Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: Special Report: Ideologically, Where Is the U.S. Moving?


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Special Report: Ideologically, Where Is the U.S. Moving? Page: <<   < prev  1 2 3 [4] 5   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Special Report: Ideologically, Where Is the U.S. Mo... - 7/10/2009 7:43:52 AM   
samboct


Posts: 1817
Joined: 1/17/2007
Status: offline 		Firm

I think your statement here " Yes, we do, as long as we stay on the same course we are currently set.

As I said, I personally wouldn't mind a change, if it came with the correct change in other aspects of our political environment.

Firm"

shows why the political discourse in this country has broken down.

From my perspective- the way I interpret this statement is-

1)  Yes, there's a problem with defense spending.
2)  I'm unwilling to to agree to a change in course unless spending is cut in another area- regardless of whether or not there's a problem.

This type of bloody mindedness- no matter how dressed up in fine phrases shows the problem.  It's pitting "us against them".  Rather than list all the problems that the country has and work with other folks to come up with an intelligent prioritization scheme- this type of statement is a roadblock to progress.  It's saying my needs and wants are more important than anyone elses and even if I have to cut my nose off to spite my face, we're not going anywhere.  It's a democracy Firm- everybody casts the same vote no matter how much money they pay in taxes.  Why should your priorities matter more than mine?  A far more productive approach is to want to work for change when there is a problem, rather than merely being a roadblock.

Turning it around- how would you feel if I said - We both agree that there's a problem that there are wasteful programs in social services.  But I'm not going to agree to any cuts unless the defense budget is cut first?  Do you really think that's a productive viewpoint?


Sam

(in reply to FirmhandKY)
Profile   Post #: 61
RE: Special Report: Ideologically, Where Is the U.S. Mo... - 7/10/2009 7:00:37 PM   
FirmhandKY


Posts: 8948
Joined: 9/21/2004
Status: offline 		Sam,

Damn.

You wake up with a hang over this morning, or what?

I don't think I'm the reason we have such a difficult time having a political dialog in this country.

I think that it is "us against them" because one side or the other reads the darkest possible motives into someone's words, rather than asking for clarification and seeking understanding.

I think you are taking umbrage over your own assumptions.

My main point on the military wasn't about fraud, waste and abuse, but rather the absolute numbers of dollars being spent.

In fact, I specifically said I didn't want to get into a debate about "gold toilet sets", yet here you are, assuming that fact.

My other point about cutting those absolute numbers spent on the military was that as long as the US accepts the current philosophical basis of society and government, then cutting the military down too far would be counter-productive to our nationhood, and economic vitality, and our very survival.

There is nothing in there about "accepting" wasteful spending on the one hand, and tying to "fix it" on the other.

Is that any clearer now?

Firm



_____________________________

Some people are just idiots.

(in reply to samboct)
Profile   Post #: 62
RE: Special Report: Ideologically, Where Is the U.S. Mo... - 7/10/2009 7:25:48 PM   
samboct


Posts: 1817
Joined: 1/17/2007
Status: offline 		OK Firm

Then I think apologies are in order from my end- and you're right, not a booze hangover, just allergies and the fogginess of benadryl.

I will agree that spending too little money on the military prior to WWII emboldened both Hitler and Tojo. Furthermore a lack of readiness leads to war because there will always be some opportunistic twerp with delusions of godhood that will begin asserting himself.

But I must admit, I don't see the current drive to get rid of some weapons systems as being all that counterproductive, and I wonder if the attitude that we have to spend a certain percentage of GNP on defense has helped foster a dysfunctional defense establishment.

How do you figure what amount we should spend on the military?  Is it based solely on what we can afford?  How about relative to other countries- since it's been pointed out that we outspend the rest of the world on defense.

In terms of economic vitality- I wish the military would be what it once was for our economy- but when defense primes become risk averse, money spent there is wasted.  Again, I think the military can be vital for our economy- it just isn't these days.  How do you figure out what percentage of our spending should go to the military if we don't have an efficient purchasing process?

Also- I tend to think that military spending needs to adapt to the threats we're facing- it shouldn't be a fixed number because that leads to waste.  Currently, we're certainly spending too much as a function of lousy weapons procurement (the system is badly broken.) and being in foreign adventures which really don't matter to our own physical security, although oil supplies for economic security may be another matter.  But as I've said before- we'd have weaned ourselves off of oil long ago if we'd spend the money on R + D rather than in towelheadland.

Sam



(in reply to FirmhandKY)
Profile   Post #: 63
RE: Special Report: Ideologically, Where Is the U.S. Mo... - 7/10/2009 8:28:08 PM   
FirmhandKY


Posts: 8948
Joined: 9/21/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: samboct

OK Firm

Then I think apologies are in order from my end- and you're right, not a booze hangover, just allergies and the fogginess of benadryl.

No problem. Consider it forgotten. I was driving all day, and just got to my hotel room and checked the thread, and had one of those WTF? moments.


quote:

ORIGINAL: samboct

I will agree that spending too little money on the military prior to WWII emboldened both Hitler and Tojo. Furthermore a lack of readiness leads to war because there will always be some opportunistic twerp with delusions of godhood that will begin asserting himself.

Agreed.


quote:

ORIGINAL: samboct

But I must admit, I don't see the current drive to get rid of some weapons systems as being all that counterproductive, and I wonder if the attitude that we have to spend a certain percentage of GNP on defense has helped foster a dysfunctional defense establishment.

I don't really want to get into a detailed discussion on the military purchasing system, other than within the context of the subject of this thread.

However, when Rumsfeld came on board as SecDef, he killed several large weapons systems, and I think that was mostly good.

Where I'd like to see R&D and purchasing increased is in "trigger pullers" equipment and training and space forces.


quote:

ORIGINAL: samboct

In terms of economic vitality- I wish the military would be what it once was for our economy- but when defense primes become risk averse, money spent there is wasted.  Again, I think the military can be vital for our economy- it just isn't these days.  How do you figure out what percentage of our spending should go to the military if we don't have an efficient purchasing process?

Too often, the purchasing process is a political process. See my comments below.


quote:

ORIGINAL: samboct

How do you figure what amount we should spend on the military? Is it based solely on what we can afford? How about relative to other countries- since it's been pointed out that we outspend the rest of the world on defense.

...

Also- I tend to think that military spending needs to adapt to the threats we're facing- it shouldn't be a fixed number because that leads to waste.  Currently, we're certainly spending too much as a function of lousy weapons procurement (the system is badly broken.) and being in foreign adventures which really don't matter to our own physical security, although oil supplies for economic security may be another matter.  But as I've said before- we'd have weaned ourselves off of oil long ago if we'd spend the money on R + D rather than in towelheadland.

The purpose of the military and the military purchasing system shouldn't be to provide jobs - although it is often seen that way. You know much about the Base closure system? The military has wanted to close lots of facilities and bases for decades, but kept getting political pressure not to, because of the loss of local jobs. Therefore, a large percentage of the military budget was squandered in maintaining facilities and bases that they did not need, nor want.

As far as determining what we do spend on the military ...

The national command authority (the President and his advisors) determine the possible and likely threats to the interests of the US, and then figure out what force level, equipment, training, and facilities are required to meet those possible and likely threats.

The more in number, and the more serious the those threats, the more forces and capabilities you need, and the higher the cost.

For example, during most of the Cold War, the US military force structure was based on the doctrine of being able to fight a land war in Europe, a second major war elsewhere, and a small conflict in a third region.

After the fall of the Soviets, that eventually changed to a "War and 1/2" doctrine: being able to fight one full war, and then a contained conflict elsewhere, at the same time.

I'm not sure what it is right now, but I'm sure you can find it.

Everything after that turns to politics and infighting: between the services for their "share of the pie", between the President and the Congress, for priorities, between members of Congress for jobs and companies in their districts.

Sometimes, those processes are turned to the advantage of the service that wants a particular, large project: they make sure that it's construction, or support is divvied out to as many congressional districts as possible, thereby getting the most political support for funding.

Of course, this increases the overall cost ...

This type of playing the system is very common, and one of the big reasons that the land forces (Army and Marines) usually suck hind tit when it comes to procurement: because they have the fews large, complex weapons systems that play well to this type of political bargaining.

Now ... if we can come up with a system which can better control this type of political backscratching ... your defense costs ARE going to go down, and you can still get a high quality product.

But .. of course ... we've tried several different systems, and the end result is a complex and stultified purchasing system that makes procurement a nasty, time-consuming and mostly fruitless endeavor to all but the most well funded corporations ... all in an attempt to "be fair" and "eliminate political influence".

Hell, the services have officer career-tracks for military people to learn the damn system!

Lots more, but the point in relation to this thread is that the system we currently have involves politics to an unhealthy degree (it will always involve politics to an extent), and we have a political elite that is almost ossified into an oligarchy that benefits from it.

We need to change that, and the current two parties are part of the problem, not part of the answer.

Personally, I still think term-limits are a great idea. And when the Republicans campaigned - and won - based on that promise, and failed to enact, I was pissed.

Firm

_____________________________

Some people are just idiots.

(in reply to samboct)
Profile   Post #: 64
RE: Special Report: Ideologically, Where Is the U.S. Mo... - 7/10/2009 8:56:02 PM   
FirmhandKY


Posts: 8948
Joined: 9/21/2004
Status: offline 		Interesting Rasmussen survey:


Trust on Issues
Voters Trust GOP More than Democrats on Eight of 10 Key Issues
Thursday, July 09, 2009

quote:

Voters now trust Republicans more than Democrats on eight out of 10 key electoral issues, including, for the second straight month, the top issue of the economy. They've also narrowed the gap on the remaining two issues, the traditionally Democratic strong suits of health care and education.

...

Fifty-four percent (54%) of all voters say the average congressional Democrat is more liberal than they are, while 36% believe the average Republican congressman is more conservative in comparison to themselves. Just 44% say their own representative in Congress is about the same as them ideologically.

Republican candidates lead Democrats for the second straight week in the latest edition of the Generic Congressional Ballot. Support for the GOP remains unchanged this week - at its highest level over the past year, but support for Democrats dropped one point to tie its lowest level in the same time period


Firm



_____________________________

Some people are just idiots.

(in reply to FirmhandKY)
Profile   Post #: 65
RE: Special Report: Ideologically, Where Is the U.S. Mo... - 7/11/2009 7:21:09 AM   
samboct


Posts: 1817
Joined: 1/17/2007
Status: offline 		Firm

We have lots of areas of agreement here.  However, one area of disagreement is on the role of military procurement.  I do see it as vital to the economy because the military is a great first customer.  It used to be mail contracts that drove technological development - see the development of railroads, steamships, and aircraft for example.  These contracts paid generously because it was seen in the national interest to reduce communications time- and many businesses profited from this decision eventually.  But on a short term economic basis- it made no sense.

During the cold war, emphasis shifted onto the space race and weapons systems, and our economy did pretty well with a lot of trickle down developments from the military having commercial impact.  Then came Reagan along with Star Wars, COTS, and basic research cutbacks- and our economy and our defense forces have been on a downward slide.

Standing armies are an expense that really doesn't do much for an economy, although you do need to have trained people on the ground at some point in a conflict.  I suspect that the idea that we need to train our trigger pullers more is really a function of the armed services wanting to have large standing armies, rather than a smaller force which calls on reserves when needed.  Just saw a show on the F-100- one of the more widely used cold war airplanes.  In Viet Nam, the most successful squadrons were out of the Air National Guard.  The older reservists apparently had cooler heads than the younger hotshots, but managed to fly through some pretty ugly stuff and get away with it.  The airplane also had a 95% availability level- something which our "modern" fighters can't come close to.

I still have a great deal of suspicion when listening to what the armed services claim they need- it often seems more a function of ego than anything else.  The A-10 example given above is a wonderful counterpoint to your claim that the congress gets too involved with the military procurement process.  I suspect that the Osprey is going to get thought of that way too.  I wouldn't be surprised if the claim that we need a large standing army of well trained trigger pullers isn't fallacious as well.


Sam

(in reply to FirmhandKY)
Profile   Post #: 66
RE: Special Report: Ideologically, Where Is the U.S. Mo... - 7/13/2009 7:21:15 AM   
cloudboy


Posts: 7306
Joined: 12/14/2005
Status: offline
AS I've heard it described, most Americans have not changed and remain largely centrist. The biggest changes have been in political reporting, which emphases the fringe positions (MSNBC v. FOX, for instance) of the political spectrum, and in the Republican party, which was taken over by the extreme Right wing.

(in reply to FirmhandKY)
Profile   Post #: 67
RE: Special Report: Ideologically, Where Is the U.S. Mo... - 7/13/2009 7:50:36 AM   
FirmhandKY


Posts: 8948
Joined: 9/21/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: samboct

Firm

We have lots of areas of agreement here.  However, one area of disagreement is on the role of military procurement.  I do see it as vital to the economy because the military is a great first customer.  It used to be mail contracts that drove technological development - see the development of railroads, steamships, and aircraft for example.  These contracts paid generously because it was seen in the national interest to reduce communications time- and many businesses profited from this decision eventually.  But on a short term economic basis- it made no sense.

During the cold war, emphasis shifted onto the space race and weapons systems, and our economy did pretty well with a lot of trickle down developments from the military having commercial impact.  Then came Reagan along with Star Wars, COTS, and basic research cutbacks- and our economy and our defense forces have been on a downward slide.

Standing armies are an expense that really doesn't do much for an economy, although you do need to have trained people on the ground at some point in a conflict.  I suspect that the idea that we need to train our trigger pullers more is really a function of the armed services wanting to have large standing armies, rather than a smaller force which calls on reserves when needed.  Just saw a show on the F-100- one of the more widely used cold war airplanes.  In Viet Nam, the most successful squadrons were out of the Air National Guard.  The older reservists apparently had cooler heads than the younger hotshots, but managed to fly through some pretty ugly stuff and get away with it.  The airplane also had a 95% availability level- something which our "modern" fighters can't come close to.

I still have a great deal of suspicion when listening to what the armed services claim they need- it often seems more a function of ego than anything else.  The A-10 example given above is a wonderful counterpoint to your claim that the congress gets too involved with the military procurement process.  I suspect that the Osprey is going to get thought of that way too.  I wouldn't be surprised if the claim that we need a large standing army of well trained trigger pullers isn't fallacious as well.


Sam,

I was a ground pounder. Members of my and Treasure's family are now ground pounders.

While high tech "toys" that the other services want are great, at the end of the day, if you can't occupy the land, you've likely accomplished little.

In our current situation, have we had enough ground pounders? No. And it's hurt our military.

Ground pounders are not sexy, and don't get the political pull. But without them, all the other expensive, politically connected weapons systems are so much junk.

The A-10 was hated by the AF because it was a close air support weapon. It wasn't all that high tech - just tough. Us ground pounders will never let an A-10 pilot buy his booze in a bar, because we love the son-a-bitches.

The politics of acquisition is not conducive to purchasing the very things that we most need: agreed. But you seem to think that thats a good thing, somehow.

My point is that the military makeup of troops, training, and weapons systems should be based on a clear analysis of requirements, not on what is "best for the economy" or the most politically advantageous for our economy. That's simply short-sighted.

Firm


_____________________________

Some people are just idiots.

(in reply to samboct)
Profile   Post #: 68
RE: Special Report: Ideologically, Where Is the U.S. Mo... - 7/13/2009 8:21:32 AM   
samboct


Posts: 1817
Joined: 1/17/2007
Status: offline 		Firm

We're pretty close.  I have no disagreement that we need ground pounders, but I might be inclined to use reserves more.  But that's nit picking.

Here's the area of disagreement-

"My point is that the military makeup of troops, training, and weapons systems should be based on a clear analysis of requirements, not on what is "best for the economy" or the most politically advantageous for our economy. That's simply short-sighted."

I do see that one role of the military if it's not going to break the treasury is to help foster an industry which can lead to commercial spin offs.  You cannot have a strong military with a weak economy, although the converse is certainly possible.  Using military requirements to help fund R + D was quite successful for a number of years- and probably would be today if the military requirements hadn't gotten into fantasy land (Star Wars and stealth for example).  Intelligent military requirements such as more efficient remote power generation (no imported fuels reducing logistical expense) potable water using local supplies (fuel costs for transporting water are astronomical), long term aerial surveillance for roads (why should towelheads be able to plant large roadside bombs?) etc.  would reduce costs, save lives, and help our economy.  So I don't see  intelligent military expenditures and helping the economy as mutually exclusive- I see them as mutually supporting.

So while I agree that we need to rationally decide military requirements for this country- an important component of military preparedness is next generation weapons systems and logistics which often have commercial relevance.  If you don't keep continuing to do  R +D on weapons systems- our guys go into combat at a disadvantage- ranging from smokeless powder in the Spanish American war to a working rifle in Viet Nam.  (The M-16 had a lot of teething troubles.)  There's got to be a balance between funding current needs and future needs.

While I wholeheartedly agree that our military funding and procurement system needs to be rational- neither the services nor Congress has done a very good job at it.  From my perspective, scientists have had far too little input into what's theoretically possible, technically achievable, and economically (logistically) desirable into either the service procurement system and Congress.

Sam


(in reply to FirmhandKY)
Profile   Post #: 69
RE: Special Report: Ideologically, Where Is the U.S. Mo... - 7/13/2009 8:31:44 AM   
FirmhandKY


Posts: 8948
Joined: 9/21/2004
Status: offline 		I agree that R&D is a good thing, even if not connected to the military. We are talking on a byproduct of military R&D now.

I don't have any problem - in theory - of acknowledging that such R&D and purchasing can have a good effect on the economy. I just think that it's very easy to slide over from "requirements first, politics and economy second" to "economy and politics first, requirements second"

Firm

_____________________________

Some people are just idiots.

(in reply to samboct)
Profile   Post #: 70
RE: Special Report: Ideologically, Where Is the U.S. Mo... - 7/13/2009 9:32:09 AM   
samboct


Posts: 1817
Joined: 1/17/2007
Status: offline 		Firm

My biggest problem here is - who comes up with military requirements?  Because the process is deeply flawed, ranging from the people that get promotions during peacetime are often not imaginative enough (the supply of Bernie Schreivers and Hyman Rickovers is pretty limited apparently) as well as having career tracks that don't leave them in a position long enough to mesh with the program's development needs.  It can take between 5-10 years to bring a new weapons or logistics system online- how many program officers have come through in that time frame?

While it seems that you blame Congress for military misappropriations, the A-10 is a wonderful example of Congress getting it right and the armed services getting it wrong.  Since Reagan it seems like useful weapons systems are very much in short supply, so neither the Congress nor the military is doing well.

In terms of base closures- yes, there is too much politics in the system.  But at least in AF base closures, one of the problems is the chromate time bomb- these bases will have to be declared an envirornmental disaster requiring remediation and that can be more expensive than keeping the base open.

Sam

(in reply to FirmhandKY)
Profile   Post #: 71
RE: Special Report: Ideologically, Where Is the U.S. Mo... - 7/13/2009 10:48:37 AM   
FirmhandKY


Posts: 8948
Joined: 9/21/2004
Status: offline 		Sam,

An interesting discussion, but beyond the scope of this thread, beyond how it may be effected by a third party.

If you wish to discuss it in detail, I'd suggest a separate thread (although I likely won't participate in any more threads until next week).

Firm

_____________________________

Some people are just idiots.

(in reply to samboct)
Profile   Post #: 72
RE: Special Report: Ideologically, Where Is the U.S. Mo... - 7/13/2009 10:52:02 AM   
FirmhandKY


Posts: 8948
Joined: 9/21/2004
Status: offline 		FR:

I'm not the only one it seems:

Warning Signs For The Republican Party: A Third Way?

quote:

The Republican Party establishment should take note, when you have two national political leaders like Newt Gingrich and Sarah Palin both talking about supporting center-right Democrats as a means to a ruling majority, a seriously disgruntled base, in addition to on going mostly non-partisan demonstrations in the streets, you have three significant developments you shouldn't ignore.

The governor, 45, said she shared former House Speaker Newt Gingrich's view that Republicans, now trailing Democrats and independents in registration in many states, should back moderate to conservative Democrats in congressional districts and states where Republicans stand almost no chance of winning.

The object would be to build a majority coalition that reflects what polls suggest is the center-right tilt of the U.S. electorate as a whole.

I wouldn't take this quite as far as a third party move, not yet. But more an independent center-right movement, as Tammy Bruce suggests. For the Republican Party, it could be a part of an internal struggle for the party itself.

Still, it's worth repeating. What should be heard loud and clear by the Republican elite is that, you now have a significant portion of your traditional voting base that has just about had enough and political leaders within your own party now giving voice to that serious frustration. Combined with the Tea Party movement, while it wouldn't be easy, this all makes a third political way in America far more possible than it has been for decades.


Firm

_____________________________

Some people are just idiots.

(in reply to FirmhandKY)
Profile   Post #: 73
RE: Special Report: Ideologically, Where Is the U.S. Mo... - 7/13/2009 10:55:00 AM   
willbeurdaddy


Posts: 11894
Joined: 4/8/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: herbcaroll

Clinton and a Republican Congress worked very hard in the 1990's to restore fiscal responsibility to the Federal budget.


In the name of "fiscal responsibility" Clinton gutted the military. It resulted in lower troop counts and decaying weaponry and equipment. Perhaps more importantly it led to the consolidation of defense contractors because there wasnt enough business to compete for. That has resulted in sole source providers in many cases, which obviously reduces the governments negotiating power.

So what was claimed to be "fiscal responsbility" was no more than shifting the costs to future administrations, and, given 9/11 that hit GWBs more than those after. The "balancing of the budget" under Clinton was largely illusory, accomplished by that deferral of costs and the tech bubble.

(in reply to herbcaroll)
Profile   Post #: 74
RE: Special Report: Ideologically, Where Is the U.S. Mo... - 7/13/2009 10:56:07 AM   
willbeurdaddy


Posts: 11894
Joined: 4/8/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

Certainly we can figure out a way to do both  successfully.



edited because the first version sucked.


Of course we can. Just spend and spend and let future generations worry about it.

(in reply to slvemike4u)
Profile   Post #: 75
RE: Special Report: Ideologically, Where Is the U.S. Mo... - 7/13/2009 12:06:57 PM   
slvemike4u


Posts: 17896
Joined: 1/15/2008
From: United States
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy


quote:

ORIGINAL: herbcaroll

Clinton and a Republican Congress worked very hard in the 1990's to restore fiscal responsibility to the Federal budget.


In the name of "fiscal responsibility" Clinton gutted the military. It resulted in lower troop counts and decaying weaponry and equipment. Perhaps more importantly it led to the consolidation of defense contractors because there wasnt enough business to compete for. That has resulted in sole source providers in many cases, which obviously reduces the governments negotiating power.

So what was claimed to be "fiscal responsbility" was no more than shifting the costs to future administrations, and, given 9/11 that hit GWBs more than those after. The "balancing of the budget" under Clinton was largely illusory, accomplished by that deferral of costs and the tech bubble.
Unlike the illusion created by running 2 wars "off the books" so to speak?
Willbur you are,by far, the most entertaining poster on here.Sorry Sanity you have been displaced.


_____________________________

If we want things to stay as they are,things will have to change...Tancredi from "the Leopard"

Forget Guns-----Ban the pools

Funny stuff....https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eNwFf991d-4


(in reply to willbeurdaddy)
Profile   Post #: 76
RE: Special Report: Ideologically, Where Is the U.S. Mo... - 7/13/2009 12:14:10 PM   
samboct


Posts: 1817
Joined: 1/17/2007
Status: offline 		If the NY Times is correct and recent polls suggest that nearly 3/4ths of Republicans would support Sarah Palin in a presidential bid, then I hope like hell that the economy comes out of its tailspin sooner rather than later.  Like Clinton said- "It's the economy, stupid." and people will vote their wallets in the next election.  If Obama is successful in rebuilding the economy- he'll get reelected.  If he isn't-well, then, better grab a shovel, because we're all in deep shit.  Because it's a really scary thought that such a bigoted moron like Sarah Palin would have such a following- she makes W look like a genius.  It's an impressive demonstration of how important people's wishes are at obscuring reality.  I was and am flabbergasted that people can actually consider voting for Palin who embodies all that is wrong with politics, but puts a pretty face and nice legs on it.  (Well, I was floored that Bush got "elected" twice too.)

As noted in previous threads- I hope the Republicans get their act together sooner rather than later because this country needs a functioning counterpoint to the Democrats.  We need representatives who have a conservative fiscal bent and who have demonstrated it before Obama got elected- Judd Gregg's sudden conversion to fiscal hawk leaves me with the roaring suspicion that this "conversion" wouldn't have happened if McCain had gotten elected.  Obama's solution to the banking crisis is no solution at all in my book- it's a band aid.  There needed to be vigorous debate between both sides of the issue.  Instead, as a sop to the Republicans, Obama basically came up with a Republican solution to the banking crisis- and one that ignores the calls for radical reform in his own party.  It's like Obama destroyed the Republican party and now finds it necessary to assume their attributes- much in the way that if Lucifer displaced Jesus Christ in heaven, he'd find it necessary to act the same way Jesus would.  Its an interesting tactic- basically give the Republicans what they would have asked for if they'd been organized- which keeps them from finding a sincere oppositional voice.  It doesn't bode well for the future- it's a power grab rather than representation and the "solutions" that we'll get will have neither vision nor clarity.

I'm not sure this current crisis is the best time to form a new party, but that may be the best alternative if Palin is as good as the Republicans can do.

Sam

(in reply to willbeurdaddy)
Profile   Post #: 77
RE: Special Report: Ideologically, Where Is the U.S. Mo... - 7/13/2009 12:14:18 PM   
rulemylife


Posts: 14614
Joined: 8/23/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

Interesting Rasmussen survey:


Trust on Issues
Voters Trust GOP More than Democrats on Eight of 10 Key Issues
Thursday, July 09, 2009

quote:

Voters now trust Republicans more than Democrats on eight out of 10 key electoral issues


Yeah, right. 

Rasmussen is to unbiased polling what Fox is to objective journalism.

Let's take a close look at this "trend".

In the last 20 generic polls dating to March 26th Democrats have had the advantage in 13 of them.

Not surprisingly, the Republican advantage or tie that was reported in 7 of the polls were exclusively Rasmussen polls.

Must be just a coincidence though.


Generic Congressional Vote



(in reply to FirmhandKY)
Profile   Post #: 78
RE: Special Report: Ideologically, Where Is the U.S. Mo... - 7/13/2009 2:51:20 PM   
willbeurdaddy


Posts: 11894
Joined: 4/8/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy


quote:

ORIGINAL: herbcaroll

Clinton and a Republican Congress worked very hard in the 1990's to restore fiscal responsibility to the Federal budget.


In the name of "fiscal responsibility" Clinton gutted the military. It resulted in lower troop counts and decaying weaponry and equipment. Perhaps more importantly it led to the consolidation of defense contractors because there wasnt enough business to compete for. That has resulted in sole source providers in many cases, which obviously reduces the governments negotiating power.

So what was claimed to be "fiscal responsbility" was no more than shifting the costs to future administrations, and, given 9/11 that hit GWBs more than those after. The "balancing of the budget" under Clinton was largely illusory, accomplished by that deferral of costs and the tech bubble.
Unlike the illusion created by running 2 wars "off the books" so to speak?
Willbur you are,by far, the most entertaining poster on here.Sorry Sanity you have been displaced.



There has never been a war "on the books", they were always funded outside the budget. Not even a good attempt at a GWB slam.

(in reply to slvemike4u)
Profile   Post #: 79
RE: Special Report: Ideologically, Where Is the U.S. Mo... - 7/13/2009 2:53:58 PM   
willbeurdaddy


Posts: 11894
Joined: 4/8/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: samboct

If the NY Times is correct and recent polls suggest that nearly 3/4ths of Republicans would support Sarah Palin in a presidential bid, then I hope like hell that the economy comes out of its tailspin sooner rather than later. 


the economy will "come out of its tail spin" (albeit briefly) next summer and fall. Stimulus money has been held back and will be held back until late this year/early next year in order to time good economic numbers with the election.

(in reply to samboct)
Profile   Post #: 80
Page:   <<   < prev  1 2 3 [4] 5   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Special Report: Ideologically, Where Is the U.S. Moving? Page: <<   < prev  1 2 3 [4] 5   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.094