's to address great and/or blatantly unfair inequities or possible major catastrophies...

Balancing unfair inequities.... Sounds like you are trying to bring about equality of outcome and that is the essence of "to each according to his need, from each according to ability." Helping specific people is not the 'general welfare' of all Americans.

Socialism is not about addressing just certain major targeted things as they come & go. It's all inclusive. That is the difference.

Did you read the Democrat platform of 1960? They haven't given up on those goals. Aside from that; what is there to stop the general welfare clause from being used to bring about an "all inclusive" socialist state?

The question is not clear but I'll give and overall opinion on taxes. A progressive tax rate is simply the only tax rate that will work. Neither Party would ever agree to cut so much government spending that a non-progressive tax would work.

Both the flat and fair tax would bring in as much, in some cases more, revenue than the progressive tax system. You won't even take a serious look at them but nations such as Russia have implemented them, replacing their progressive tax, and its been a huge boon to their revenue and economy.

The reason why they wouldn't cut that much. You have to hack away so severely (if not eliminate) major National Security military interests and Social Security & Medicare.

Our budget under Clinton was 2 trillion, we didn't have people dieing in the streets and our military wasn't languishing at those spending levels. Obama's budget is 4 trillion dollars, we don't have twice as many people on SS and Medicare and we don't have twice as much of a military. Yet if I were to suggest we cut federal spending by 50% and return to Clinton levels of spending, you'd be the first to claim I want people dieing in the street and kicked off SS, welfare, medicare etc... We simply cannot continues this spending, it is unsustainable.

The reason why you can't have a non-progressive tax system. With any realistic & necessary government spending levels the "equal" tax rate would immediately throw millions of now out of poverty people into deep deep poverty.

That's simply untrue on many levels. Going to a flat tax or a fair tax would reduce the amount of taxes those at the bottom pay and make it easier for them to move up through the income quintiles.

Unless going out of business on their own they should be privately held businesses hence cultivating inovation & competition.

In fascist Germany, business was "privately" owned but regulated so that everything they did would be in the best interest of the public.

This does not mean that for hundreds of reasons they should not be regulated.

Regulated so that they operate in the best interest of the public? No one is arguing they should not be regulated but they shouldn't there should be no regulations outside of protecting the public from force and fraud.

Fascist Germany forcefully took over businesses both profitable and not profitable. In America the government is stepping in to loan money to keep PRIVATE businesses from failing TOTALLY ON THEIR OWN.

Where is the constitutional authority for government to act like a bank?

This is more of a loan situation. And as any banker would say if you are going to loan you need some combination of collateral and/or stake protecting your investment.

Banks do loan money but they don't step into the driver seat and make business decisions for the companies they loan money to... The Government is dictating business policy and making business decisions for the companies they loan money to.

Obviously against it. ....Republicans were a more Liberal Party and the Democrats more Southern Conservative in their platforms.

I would disagree to some extent. The Democrat platform was that of discrimination against minorities, now its a platform of discrimination against whites. They are still the party of discrimination. The Republicans are still liberal on economic issues but have become way too progressive on their social and military policies. Prior to Bush I, it was Democrats who had taken America into all its wars.

It's not that Party competition for ideas is bad... it's that bad ideas are bad ideas.

If only Democrat ideas are any good, and if the only way for Republican ideas to be any good is for them to be identical to democrat ideas, then why have a Republican party?

Do people hope that the Parties evolve in a positive manor and the good in both Parties is accentuated and the bad is diminished? Yes.

But according to you, the Republicans need to agree with the policy positions of the Democrats in order to be "good". If they 'evolve in a positive manor' as you suggest, there would be nothing of substance to differentiate the two parties. We would have a one party system with the only difference being the elephant and donkey representing them.

Both must be fairly balanced.

You cannot balance them. In order to do whats in the public interest, individual rights must be violated. For example, Universal Healthcare is said to be in the public interest, but such a program violates individual rights.

The overall public interest is important but our government was also set up to not allow the minority to be unfairly victimized by the majority.

Yet you support programs and policies that do violate the rights of the minority, such as Universal Healthcare and Means Testing for Social Security.

The line should be when someone or some thing's action directly harms another against their will with special consideration given to minor children. Hence I'm against motorcycle helmet and car seat belt laws for adults... but approve of them for minors.

Sounds very much like my Libertarian viewpoint that gambling, prostitution, drugs and anything else adults choose to do without violating the rights of others is no business of the government.

Enough revenue must be raised to pay for programs. And that must be done in a way that does not tremendously increase poverty hence the progressive income tax. As far a "behavior" if the "behavior" is directly negatively affecting citizens taxation is a way to try and limit "bad behavior".

Sounds like you support heavily taxing products such as tobacco, alcohol, sugary foods, as well as all other things that are deemed unhealthy in order to "limit" the bad behavior. Such taxes disproportionately affect the poor and increase poverty, yet you support them because you think these taxes can "limit" bad behavior. Such taxes don't "limit" unhealthy choices, they punish them.

Regarding Objectivism there's a lot of good to it. As with anything it is not a "perfect" philosophy. The world creates ever evolving questions and unique circumstanses. I try to look at all sides of every specific situation and then make a decision in accordance to what I understand to be the the best choice available.

I never claimed it was perfect, like Capitalism, its the least imperfect. I too look at all sides and make a determination on what the best path is to follow, having a philosophy does not prevent that. You did not answer the question though: what philosophy do you follow? Based on your answers, sounds like Pragmatism.

Extremeisum is the enemy here.

"Extreme" positions are good, there are some principles and ideas worth fighting for that we should never compromise.

 

[top gun]

Top Gun,

Thank you for answering the questions. This is one of the few posts you've made in reply to one of mine where I get the sense you were being honest and not looking to score cheap political points. I wish we could have more exchanges such as this because they are far more gratifying than our usual exchanges.

I suppose you never thought about the fact that statements like Buck Ofama in your signature line instigates this?

In my thousands of posts the lion's share I go into great detail on policy and my personal life experiences that lead me to my conclusions. But I'm not afraid to be confrontational either. I guess much like my avatar, Billy Jack, I'm not looking to fight. However I will be relentless in protecting those I care for from others bullying attacks.

Balancing unfair inequities.... Sounds like you are trying to bring about equality of outcome and that is the essence of "to each according to his need, from each according to ability." Helping specific people is not the 'general welfare' of all Americans.

I never said balance. I said address. When something is wrong it should be addressed and not just swept under the rug and ignored. It matters not whether this pertains to me or some other American completely different than me. Never let yourself believe that just because someone different than yourself is being persecuted you can't suffer the same fate.

In Germany, they came first for the Communists, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist;
And then they came for the trade unionists, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist;
And then they came for the Jews, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew;
And then . . . they came for me . . . And by that time there was no one left to speak up.

Did you read the Democrat platform of 1960? They haven't given up on those goals. Aside from that; what is there to stop the general welfare clause from being used to bring about an "all inclusive" socialist state?

1960 isn't 2009. If it were you'd have posted the 2008 Democratic Party platform.

The proceeding words "to promote" the general welfare is saying that government can step in to help its people when they are in dire straits. Promote means to foster or to help. What is being said is America is not a government can never help its people fend for yourself or die society nor is it a socialist, everything will be given to you, state.

Both the flat and fair tax would bring in as much, in some cases more, revenue than the progressive tax system. You won't even take a serious look at them but nations such as Russia have implemented them, replacing their progressive tax, and its been a huge boon to their revenue and economy.

There's no way this can be done without hurting poor and low income workers. In example: if you keep a 20k per year waitress in the same tax bracket and also lower the 200k per year banker's tax bracket down to the waitress's lower tax bracket there is simply less tax revenue coming in.

Our budget under Clinton was 2 trillion, we didn't have people dieing in the streets and our military wasn't languishing at those spending levels. Obama's budget is 4 trillion dollars, we don't have twice as many people on SS and Medicare and we don't have twice as much of a military. Yet if I were to suggest we cut federal spending by 50% and return to Clinton levels of spending, you'd be the first to claim I want people dieing in the street and kicked off SS, welfare, medicare etc... We simply cannot continues this spending, it is unsustainable.

Every new budget is always the largest budget because everything goes up in price. Clinton had the so-called peace dividend and he was able to cut military spending. I will say I am a big fan of Bill Clinton and his deficit cutting approach and when people aren't suffering and businesses aren't failing I'm fully in agreement with trying to cut the deficit but people come first.

I will tell you this, wasting $12 billion per month for 8 years in Iraq and skyrocketing health care costs have helped make our economic problems even worse. President Obama created none of this and is simply dealing with the hand he was dealt. Without action we quite possibly could be in another depression and not just the Bush recession.

In fascist Germany, business was "privately" owned but regulated so that everything they did would be in the best interest of the public.

You leave out many other things that were going on in Nazi Germany. There is absolutely no correlation between Nazi Germany and the American bail out of some of its most important companies.

Regulated so that they operate in the best interest of the public? No one is arguing they should not be regulated but they shouldn't there should be no regulations outside of protecting the public from force and fraud.

There are many good reasons for regulation other than the two you cite. One just off the top of my head would be environmental reasons. If Acme Corp. is dumping toxins or raw sewage into my streams and lakes, then I'm drinking it. That is neither force nor fraud.

Where is the constitutional authority for government to act like a bank?

Everything that might come up in 200 years is not specifically addressed in our constitution. That doesn't mean that the government doesn't have a responsibility to keep the American financial system from collapsing. It does.

Banks do loan money but they don't step into the driver seat and make business decisions for the companies they loan money to... The Government is dictating business policy and making business decisions for the companies they loan money to.

But banks wouldn't loan on these companies situations would they? The government had to put out a huge taxpayer loan investment at the request of these businesses that were about to fail. It would be a breach of their fiduciary duty if they were not fully engaged as any major shareholder would be.

I would disagree to some extent. The Democrat platform was that of discrimination against minorities, now its a platform of discrimination against whites. They are still the party of discrimination. The Republicans are still liberal on economic issues but have become way too progressive on their social and military policies. Prior to Bush I, it was Democrats who had taken America into all its wars.

Well you'd be wrong. The Democratic platform is not one that looks to discriminate. Saying the Democratic party now wants to discriminate against whites is like saying supporting the women's right to vote was wishing to discriminate against men.

And yes, Democrats have started many wars. Funny how Republicans try to portray us as afraid to fight, hum. But let's also remember Republican administrations have been some of the major escalators of war even when we knew the war was lost, as with Nixon in Vietnam.

If only Democrat ideas are any good, and if the only way for Republican ideas to be any good is for them to be identical to democrat ideas, then why have a Republican party?

I don't know that all Democratic ideas are good. I'm simply saying that this place in time the Democrats have a much better overall package. I at one time was a registered Republican, then an Independent and since the Clinton administration a registered Democrat.

You cannot balance them. In order to do whats in the public interest, individual rights must be violated. For example, Universal Healthcare is said to be in the public interest, but such a program violates individual rights.

You can balance it. You can make it fair for all people. It may not be specifically what every single different person wants but you can make it fair. If it's fair it doesn't violate individual rights.

Sounds very much like my Libertarian viewpoint that gambling, prostitution, drugs and anything else adults choose to do without violating the rights of others is no business of the government.

Some things have overall bad societal effects and I do understand the idea of regulating them.

Sounds like you support heavily taxing products such as tobacco, alcohol, sugary foods, as well as all other things that are deemed unhealthy in order to "limit" the bad behavior. Such taxes disproportionately affect the poor and increase poverty, yet you support them because you think these taxes can "limit" bad behavior. Such taxes don't "limit" unhealthy choices, they punish them.

Once again, bad to another person is bad to another person. Smoking for instance affects others. I don't really care if it's a rich person or a poor person blowing second hand smoke in my face, I'm equally affected.

"Extreme" positions are good, there are some principles and ideas worth fighting for that we should never compromise.

Extreme positions can be good or they can just be radical. Most often extreme means self satisfying, self promoting ideology more than good policy or law.

And there are often good ideas all around the middle of a good idea. I try to find compromise without abandoning the things I see as most important.

 

[GenSeneca]

I suppose you never thought about the fact that statements like Buck Ofama in your signature line instigates this?

Buck Fush was clever and funny but Buck Ofama is inflammatory...

I said address. When something is wrong it should be addressed and not just swept under the rug and ignored.

The civil rights act of '64 and 13th, 14th and 15th amendments address inequities. Programs such as Affirmative Action and racial quotas discriminate based on race and the justification given for this is addressing inequality. You cannot fix the problems of discrimination by using discrimination.

Never let yourself believe that just because someone different than yourself is being persecuted you can't suffer the same fate.

This is why I'm a believer in protecting individual rights from those who practice identity politics and promote collective rights.

1960 isn't 2009. If it were you'd have posted the 2008 Democratic Party platform.

Irrelevant... The Democrat party, as I said, is still seeking to implement each and every one of those platform positions.

The proceeding words "to promote" the general welfare is saying that government can step in to help its people when they are in dire straits.

You will not find that explanation of the phrase from the many sources written by our founders on the subject.

There's no way this can be done without hurting poor and low income workers.

Don't pretend like you care about poor and low income workers where income tax is concerned if you are all for jacking up their taxes on behavior you deem unhealthy.

In example: if you keep a 20k per year waitress in the same tax bracket and also lower the 200k per year banker's tax bracket down to the waitress's lower tax bracket there is simply less tax revenue coming in.

You are working from the concept of the economy as a zero sum game and that's just not how it works. Regardless of whether we have tax rates at 90% or 15%, the revenue to the government will be roughly 18% of total GDP, that is historical fact. The only way to maximize the revenue is to grow GDP. Lowering the tax burden on all citizens through a flat or fair tax would cause the GDP to skyrocket because there would be more economic activity taking place.

Every new budget is always the largest budget because everything goes up in price.

A 100% increase in government spending over 10 years. Our economy grows at roughly 3% a year and government grows at 10% a year... Doesn't take a math wizard to understand this status quo is unacceptable and unsustainable.

I will tell you this, wasting $12 billion per month for 8 years in Iraq and skyrocketing health care costs have helped make our economic problems even worse.

We spend $3.8 million dollars per second on the American Welfare state, Iraq spending is a drop in the bucket compared to that. Also, as I pointed out before, if its so horrible to spend money in Iraq, then use your Democrat majority to defund the troops and get them out of Iraq tomorrow.

Without action we quite possibly could be in another depression and not just the Bush recession.

Without action... if we don't act... Those are just strawman arguments. Nobody is suggesting inaction, just very different actions from those that are being taken.

There is absolutely no correlation between Nazi Germany and the American bail out of some of its most important companies.

The Nazi's regulated their companies so that they were acting in accordance with what was best for the public good. The American government is regulating companies so that they do what is best for the public good.

There are many good reasons for regulation other than the two you cite. One just off the top of my head would be environmental reasons.

That's 3.... You say there are many, name the others.

If Acme Corp. is dumping toxins or raw sewage into my streams and lakes, then I'm drinking it. That is neither force nor fraud.

Why are you drinking out of lakes and streams? Even if nobody is dumping toxins or sewage, its still unsafe for you to drink. Tap water is filtered and treated for toxins and biological pathogens, its safe to drink.

Everything that might come up in 200 years is not specifically addressed in our constitution.

By that standard, there are no limits to the federal governments power. Our constitution clearly states that power which is not enumerated to the federal government is left to the states. The idea being that with 50 states, one bad decision by the fed will not negatively affect the whole country. If we do it your way, the federal government has to make the right decisions every time or all the states suffer as a result.

That doesn't mean that the government doesn't have a responsibility to keep the American financial system from collapsing. It does.

Government has no such responsibility. There is no constitutional authority to keep failing businesses from failing. The entire financial system would not have collapsed, that was a fearmongering tactic by the Bush admin and the Democrats in power to sell the bailouts to a fearful public. We bailed out GM and Chrysler and they went to bankruptcy anyway, who's to say the financial industries won't have the same fate?

But banks wouldn't loan on these companies situations would they?

Banks look for a return on their investment; government is only looking for control, a political football to kick around for votes and they can subsidize their losses on the backs of taxpayers.

The government had to put out a huge taxpayer loan investment at the request of these businesses that were about to fail. It would be a breach of their fiduciary duty if they were not fully engaged as any major shareholder would be.

This goes beyond being 'fully engaged'. Government is playing the role of referee and team owner.

The Democratic platform is not one that looks to discriminate.

Affirmative Action and Racial Quotas discriminate based on race, and the Democrat party champions both. The issue of Judges using "empathy" in order to discriminate based on such things as income and skin color are antithetical to the judicial pledge of being impartial in court decisions.

I'm simply saying that this place in time the Democrats have a much better overall package.

With a few social issues as exceptions, domestic policy, foreign policy and economic policy are all nearly identical.

You can balance it. You can make it fair for all people.

But you don't do that. You target minorities for such things as punitive taxes and claim its in the public interest to violate their rights.

Once again, bad to another person is bad to another person. Smoking for instance affects others. I don't really care if it's a rich person or a poor person blowing second hand smoke in my face, I'm equally affected.

BS argument... Pass laws restricting where people can smoke or ban the product. Using that argument as an excuse for raising taxes on cigarettes is an exercise in silliness.

Most often extreme means self satisfying, self promoting ideology more than good policy or law.

You must be using a Progressive dictionary.

I try to find compromise without abandoning the things I see as most important.

What things would those be? I accuse Democrats and Progressives as being unprincipled because I don't know of any principles they refuse to compromise.

If you really understood the words of Martin Niemöller, you wouldn't support policies that target minorities and violate their individual rights.

 

[top gun]

Buck Fush was clever and funny but Buck Ofama is inflammatory...

If you want to play then you have to be willing to pay. You can't engage is political or personal insults and then when you get it shoved back in your face cry victim. It doesn't work that way.

The civil rights act of '64 and 13th, 14th and 15th amendments address inequities. Programs such as Affirmative Action and racial quotas discriminate based on race and the justification given for this is addressing inequality. You cannot fix the problems of discrimination by using discrimination.

Affirmative action was found legal by the court of last resort and it helped a lot. The very fact that you don't see the damage and hold back slavery, segregation & voter suppression inflicted on a huge number of Americans says a lot more about you than anything else.

Irrelevant... The Democrat party, as I said, is still seeking to implement each and every one of those platform positions.

This is not 1960 this is 2009. Republicants oppose women's rights, gay rights, would like to force religious doctrine into our schools and a a slew of other things I find terribly objectionable.

You will not find that explanation of the phrase from the many sources written by our founders on the subject.

Don't need to. They are words. Words can be interpreted. There's no specific statement saying these things can't be done either.

Don't pretend like you care about poor and low income workers where income tax is concerned if you are all for jacking up their taxes on behavior you deem unhealthy.

I care greatly for the poor and low income worker. But that doesn't change the fact that one mans personal rights end at the tip of another man's nose.

You are working from the concept of the economy as a zero sum game and that's just not how it works. Regardless of whether we have tax rates at 90% or 15%, the revenue to the government will be roughly 18% of total GDP, that is historical fact. The only way to maximize the revenue is to grow GDP. Lowering the tax burden on all citizens through a flat or fair tax would cause the GDP to skyrocket because there would be more economic activity taking place.

Were that true we could lower the income tax to 1% and still have all our government programs and all be even richer. But that's stupid thinking.

A 100% increase in government spending over 10 years. Our economy grows at roughly 3% a year and government grows at 10% a year... Doesn't take a math wizard to understand this status quo is unacceptable and unsustainable.

We've had high deficits before. In fact it was Reagan and Cheney that both said deficits don't matter. Of course they do long term. We will get through this Bush crisis and then we should follow the Clinton example and really attack the deficit.

We spend $3.8 million dollars per second on the American Welfare state, Iraq spending is a drop in the bucket compared to that. Also, as I pointed out before, if its so horrible to spend money in Iraq, then use your Democrat majority to defund the troops and get them out of Iraq tomorrow.

We are going to act responsibly with the lives of our troops in our redeployment. Had a Democrat been President at the start we would not be in this position and $12 Billion Dollars per month for 8 years poorer.

Without action... if we don't act... Those are just strawman arguments. Nobody is suggesting inaction, just very different actions from those that are being taken.

You are simply Obstructionist and the small Party of NO. You ran us into this ditch. Now we'll call our own tow truck.

The Nazi's regulated their companies so that they were acting in accordance with what was best for the public good. The American government is regulating companies so that they do what is best for the public good.

The Nazis forcefully took over companies for Nazi gain. American companies about to fail and liquidate and hence decimate our economy came begging our government for help. That's not at all the same thing and you know it.

That's 3.... You say there are many, name the others.

Another one right off the top of my head... worker safety.

Why are you drinking out of lakes and streams? Even if nobody is dumping toxins or sewage, its still unsafe for you to drink. Tap water is filtered and treated for toxins and biological pathogens, its safe to drink.

The reason we can sucsessfully treat & filter and clean our water is because there are restrictions on what can and cannot be dumped into it.

Government has no such responsibility. There is no constitutional authority to keep failing businesses from failing. The entire financial system would not have collapsed, that was a fearmongering tactic by the Bush admin and the Democrats in power to sell the bailouts to a fearful public. We bailed out GM and Chrysler and they went to bankruptcy anyway, who's to say the financial industries won't have the same fate?

The federal government has the responsibility to try and protect this country from all different kinds of major hardships, chaos and collapse. By your do nothing standard the people of New Orleans would still be in the Super Dome or on roof tops.

Banks look for a return on their investment; government is only looking for control, a political football to kick around for votes and they can subsidize their losses on the backs of taxpayers.

The government didn't go to the companies the companies came begging the government. If that's a grab for control I certainly don't see it.

With a few social issues as exceptions, domestic policy, foreign policy and economic policy are all nearly identical.

Well maybe they're right on many issues.

BS argument... Pass laws restricting where people can smoke or ban the product. Using that argument as an excuse for raising taxes on cigarettes is an exercise in silliness.

It the persons choice to smoke or not. I'd bet most smokers would rather be taxed than have the product banned. I'd be fine with a ban myself.

What things would those be? I accuse Democrats and Progressives as being unprincipled because I don't know of any principles they refuse to compromise.

The Democratic Party is a BIG TENT PARTY. That doesn't mean we don't have principles. It simply means we aren't nearly as narrow minded on many issues.

In the future if you shorten your posts to just 4 or 5 questions at a time I can be more thorough in my responses.

 

[GenSeneca]

If you want to play then you have to be willing to pay.

Then why are you crying about Buck Ofama?

Affirmative action was found legal

The fact that you support discrimination says a lot about you.

This is not 1960 this is 2009.

Still irrelevant. They are still trying to accomplish them today and you have not even denied that fact.

Don't need to. They are words. Words can be interpreted. There's no specific statement saying these things can't be done either.

If words have no lasting meaning and can be reinterpreted according to your newspeak... Then there is nothing to stop us from becoming a socialist welfare state.

I care greatly for the poor and low income worker.

You care so much, you're willing to raise their taxes on food, cigarettes and alcohol.

Were that true we could lower the income tax to 1% and still have all our government programs and all be even richer. But that's stupid thinking.

The stated low was 15%, not 1%. Government debt began to explode when we instituted the Progressive tax. Ignoring historical facts such as that and thinking the progressive tax is successful is stupid thinking.

We've had high deficits before. In fact it was Reagan and Cheney that both said deficits don't matter. Of course they do long term.

Had a Democrat been President at the start we would not be in this position and $12 Billion Dollars per month for 8 years poorer.

With Kerry, we'd be in the exact same position, the only difference would be that the Democrats would have supported the war the entire time.

You are simply Obstructionist and the small Party of NO. You ran us into this ditch. Now we'll call our own tow truck.

You've got filibuster proof majorities.... the minority rights that the Republicans gave Democrats were revoked when the Democrats became the majority party... You now have the rubber stamp congress of Kendrick Meeks dreams and there is nothing the Republicans can do to stop you.

Funny how they were derided as the rubber stamp republicans while they were in the majority and now they are derided as obstructionist while totally powerless in the minority... There is just no pleasing you radical extremists.

The Nazis forcefully took over companies for Nazi gain.

I know its crazy talk but you should buy a history book and do some learnin'... Nazi's didn't take over, they regulated. Like you, they never met regulation they didn't like and too much was never enough.

American companies about to fail and liquidate and hence decimate our economy came begging our government for help.

Patently false, they were not about to liquidate. Just more of your Bush era fearmongering to justify Nazi style handouts and regulation.

Another one right off the top of my head... worker safety.

That's 4, keep going... Unless 2 counts as "many"

The reason we can sucsessfully treat & filter and clean our water is because there are restrictions on what can and cannot be dumped into it.

Still doesn't explain why you're drinking out of a lake.

The federal government has the responsibility to try and protect this country from all different kinds of major hardships, chaos and collapse.

Who's going to protect the federal government from collapse due to reckless spending and suicidal fiscal policy?

By your do nothing standard the people of New Orleans would still be in the Super Dome or on roof tops.

Yes that's right... Without the federal government they would be, because the local (School Bus Nagin (D)) and state (Crybaby Blanco(D)) leadership was totally inept.

The government didn't go to the companies the companies came begging the government. If that's a grab for control I certainly don't see it.

When they brought in all the major banks and sat them in a room and told them all they had to take TARP money, that was coercion. They couldn't wait to pay it back because of the strings attached and the day after they were allowed to pay it back, Obama announced the new rules on banks that the banks thought they were getting out from under in repaying the 'loans'.

Well maybe they're right on many issues.

Like I said, one party rule... Both parties are marching us into big government Statism.

It the persons choice to smoke or not. I'd bet most smokers would rather be taxed than have the product banned. I'd be fine with a ban myself.

Lets tax abortions... I bet people would rather pay the tax than have the procedure banned. Unlike smoking, it always results in an individual losing his life. Oh, you see that as infringing on an individuals rights?

The Democratic Party is a BIG TENT PARTY.

Keep telling yourself that while you try to answer these next two questions.

That doesn't mean we don't have principles.

ORLY? What are those principles, what will the Democrat party not sell out or otherwise sacrifice or compromise for political expedience?

It simply means we aren't nearly as narrow minded on many issues.

Which issues are the Democrat party "open minded" about?

In the future if you shorten your posts to just 4 or 5 questions at a time I can be more thorough in my responses.

I'll see what I can do.

 

[top gun]

Since you didn't reduce the extremely long length of your post I'll just go through and answer a reasonable number at one time. I have other posts I also need to address.

Then why are you crying about Buck Ofama?

I wasn't the one complaining. It was you that said others only try to score cheap political points and not talk substantively. I'll be more than glad to engage .

Buckle up buttercup.

The fact that you support discrimination says a lot about you.

Big talk from the Party endorsed by the KKK and Ayran Nation. You're social polices are basically your Fascist buddy Saxon's light.

Still irrelevant. They are still trying to accomplish them today and you have not even denied that fact.

Not true.

If words have no lasting meaning and can be reinterpreted according to your newspeak... Then there is nothing to stop us from becoming a socialist welfare state.

Interpretation can only go so far. I could say I saw a bovine and that could be interpreted to be a cow or a buffalo... but it can't be interpreted as a cat.

With Kerry, we'd be in the exact same position, the only difference would be that the Democrats would have supported the war the entire time.

This world and this country would be in such a better place with a President Kerry than that mental midget Bush and his Darth Cheney TORTURE LOVER VP.

You've got filibuster proof majorities.... the minority rights that the Republicans gave Democrats were revoked when the Democrats became the majority party... You now have the rubber stamp congress of Kendrick Meeks dreams and there is nothing the Republicans can do to stop you.

That will be wonderful. We'll see if the remaining Obstructionist Republicants can come up with any new delay tactics since they don't have the numbers now to stop legislation.

I know its crazy talk but you should buy a history book and do some learnin'... Nazi's didn't take over, they regulated. Like you, they never met regulation they didn't like and too much was never enough.

If brains were bubble gum you couldn't blow a single bubble. The Nazis took whatever they wanted. It was a complete military take over of Germany by force & intimidation. American companies on the brink of going out of business forever and begging the American government for help is in no way the same thing.

Patently false, they were not about to liquidate. Just more of your Bush era fearmongering to justify Nazi style handouts and regulation.

Well both sides of the isle in two opposing administrations and their experts (and the companies themselves) said that they likely could.

Add to that the fact that just previously in the financial several HUGE Corporations did go away forever.

Yes that's right... Without the federal government they would be, because the local (School Bus Nagin (D)) and state (Crybaby Blanco(D)) leadership was totally inept.

Were in the Constitution does it specifically state that the Federal government can help states during natural desarters? The government can still make the desion to help as they did with bailout loans. :

The Republicant Party has been put into exile by the American people because they governed so poorly and lied so much and highlighted on their own the true hypocrtical nature of their Party. Simply put the Karl Rove style of fearmongering and smearing finally caught up with you... and that my friend a VERY good thing.

 

[GenSeneca]

It was you that said others only try to score cheap political points and not talk substantively.

I wasn't complaining... Only pointing out that such activity is your usual tactic and this post I'm replying to only proves that.

Big talk from the Party endorsed by the KKK and Ayran Nation.

Whatever you say Rev. Wright....

Not true.

Interpretation can only go so far. I could say I saw a bovine and that could be interpreted to be a cow or a buffalo... but it can't be interpreted as a cat.

The General Welfare clause has already given us the welfare state we have now and you have offered no argument as to why it can't be used (through further "interpretation") to bring about a soviet style welfare state.

This world and this country would be in such a better place with a President Kerry

Cue Shaman and the Miss Cleo pic... We have someone reading tea leaves over here!

That will be wonderful. We'll see if the remaining Obstructionist Republicants can come up with any new delay tactics since they don't have the numbers now to stop legislation

All you have to do is get your fellow Democrats to stop thinking for themselves and tow the party line.... You know how to tow the party line and regurgitate their bilge, you stopped having independent thoughts years ago.

If brains were bubble gum you couldn't blow a single bubble.

The Prog Smurf has spoken!

The Nazis took whatever they wanted. It was a complete military take over of Germany by force & intimidation. American companies on the brink of going out of business forever and begging the American government for help is in no way the same thing.

If ignorance is bliss, you've got to be the happiest guy on earth.

As big business became increasingly organized, it developed an increasingly close partnership with the Nazi government. The government pursued economic policies that maximized the profits of its business allies, and, in exchange, business leaders supported the government's political and military goals.

Well both sides of the isle in two opposing administrations and their experts (and the companies themselves) said that they likely could.

"American companies about to fail and liquidate and hence decimate our economy came begging our government for help." -- Prog Smurf

I guess this is one of those areas of "interpretation" where "about to" liquidate and "likely could" liquidate have the exact same meaning.

Definition FAIL.

Add to that the fact that just previously in the financial several HUGE Corporations did go away forever.

That's called Capitalism, not that you'd know what that is being a Demoprog and all.

Were in the Constitution does it specifically state that the Federal government can help states during natural desarters? The government can still make the desion to help as they did with bailout loans.

Where indeed? See, you're catching on to the fact that the federal government is acting outside its constitutional limits. [Pats the Prog Smurf on the back]

The Republicant Party has been put into exile by the American people because they governed so poorly and lied so much and highlighted on their own the true hypocrtical nature of their Party.

Now its your turn to govern poorly (continuing Bush's failed policies), lie to the American public ("You wont see your taxes go up one dime!") and otherwise show yourselves to be hypocritical power hungry proglaticians.

Simply put the Karl Rove style of fearmongering and smearing finally caught up with you... and that my friend a VERY good thing.

HEH HEH! You said the secret word!!!

Oh... I noticed you ducked out on listing your principles... LOL.

 

[Pandora]

I wasn't complaining... Only pointing out that such activity is your usual tactic and this post I'm replying to only proves that.


Whatever you say Rev. Wright....

The General Welfare clause has already given us the welfare state we have now and you have offered no argument as to why it can't be used (through further "interpretation") to bring about a soviet style welfare state.


Cue Shaman and the Miss Cleo pic... We have someone reading tea leaves over here!


All you have to do is get your fellow Democrats to stop thinking for themselves and tow the party line.... You know how to tow the party line and regurgitate their bilge, you stopped having independent thoughts years ago.

The Prog Smurf has spoken!

If ignorance is bliss, you've got to be the happiest guy on earth.






"American companies about to fail and liquidate and hence decimate our economy came begging our government for help." -- Prog Smurf

I guess this is one of those areas of "interpretation" where "about to" liquidate and "likely could" liquidate have the exact same meaning.

Definition FAIL.


That's called Capitalism, not that you'd know what that is being a Demoprog and all.


Where indeed? See, you're catching on to the fact that the federal government is acting outside its constitutional limits. [Pats the Prog Smurf on the back]


Now its your turn to govern poorly (continuing Bush's failed policies), lie to the American public ("You wont see your taxes go up one dime!") and otherwise show yourselves to be hypocritical power hungry proglaticians.




HEH HEH! You said the secret word!!!

Oh... I noticed you ducked out on listing your principles... LOL.

The secret word game is going to be fun, Why were you holding out on me, I love that cartoon of obama and his preacher, and is that a real c-span clip or like the joke in the private forum with the SFing..