gatorGuest09-16-2008, 09:19 AM
During most of our existence we were a net exporter of goods and services, which meant wealth came to America. Starting in the 1970s we began to import more goods and services than we exported. We were still OK for awhile because we had many overseas investments and the net balance of trade was still in our favor. We were still getting richer.
Nowadays we export our wealth. At first we traded our wealth for things like land in Hawaii and Palm Springs. Nowadays we are fast running out of American goods and services the rest of the world wants and that is the major reason the dollar isnít worth much anymore.
Couple that with the fact that our government is spending one third of the GNP, high taxation, tremendous entitlement programs and we have troops and wars all over the world then you can understand why we are going bankrupt.
This reminds me of my older son first credit card. Before getting the card he pretty well only spent what he earned. He had little or no debt. He got the card and like most teenagers he quickly ran it up to the $1000 limit. He lived high on the hog during that time. He bought all kinds of things he really couldnít afford. He took his friends out to dinner. When the bills came due he could only make the minimal payments because he didnít have enough income to meet his obligations and pay back the debt. The interest on the debt built up. Good thing he had good old Mom to bail him out or else he would have been in serious trouble.
What Walker is telling us in the video is that we are at the point where it looks like we will not be able to pay back the debt without either reneging on the debt or else drastically reducing our standard of living. We donít want to hear that. You can see the ridicule I got for even posting the video.
Our nation is at that point like my son where we think everything will be OK with the credit card by only making minimal payments. We are delusional. Walker is blowing the whistle.
We are pretty much screwed because no politician has the strength to deal with the problem. The cure will be too drastic for most Americans and no politician wants to go that route. He or she would be too unpopular.
As far as the difference between McCain and Obama there isnít much in the area that counts. There are differences in other areas like the right to keep and bear arms and abortion and supreme court appointees but that wonít do much to fix the enormous debt problem we have.
McCain, if he is very good, may do like Reagan and slightly reduce the rate of government growth but he wonít reduce the total growth of government. At best the percentage of GNP the government absorbs will only improve slightly in the Federal arena but history says that will continue to increase at the State and local level.
We are pretty much screwed no matter who wins.
I am not 100% sure that at the end of the day Palin practices what she preaches. The record is fuzzy on that. Even Reagan didnít practice what he preached. Giving her the benefit of the doubt we would still need 300-400 more of her in Congress and several thousand in state and local elected positions to really make a difference.
09-16-2008, 10:13 AM
I look at the McCain candidacy as if we were simply trying to hold ground while waiting for reinforcements.
Regardless of the Backsliding, we HAVE made some progress since the days of Jimmy Carter.
Most of that occurred during Reagan's term, admittedly, and admittedly, we have backslid under President Bush.
But we still must look at it as where would we have been if Gore or Kerry had been in office. BOTH would have spent FAR more and in addition to that, we also would now be saddled with EXTREME left wing justices on the Supreme court.
For those of us who value originalist thinking on things, - Freedom of Religion, Gun rights, abortion, property rights - these have been very valuable appointments. The value however has been diluted because there is still a liberal majority on the bench.
With McCain in office, we - AT WORST, will be replacing two of the MOST liberal justices with two moderately conservative justices. I personally think we will do much better than that, but it is still a significant improvement over the current situation.
I think it is more likely that we will get one conservative and one moderately conservative justice out of this. THAT would be a MONUMENTAL win in the battle to curb govt. power and intrusion into our lives. It will allow us to REALLY overturn some of the most egregious infringements on our liberty.
It will START us down the path to honoring the 10th amendment which has long been undermined by the liberal justices. It will START us down the path to upholding the true meanings of the 1st and 2nd amendments.
The liberals chipped away, bit by bit, to erode these freedoms and there is no practical way to win them back in any other fashion.
The old question of "how do you eat an elephant" with the answer of "one bite at a time" is very applicable here.
The same can be said of changing our party. We saw great progress under Reagan, and have recently seen what happens when we stray from that ideal.
We also have seen the power of excitement of the base when we pick a perceived conservative with Palin.
Palin is not perfect but her image of being a true conservative is showing the path that Republicans must take to win and to succeed. Again, Palin may not be perfect, but she IS a move toward the conservative side of our party. The luke warm acceptance of McCain shows what a move to the liberal side of our party does to our electability.
OUR job as citizens interested in FURTHER movement toward fiscal responsibility and to adherance to our Constitutions original intent, is to work our asses off for REAL conservatives (not just perceived ones) in the primaries. WE have been responsible for putting up with the Olympia Snows, the Arlen Spectors and their ilk. WE must end that. THAT is where WE, as conservatives, have failed miserably.
Hold your noses and vote for McCain, so that we don't cross the point of no return, but hold his feet to the fire and WORK for real conservatives in the elections to come.I long for the days when our President actually liked our country.
09-16-2008, 11:39 AMAt Coretta Scott King's funeral in early 2006, Ethel Kennedy, the widow of Robert Kennedy, leaned over to him and whispered, "The torch is being passed to you." "A chill went up my spine," Obama told an aide. (Newsweek)
09-16-2008, 11:49 AMMrs. Palin used her veto pen to slash more local projects than any other governor in the state's history. She cut nearly 10% of Alaska's budget this year, saving state residents $268 million. This included vetoing a $30,000 van for Campfire USA and $200,000 for a tennis court irrigation system. She succinctly justified these cuts by saying they were "not a state responsibility."
Meanwhile in Washington, Mr. Obama voted for numerous wasteful earmarks last year, including: $12 million for bicycle paths, $450,000 for the International Peace Museum, $500,000 for a baseball stadium and $392,000 for a visitor's center in Louisiana.
Mrs. Palin cut Alaska's federal earmark requests in half last year, one of the strongest moves against earmarks by any governor. It took real leadership to buck Alaska's decades-long earmark addiction.
Mr. Obama delivered over $100 million in earmarks to Illinois last year and has requested nearly a billion dollars in pet projects since 2005. His running mate, Joe Biden, is still indulging in earmarks, securing over $90 million worth this year.
Mrs. Palin also killed the infamous Bridge to Nowhere in her own state. Yes, she once supported the project: But after witnessing the problems created by earmarks for her state and for the nation's budget, she did what others like me have done: She changed her position and saved taxpayers millions. Even the Alaska Democratic Party credits her with killing the bridge.
When the Senate had its chance to stop the Bridge to Nowhere and transfer the money to Katrina rebuilding, Messrs. Obama and Biden voted for the $223 million earmark, siding with the old boys' club in the Senate. And to date, they still have not publicly renounced their support for the infamous earmakr.
gatorGuest09-16-2008, 12:23 PM
The slide goes back a lot farther than Carter. At least to LBJ and probably to Roosevelt.
I donít feel the same optimism as you do and I donít think we will even hold the line with McCain.
You have to remember that Reagan did not change things much. The Federal budget still grew and Reagan gave us one of the largest tax increases in the history of the Republic. He failed to seal the border, gave amnesty to millions of illegals, spent more money than he took in and he signed a significant bill that reduced our right to keep and bear arms. In other words the real problems our country faces did not improve under Reagan.
McCain is not even a Reagan. He has a history of compromise with the Liberals and he is nothing more than a big government Republican, just like Bush. He will do nothing to decrease foreign entanglements and will probably dream up a couple of his own wars. We will continue to borrow money from the Chinese to give to the goddamn Israelis and every other scumbag country that has a lobby in DC. He will not send one Illegal home and he will assure that they get their entitlements like Social Security, health care and education and we will continue to go broke providing it to them.
McCain will fix no structural problem facing our country. Obama will be worse but there is no politician I know of that will be good. Even Ron Paul, who at least understood the problems, would not be effective. We need a whole government of Ron Pauls and Sarah Palins on both the Federal and State and Local level before we start to see a turnaround.
09-16-2008, 12:30 PMAt Coretta Scott King's funeral in early 2006, Ethel Kennedy, the widow of Robert Kennedy, leaned over to him and whispered, "The torch is being passed to you." "A chill went up my spine," Obama told an aide. (Newsweek)
09-16-2008, 03:02 PMNever argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level then beat you with experience.
09-16-2008, 03:07 PM
I AM an eternal optimist but I think there is some justification for my optimism here.
What Reagan DID do was show that the social programs of the left were failures and that we COULD successfully wean people off from them. He proved that tax cuts did not necessarily mean huge deficits, due to a lack of funds - he proved that they spur economic growth that could generate enough wealth to replace tax money "lost" due to the cuts. If the military had not been left in such a sorry state, the money that was spent to solidify it, would have been directed to actual debt reduction. Reagan influenced a LOT of people like me who despise how intrusive our government has become - we despise the idea that our government actually spends our money telling us how much water our toilets can have. We despise the idea that our government spends OUR money passing regulations that prevent or at least make it more difficult for us to succeed in our own businesses.
We can build on that.
I agree wholeheartedly with you that we need a lot of fiscal Ron Pauls (although I think you know I disagree with him on much of his foreign policy). That is our job - this is what WE must do at the grass roots level. WE need to make sure that our liberal Republicans never make it to the general elections and that our bench is stocked with REAL conservatives. We also need to counter the smears that the left puts out against those of us who are real conservatives. We need to make the average American realize that the REAL conservatives are the best options for THEM by constantly reminding them of how screwed up the country has been by liberals in both parties. It is a slow process - especially for those who have become hooked and dependent on govt programs - but it is possible and it is absolutely necessary.
Last edited by Constitutionally Speaking; 09-16-2008 at 03:23 PM.I long for the days when our President actually liked our country.
|« Previous Thread | Next Thread »|