dfx
Junior Member
Posts: 221
|
Post by dfx on Jul 30, 2010 9:04:20 GMT -5
I find it ironic that members of the Tea Party align themselves with "Republican principles", yet often forget how conservative-hero President Reagan used government regulations to prop-up flailing US industries in the 1980s... www.americaneconomicalert.com/view_art.asp?Prod_ID=1134dfx PS. I'm not bashing President Reagan as I believe it was the correct thing to do, I just find it interesting that politics has become so divisive that many are selectively "forgetting" historical facts in efforts to bash our current President. |
|
adefonzo
Junior Member
If I can see further than some, it's because I have stood on the shoulders of giants
Posts: 308
|
Post by adefonzo on Jul 30, 2010 10:00:25 GMT -5
While I am not (contrary to what some may think) a "tea party member", I have to say that after reading the article that was linked above, it seems to me that Reagan made a much MUCH better decision than our current president, or his successor for that matter (since it was Bush who initiated the first "bailout" package).
Did Reagan use government regulations? Absolutely...but the obvious difference is that he used government to create a situation where American companies and manufacturers had a chance to catch up with foreign competitors...and he did it without reaching into the taxpayers wallets for billions and billions and trillions of dollars.
When you read the article, it doesn't mention one word of Reagan enacted legislation that set aside $787 billion dollars to simply give to companies who were in financial trouble, seemingly without any method of regulating what they did with that money.
The article talks about tariffs that were placed on foreign manufacturers, which, while raising prices for the American consumer should they choose to buy from that foreign manufacturer, actually raised revenue for the country as a whole. Nowadays, with President Obama, and President Bush (and others throughout history in reality) the attitude is, "we'll just throw money at the problem, and then worry about finding a way to actually come up with that money somewhere down the road".
I thank you for posting the article...it made me realize even more why should further study the ways that Ronald Reagan led this country into one of it's greatest economic booms in history.
|
|
adefonzo
Junior Member
If I can see further than some, it's because I have stood on the shoulders of giants
Posts: 308
|
Post by adefonzo on Jul 30, 2010 10:04:23 GMT -5
...one other point I forgot to mention.
The article also does not mention anything about government getting involved with taking over these manufacturing companies, trying to regulate the salaries of the executive boards, or in any other way interfering with the way these companies ran their business.
What Reagan, seemingly, did was create a situation that benefited the American companies, and then let them build themselves back up...not create a situation, and then pump tons of taxpayer dollars into them and attempt to make them government owned or controlled.
There is a significant difference, in my opinion.
|
|
|
|
Post by richardkelsey on Jul 30, 2010 10:06:33 GMT -5
I find it ironic that members of the Tea Party align themselves with "Republican principles", yet often forget how conservative-hero President Reagan used government regulations to prop-up flailing US industries in the 1980s... www.americaneconomicalert.com/view_art.asp?Prod_ID=1134dfx PS. I'm not bashing President Reagan as I believe it was the correct thing to do, I just find it interesting that politics has become so divisive that many are selectively "forgetting" historical facts in efforts to bash our current President. I am not sure we can really say "GOP double-standard" if the standard you are using is Reagan. That is, Reagan and other members of the GOP have been protectionist in some regard. Let's not forget Pat Buchanan -- who was also a protectionist. I think the key difference from Reagan's actions and Obama's actions are the depth and breadth -- which make all the difference. For example, putting voluntary trade restraints, or even short-term protectionist measures in place is wholly different from buying a majority stake in a company and taking over the means of production. In one case, Government intervention is meant to give a struggling industry a short-term boost. In the other instance, Government itself takes over the industry and company. In one instance a board must act to make a company lean and competitive in a given period. In the other instance, the company could grow fat and bloated -- and also serve non-shareholder goals. Certainly, true free-traders see the government manipulation as a cost on the market that ultimately penalizes successful companies for the advantage of struggling companies. The consumer being the person bearing the burden of the costs. |
|
dfx
Junior Member
Posts: 221
|
Post by dfx on Jul 30, 2010 10:39:12 GMT -5
Did Reagan use government regulations? Absolutely...but the obvious difference is that he used government to create a situation where American companies and manufacturers had a chance to catch up with foreign competitors I just want to make sure I'm understanding correctly: The Tea/Republican Party is OK with government intervention in a market economy that slants the field to give one side a competitive edge (essentially "cheating" for lack of a better term)? Isn't this idea in direct conflict with the philosophy of an unregulated "free" capitalist market? Careful what you say here, you're treading dangerously close to turning down a "No Outlet" street.... |
|
adefonzo
Junior Member
If I can see further than some, it's because I have stood on the shoulders of giants
Posts: 308
|
Post by adefonzo on Jul 30, 2010 11:00:18 GMT -5
Careful what I say?? Clearly you don't know much about my style...I tend to barge through with "both guns blazing"!! And yeah...it does get me into trouble from time to time.  I don't speak for the Tea Party movement, the Republican Party, or anyone else outside of Andrew DeFonzo (which is why I don't mind barging in like a bull in a china shop). What I will say is that in my opinion, Government placing temporary tariffs on products from foreign competitors in order to give American companies an opportunity to lift themselves up and grow stronger, thereby creating more jobs, and improving the overall economy in America...I do not see an issue with that (on the face of it...if I were to delve into the details, who knows what I'd find). Government taking billions of dollars, that quite frankly it doesn't have, and pumping it out to dozens of companies without rules or follow up regulation...Government taking over large companies, getting involved in how they do business, and regulating salaries...Government doing all these things by taking from the taxpayers wallet in order to fund their foolishness...that I have a big issue with. I don't pretend to be an economist or to be any kind of expert on how different types of economies work. But I see two completely different situations here, one - that history has shown - led to a time of economic prosperity and American companies gaining strength and status in the worldwide market. The other, well, history will have to wait and see...but to this point, I do not think we have seen any benefit from governments ridiculous spending of our money. |
|
|
|
Post by jefffriedman on Jul 30, 2010 11:18:58 GMT -5
I generally agree with Dan on this one but for now I will add two technical points:
Andrew you said that Regan “did it without reaching into the taxpayers wallets” through tariffs. Tariffs as you said generate money for the government through an additional Tax for American consumers. Which is reaching into taxpayers wallets; Tariffs also encourage other countries to have tariffs which reduce the ability for American companies to sell their products abroad do the increased price, which also hurts the taxpayers, and then inturn the governments, wallets.
Tariffs also, as Adam Smith and followers would tell you, reduces the ability of all communities and countries to focus on the products they have a natural advantage in which raises prices for all.
Second, When Regan did that in the 1980's there were was not the number of Most Favored Nations Trade treaties, and other tariff ending treaties that now prevent, or makes it much harder, to impose tariffs.
|
|
dfx
Junior Member
Posts: 221
|
Post by dfx on Jul 30, 2010 11:30:51 GMT -5
I don't pretend to be an economist or to be any kind of expert on how different types of economies work. But I see two completely different situations here, one - that history has shown - led to a time of economic prosperity and American companies gaining strength and status in the worldwide market. The other, well, history will have to wait and see...but to this point, I do not think we have seen any benefit from governments ridiculous spending of our money. I find it ironic that the right lambastes the current administration for spending, yet historically Republicans have vastly outspent Democratic Presidents. Check it out: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_by_U.S._presidential_termsIn addition, your claim of past actions leading to "economic prosperity and American companies gaining strength and status in the worldwide market" is only 50% true. American companies did gain strength, however the national debt grew substantially under President Reagan. Check it out: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reaganomics#Evaluation |
|
|
|
Post by richardkelsey on Jul 30, 2010 11:50:54 GMT -5
Did Reagan use government regulations? Absolutely...but the obvious difference is that he used government to create a situation where American companies and manufacturers had a chance to catch up with foreign competitors I just want to make sure I'm understanding correctly: The Tea/Republican Party is OK with government intervention in a market economy that slants the field to give one side a competitive edge (essentially "cheating" for lack of a better term)? Isn't this idea in direct conflict with the philosophy of an unregulated "free" capitalist market? Careful what you say here, you're treading dangerously close to turning down a "No Outlet" street.... I think all I am saying -- quite effectively with your help -- is that there is no monolithic GOP view on protectionism as a mechanism for government. Most limited government, free-trading, conservatives (Not necessarily GOP'er) would oppose government intervention into free markets for any purpose. Many protectionist/American firsters think that limited government means the government should act rarely, but when it does it should act nationalistically to protect American private property and american business interests. These folks tend to fall into the Perot third-party class -- in my view. The only coherent principle is the free-market principle. However, coherent economic principles sometimes run afoul of local, state or national politics, which is why governments "rescue" the people with popular intervention -- irrespective of the their own stated principles. (The old, every rule has an exception) My point is not to defend republicans. My point is only that there is no coherent, unified, "GOP approach." I think the guiding principle that most in the GOP profess is that government should be smaller and limited in scope. However, the GOP is not opposed to Government or its intervention. That would their awkward cousin, the libertarian. i think among "conservatives" the opinions on free markets and limited government are more coherent -- but then again not absolute with respect to intervention. For example, no Conservative I know suggested that Bush or Obama do nothing during the meltdown. Some might have suggested that GM would have done better in private bankruptcy. I agree. However, doing nothing was not an option. The question of how, when, and to what degree government intervenes is the point of debate. Like I said before -- government intervention in a crisis to provide short-term low interest loans, or even to for narrowly constructed, limited trade restrictive purposes might make sense depending on the totality of the circumstances. The government seizing the means of production -- well I have never seen a Conservative advocate that. |
|
dfx
Junior Member
Posts: 221
|
Post by dfx on Jul 30, 2010 13:32:36 GMT -5
I think the guiding principle that most in the GOP profess is that government should be smaller and limited in scope. Republicans are just as responsible for contributing to the growth of the Federal Govenment as Democrats. Without even mentioning any of the programs George W. Bush started, the Republican "small govenorment" arguement is weak at best, ignorant at worst: Herbert Hoover - Increased federal spending 38 percent (current dollars) - Passed the Agricultural Marketing Act (welfare for farmers) - Passed the Hawley-Smoot Tariff - Waged war on drugs (alcohol) - Passed the Reconstruction Finance Corporation (pork and corporate welfare) Dwight Eisenhower - Increased federal spending 30 percent - Created Department of Health, Education, & Welfare (and spending) - Extended Social Security to 10 million additional persons - Started American involvement in Vietnam - Passed federal highway legislation - Created NASA - Started student loan program Richard Nixon - Increased federal spending 70 percent - Created EPA, OSHA, and CPSC - Started "affirmative action" - Imposed price and wage controls - Proposed minimum national income Ronald Reagan - Increased federal spending 53 percent - Elevated Veteran's Administration - Added 250,000 civilian employees - Created drug czar's office - Escalated war on drugs George Herbert Walker Bush - Increased federal spending 12 percent - Signed the (litigious) Americans with Disabilities Act |
|
|
|
Post by richardkelsey on Jul 30, 2010 14:11:00 GMT -5
I think the guiding principle that most in the GOP profess is that government should be smaller and limited in scope. Republicans are just as responsible for contributing to the growth of the Federal Government as Democrats. Without even mentioning any of the programs George W. Bush started, the Republican "small govenorment" arguement is weak at best, ignorant at worst: Herbert Hoover - Increased federal spending 38 percent (current dollars) - Passed the Agricultural Marketing Act (welfare for farmers) - Passed the Hawley-Smoot Tariff - Waged war on drugs (alcohol) - Passed the Reconstruction Finance Corporation (pork and corporate welfare) Dwight Eisenhower - Increased federal spending 30 percent - Created Department of Health, Education, & Welfare (and spending) - Extended Social Security to 10 million additional persons - Started American involvement in Vietnam - Passed federal highway legislation - Created NASA - Started student loan program Richard Nixon - Increased federal spending 70 percent - Created EPA, OSHA, and CPSC - Started "affirmative action" - Imposed price and wage controls - Proposed minimum national income Ronald Reagan - Increased federal spending 53 percent - Elevated Veteran's Administration - Added 250,000 civilian employees - Created drug czar's office - Escalated war on drugs George Herbert Walker Bush - Increased federal spending 12 percent - Signed the (litigious) Americans with Disabilities Act See all these fellows you listed? Guess what they have in common? They all had democratic controlled Congresses. As a small point of learning -- bills and appropriations may only come from Congress -- not the White House. Remember "what's a bill" -- that use to explain this nicely in cartoon form for little kids. With respect to Reagan -- he also had the largest increase in Federal Revenues. Why is that? because his landslide mandate convinced the Dems to cut taxes -- massively. What they wouldn't do, however, was cut the Federal Government as he proposed every year, including cutting and eliminating the little things like -- the then newly created Department of Education. Did you know -- before Carter -- we managed to make it without a Department of Education? Guess what has happened since the dems created that one agency - 5,000 employees and a budget of 62 billion dollars. Actually, if you wanted to make a cogent argument attacking republican spending habits -- you should have picked George W. Bush. Together with a spendthrift GOP Congress, Bush ruled as a democrat -- expanding healthcare and creating federal mandates on education. He never met a spending bill he didn't like. It does make me wonder why the dems hate him so much. |
|
dfx
Junior Member
Posts: 221
|
Post by dfx on Jul 30, 2010 14:30:52 GMT -5
See all these fellows you listed? Guess what they have in common? They all had democratic controlled Congresses. So the key creating a smaller Federal Govenment is having a Republican House - not a Republican President? I must say Mr. Kelsey, you are one heck of a good lawyer if you can convince anyone into believing that a President has no influence on setting the nation's political agenda! dfx |
|
dfx
Junior Member
Posts: 221
|
Post by dfx on Jul 30, 2010 14:52:10 GMT -5
Actually, if you wanted to make a cogent argument attacking republican spending habits -- you should have picked George W. Bush. Together with a spendthrift GOP Congress, Bush ruled as a democrat -- expanding healthcare and creating federal mandates on education. He never met a spending bill he didn't like. It does make me wonder why the dems hate him so much. I don't "pick-on" George W. Bush because I find that Republicans dismiss his behavior as an abnormality and for some unknown reason regard him as a democrat. (Though it is surprising how they all still supported his second Presidential bid lock-step. But I digress...) My goal is to point out hypocrisy Mr. Kelsey and today's Tea/Republican Party is full of it. dfx |
|
|
|
Post by richardkelsey on Jul 30, 2010 14:59:21 GMT -5
See all these fellows you listed? Guess what they have in common? They all had democratic controlled Congresses. So the key creating a smaller Federal Government is having a Republican House - not a Republican President? I must say Mr. Kelsey, you are one heck of a good lawyer if you can convince anyone into believing that a President has no influence on setting the nation's political agenda! dfx The key to a smaller federal government is to have a fiscally conservative President and a very conservative house and Senate. Fortunately, Mr. Clinton was converted after 94, and with the help of actual conservatives, we saw the effect of smaller and smarter government. Does a President affect the economic agenda -- it depends on the President, the economy, the size of the win, and the size and make-up of his or her majority. I don't deny influence -- but Reagan sent budget after budget after budget with massive cuts to the house -- and they were famously declared by Tip O'Neil to be "Dead on Arrival." Recognizing the economic downturn and the massive reality of the Reagan win, dems got religion and compromised on one subject that is easy for most politicians -- tax cuts. Spending cuts -- or reducing the pork used to buy votes -- that's a much harder compromise to obtain. Indeed, the turncoat republicans of the GW era proved that vote whoring through pork barreling is a bi-partisan event, by and large. |
|
dfx
Junior Member
Posts: 221
|
Post by dfx on Jul 31, 2010 8:29:51 GMT -5
Mr. Clinton was converted after 94, and with the help of actual conservatives, we saw the effect of smaller and smarter government. I love it when Tea/Republicans say things like this. "That democrat XXXXX was only good because he learned how to be from Republicans!" It sounds so childish. (Of course the joke's on me because a lot of Tea/Republicans actually believe this malarkey.) Have a good weekend everyone and keep your eyes open - the hypocrites are everyone! dan |
|
|
|
Post by richardkelsey on Jul 31, 2010 14:28:57 GMT -5
Mr. Clinton was converted after 94, and with the help of actual conservatives, we saw the effect of smaller and smarter government. I love it when Tea/Republicans say things like this. "That democrat XXXXX was only good because he learned how to be from Republicans!" It sounds so childish. (Of course the joke's on me because a lot of Tea/Republicans actually believe this malarkey.) Is is seriously your position that the radical left-wing Clinton and his healthcare take over wife were not repudiated in 1994 after losing the House for the first time in 5 decades? No one believes that -- tea drinkers, coffee drinkers, or even democrat Koolaid drinkers! Have a good weekend everyone and keep your eyes open - the hypocrites are everyone! dan |
|
dfx
Junior Member
Posts: 221
|
Post by dfx on Aug 1, 2010 8:00:49 GMT -5
I love it when Tea/Republicans say things like this. "That democrat XXXXX was only good because he learned how to be from Republicans!" It sounds so childish. (Of course the joke's on me because a lot of Tea/Republicans actually believe this malarkey.) Is is seriously your position that the radical left-wing Clinton and his healthcare take over wife were not repudiated in 1994 after losing the House for the first time in 5 decades? No one believes that -- tea drinkers, coffee drinkers, or even democrat Koolaid drinkers! Have a good weekend everyone and keep your eyes open - the hypocrites are everyone! dan Mr. Kelsey - Did you edit my posting to give the appearance that I was saying something other than what I intended to say? Not cool. I am done posting on this site as I do not feel comfortable when people alter/change the message postings of others. dfx (I suspect this may be the reason why officials nationwide typically avoid posting on blogs and I just learned a valuable lesson.) |
|
|
|
Post by admin on Aug 1, 2010 8:34:16 GMT -5
Mr. Kelsey - Did you edit my posting to give the appearance that I was saying something other than what I intended to say? Not cool. I am done posting on this site as I do not feel comfortable when people alter/change the message postings of others. dfx (I suspect this may be the reason why officials nationwide typically avoid posting on blogs and I just learned a valuable lesson.) Dan, Back a while ago, I had asked you to be a moderator on this site because at the time your posts were very good and very level headed. If you had taken me up on tha offer, you would be well aware that it is impossible for any of the four moderators on this site, including me, to alter or modify any post without it being known. In every post that is modified, regardless of who does it, The post will have a line on the bottom saying who and when the post was modified. If Richard had modified your post, the proof would be right there. Being that it isn't then Richard did NOT modify your post. He merely quoted it and did not add his own commentary. If you chooses to cease participation on this site, then it is not for the reason you cite. Personally, I hope you continue. You have added a very nice flavor to the site and though I may disagree with some of your views, it is very good to see them. As always, this is an open site and we do welcome all views here. |
|
|
|
Post by jefffriedman on Aug 1, 2010 9:13:50 GMT -5
Mr. Kelsey - Did you edit my posting to give the appearance that I was saying something other than what I intended to say? Not cool. I am done posting on this site as I do not feel comfortable when people alter/change the message postings of others. dfx (I suspect this may be the reason why officials nationwide typically avoid posting on blogs and I just learned a valuable lesson.) Dan, Back a while ago, I had asked you to be a moderator on this site because at the time your posts were very good and very level headed. If you had taken me up on tha offer, you would be well aware that it is impossible for any of the four moderators on this site, including me, to alter or modify any post without it being known. (SEE THIS IS BEING MODIFIED by adding this) In every post that is modified, regardless of who does it, The post will have a line on the bottom saying who and when the post was modified. (NOT TRUE PER SE, WHEN YOU QUOTE YOU CAN CHANGE THE QUOTE) If Richard had modified your post, the proof would be right there. Being that it isn't then Richard did NOT modify your post. He merely quoted it and did not add his own commentary. If you chooses to cease participation on this site, then it is not for the reason you cite. Personally, I hope you continue. You have added a very nice flavor to the site and though I may disagree with some of your views, it is very good to see them. I HAVE NOW EDITED THIS QUOTE BY ADDING THIS LINE>>>> As always, this is an open site and we do welcome all views here. I do not get this; Dan posted something. Rich quoted something but what Rich quoted had additional language. Was that language part of the original post? Or did Rich add it? Next, Admin, you say his post were very good and level headed AT THE TIME. What the heck does that mean? Even if you disagree with him this posts are still level headed. I take offense to that type of claim that they are not level headed now. Also it is possible to alter a quote here. See above have alter Brains by adding the lines including "I HAVE NOW EDITED THIS QUOTE BY ADDING THIS LINE>>>>" It is clear that Rich did not change Dans post per se but he did quote Dans post and add language that one would think just by reading Rich's post that Dan posted the additional language as well. That is improper in my non-humble opinion. |
|
|
|
Post by admin on Aug 1, 2010 9:31:34 GMT -5
Jeff, my bad. I did not see the added text. it looks like Rich put the text in the wrong place. That will be for him to correct.
|
|
|
|
Post by richardkelsey on Aug 1, 2010 10:41:24 GMT -5
Jeff, my bad. I did not see the added text. it looks like Rich put the text in the wrong place. That will be for him to correct. Well this really is a wacky group. My apologies. I had to read this about 5 times to figure out what happened. Brian is absolutely correct. DFX posted something -- and I tried to post a witty reply. In doing so -- I must have posted "inside" his quotation when I hit quote -- a totally innocent error. And, frankly, it detracts from my most excellent and witty response. I will go back and reply to the original with my witty response to put the world back in order. |
|
|
|
Post by lisas84 on Aug 1, 2010 10:43:41 GMT -5
Jeff, my bad. I did not see the added text. it looks like Rich put the text in the wrong place. That will be for him to correct. Well this really is a wacky group. My apologies. I had to read this about 5 times to figure out what happened. Brian is absolutely correct. DFX posted something -- and I tried to post a witty reply. In doing so -- I must have posted "inside" his quotation when I hit quote -- a totally innocent error. And, frankly, it detracts from my most excellent and witty response. I will go back and reply to the original with my witty response to put the world back in order. Republican revisionism at its best!  |
|
|
|
Post by richardkelsey on Aug 1, 2010 10:46:35 GMT -5
Mr. Clinton was converted after 94, and with the help of actual conservatives, we saw the effect of smaller and smarter government. I love it when Tea/Republicans say things like this. "That democrat XXXXX was only good because he learned how to be from Republicans!" It sounds so childish. (Of course the joke's on me because a lot of Tea/Republicans actually believe this malarkey.) Have a good weekend everyone and keep your eyes open - the hypocrites are everyone! dan Is it seriously your position that the radical left-wing Clinton and his healthcare take-over wife were not repudiated in 1994 after losing the House for the first time in 5 decades? No one believes that -- tea drinkers, coffee drinkers, or even democrat Koolaid drinkers!
note about this post(I think because there were double quotes in this -- I accidentally typed my response inside the first set of quotes. (Completely unintentionally) I obviously did not look at the post again after hitting post.) As Brain indicated, I cannot do what you accused me. Moreover -- I would not do what you accused me of. Frankly, all I really did was screw up my most excellent, which I thought succinctly exposed the fallacy of your argument. |
|
adefonzo
Junior Member
If I can see further than some, it's because I have stood on the shoulders of giants
Posts: 308
|
Post by adefonzo on Aug 1, 2010 13:19:31 GMT -5
First to Brian and Rich (my fellow right wing nut-jobs). I have to be honest and state that while Rich's mistake might have been an honest one...it could be doubted due to the fact that you are a moderator of the site, Rich...quite frankly...you should have known, and, monitored your post better. Second...I think (and of course, it's only me) that instead of simply re-posting as it was supposed to be done originally...you should delete your previous post which was brought into question. Yes, this does eliminate the "evidence"which explains the subsequent posts, but it also (in my opinion) shows that you were wrong, and you take back the "perceived" intent of that post.
Next...to dfx...as someone who was (once upon a time) a public figure myself, and who felt he was grossly mistreated on this site (yeah...believe it or not...it did happen)...and who even left the site for a short time...I will offer this bit of personal advice...grow a thicker skin. Do not take this as me saying that you do not have a "thick skin" already (I believed I did as well), but I am simply saying that...in my opinion...you have to be willing to take whatever comes your way and be willing to fight to make sure your point is made. You came back well and rightfully so against Rich's post...now is not the time to take your ball and go home.
I disagree whole-heartedly with some of your posts (as I expect you do with mine), but at least you seem to be someone who backs up their arguments with facts and figures and not just emotion and talking points. To lose someone with - seemingly - such an approach would be a real loss to the site, but more importantly, to the overall debate that continues day to day in the town, county, state, and country.
Now...all that being said...let me get to the point I wanted to mention before reading all the posts about Rich's screw-up...
"I find it ironic that..." people from both parties continue to use the "oh yeah, well look what 'your' guys did" type of argument as if it somehow justifies the actions of a current administration, Congress, or whatever it might be.
The fact is, ALL presidents, Congresses, Supreme Courts, and federal bureaucracies have sought to increase their strength, influence, and powers beyond what the Constitution allowed.
The fact is, WE THE PEOPLE are to blame, because we are the ones who wanted "an easier life" or "things to be better for our children". We're the ones who don't want people to have to struggle to survive...we don't want people to go hungry...we're the ones who want to help some poor country that just got hit with some natural disaster. The problem though, is that we have allowed our government to be the point man for all these things when we should have been looking to groups like the Red Cross, Easter Seals, Habitat for Humanity, the infinite groups that provide college scholarships, and yes, groups like the NAACP, ACLU, and even the LLA and Casa Freeholds of the world.
We can argue all day and night for a month straight about the intentions and backgrounds of our founding fathers...but the simple fact is that they decided to go down the road they chose because they were sick of a form of government that was so intrusive while it was also completely out of touch with their lives on a day to day basis. They wanted to be left alone for the most part, and they wanted a government that would be more "localized" with limited abilities to intrude on our lives and freedoms. They wanted a government that would simply provide physical protection, but which also united (at the time) 13 different states under one nation.
And where are we today?? We have a government (on the Federal level, since that's all the Constitution truly regulated) that has grown itself so grossly beyond the parameters set forth in the Constitution that people nowadays quote "rights" that we supposedly have which are not printed anywhere...they are just assumed because of the BS we've all been fed for so long.
I don't even know where I am going with this anymore, except that I really wish everyone would go back and read the Constitution...really read it and understand it (it's language is certainly nothing compared to the simplest bills that come out of Washington nowadays with all their vague language and lawyer speech"). Read the Constitution, and then look at all that the Federal government has within it's power today.....are they even close???
In a very broad and overall sense, it's not the fault of the Republicans, it's not the fault of the Democrats...it's our fault. We have allowed Washington to run wild, and grow itself to the point that it's at today. But the benefit is that We the People still have the power to make the necessary changes in personnel to (hopefully) bring this country back to what it was intended to be.
|
|
|
|
Post by lisas84 on Aug 1, 2010 18:32:16 GMT -5
First to Brian and Rich (my fellow right wing nut-jobs). I have to be honest and state that while Rich's mistake might have been an honest one...it could be doubted due to the fact that you are a moderator of the site, Rich...quite frankly...you should have known, and, monitored your post better. Second...I think (and of course, it's only me) that instead of simply re-posting as it was supposed to be done originally...you should delete your previous post which was brought into question. Yes, this does eliminate the "evidence"which explains the subsequent posts, but it also (in my opinion) shows that you were wrong, and you take back the "perceived" intent of that post. Next...to dfx...as someone who was (once upon a time) a public figure myself, and who felt he was grossly mistreated on this site (yeah...believe it or not...it did happen)...and who even left the site for a short time...I will offer this bit of personal advice...grow a thicker skin. Do not take this as me saying that you do not have a "thick skin" already (I believed I did as well), but I am simply saying that...in my opinion...you have to be willing to take whatever comes your way and be willing to fight to make sure your point is made. You came back well and rightfully so against Rich's post...now is not the time to take your ball and go home. I disagree whole-heartedly with some of your posts (as I expect you do with mine), but at least you seem to be someone who backs up their arguments with facts and figures and not just emotion and talking points. To lose someone with - seemingly - such an approach would be a real loss to the site, but more importantly, to the overall debate that continues day to day in the town, county, state, and country. Now...all that being said...let me get to the point I wanted to mention before reading all the posts about Rich's screw-up... "I find it ironic that..." people from both parties continue to use the "oh yeah, well look what 'your' guys did" type of argument as if it somehow justifies the actions of a current administration, Congress, or whatever it might be. The fact is, ALL presidents, Congresses, Supreme Courts, and federal bureaucracies have sought to increase their strength, influence, and powers beyond what the Constitution allowed. The fact is, WE THE PEOPLE are to blame, because we are the ones who wanted "an easier life" or "things to be better for our children". We're the ones who don't want people to have to struggle to survive...we don't want people to go hungry...we're the ones who want to help some poor country that just got hit with some natural disaster. The problem though, is that we have allowed our government to be the point man for all these things when we should have been looking to groups like the Red Cross, Easter Seals, Habitat for Humanity, the infinite groups that provide college scholarships, and yes, groups like the NAACP, ACLU, and even the LLA and Casa Freeholds of the world. We can argue all day and night for a month straight about the intentions and backgrounds of our founding fathers...but the simple fact is that they decided to go down the road they chose because they were sick of a form of government that was so intrusive while it was also completely out of touch with their lives on a day to day basis. They wanted to be left alone for the most part, and they wanted a government that would be more "localized" with limited abilities to intrude on our lives and freedoms. They wanted a government that would simply provide physical protection, but which also united (at the time) 13 different states under one nation. And where are we today?? We have a government (on the Federal level, since that's all the Constitution truly regulated) that has grown itself so grossly beyond the parameters set forth in the Constitution that people nowadays quote "rights" that we supposedly have which are not printed anywhere...they are just assumed because of the BS we've all been fed for so long. I don't even know where I am going with this anymore, except that I really wish everyone would go back and read the Constitution...really read it and understand it (it's language is certainly nothing compared to the simplest bills that come out of Washington nowadays with all their vague language and lawyer speech"). Read the Constitution, and then look at all that the Federal government has within it's power today.....are they even close??? In a very broad and overall sense, it's not the fault of the Republicans, it's not the fault of the Democrats...it's our fault. We have allowed Washington to run wild, and grow itself to the point that it's at today. But the benefit is that We the People still have the power to make the necessary changes in personnel to (hopefully) bring this country back to what it was intended to be. Wow, man, your posts are like psychobabbling books! What is IN your tea/coffee over there? I could use some of this good sh*t! |
|
adefonzo
Junior Member
If I can see further than some, it's because I have stood on the shoulders of giants
Posts: 308
|
Post by adefonzo on Aug 2, 2010 3:53:56 GMT -5
Wow, man, your posts are like psychobabbling books! What is IN your tea/coffee over there? I could use some of this good sh*t! That's what you get at 1:30 am on a Sunday after a day of playing golf in the Hanoi heat and humidity followed by a few beers, then dinner at a Korean bar-b-que where your main contractor continues to supply bottles of some sort of ginseng wine. I figured a modern day hippie type such as yourself who has been prone to her own occasional psychobabble posts would have more appreciation for that approach. |
|
|
|
Post by admin on Aug 2, 2010 6:37:42 GMT -5
Mr. Kelsey - Did you edit my posting to give the appearance that I was saying something other than what I intended to say? Not cool. I am done posting on this site as I do not feel comfortable when people alter/change the message postings of others. dfx (I suspect this may be the reason why officials nationwide typically avoid posting on blogs and I just learned a valuable lesson.) Dan, Back a while ago, I had asked you to be a moderator on this site because at the time your posts were very good and very level headed. If you had taken me up on tha offer, you would be well aware that it is impossible for any of the four moderators on this site, including me, to alter or modify any post without it being known. In every post that is modified, regardless of who does it, The post will have a line on the bottom saying who and when the post was modified. If Richard had modified your post, the proof would be right there. Being that it isn't then Richard did NOT modify your post. He merely quoted it and did not add his own commentary. If you chooses to cease participation on this site, then it is not for the reason you cite. Personally, I hope you continue. You have added a very nice flavor to the site and though I may disagree with some of your views, it is very good to see them. As always, this is an open site and we do welcome all views here. Yesterday I was reading and responding to this exchange via cell phone. I very rarely post from my phone because it does not work out so well. To clear up a few things, my above reply was in response to the honesty and integrity of the site moderators. Both Richard and lisas84 have been long time members of this site. Both have been good participants and moderators. Neither has ever abused their moderator privileges, if they had, they would not be moderators. Both have done their best to be fair and decent to all site participants. With that in mind, I make no apologies for defending the honor and integrity of the site moderators. I also have reason to be sensitive to that because of some of the nonsense that a very small group spreads about this site. That said, all three of us moderators have clearly mentioned that we are not perfect and at time make our own mistakes. The door is always open for correction and we respond accordingly. Moderating is far from a perfect art form and is open to interpretation as to what is best and right. The three of us do have distinctly different styles which I believe is an asset. Richard and I both acknowledge that we erred in this thread. While his error was an innocent mistake, mine was a bit more severe. Dan, I owe you an apology. I did not pick up your very valid point of concern and should have. I hope that you do choose to stay with us and do not allow an innocent mistake to chase you away. You bring a nice voice to the table and it is good to have you here. |
|
dfx
Junior Member
Posts: 221
|
Post by dfx on Aug 2, 2010 8:23:24 GMT -5
After reading the above posting from Mr. Kelsey, I believe his posting was an honest mistake.
That said, I don't think any of you can blame me for reacting to even the most seemingly insignificant mistake as things posted on the internet have an eternal lifespan and can easily be taken out of context by people wishing to distort things to demonize their opponents. (See recent Shirley Sherrod "racism" episode & the confirmation process of Solicitor General Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court.)
This has nothing to do with growing a thicker skin, rather it has to do with limiting the opportunities for others to twist the true meanings of your messages. I would imagine that's why most elected officials - regardless of party affiliation - do not post on blogs. The fallacy that most/all politicians do not want to hear from the their constituents is simply just not true, but to not recognize the dangers of this medium would be to simply ignore the reality of today's divisive political scene. (For example, I've seen some very good people who've worked tirelessly for Freehold Borough get unfairly criticized and targeted on this very board.)
dfx
|
|
|
|
Post by lisas84 on Aug 2, 2010 8:38:24 GMT -5
After reading the above posting from Mr. Kelsey, I believe his posting was an honest mistake. That said, I don't think any of you can blame me for reacting to even the most seemingly insignificant mistake as things posted on the internet have an eternal lifespan and can easily be taken out of context by people wishing to distort things to demonize their opponents. (See recent Shirley Sherrod "racism" episode & the confirmation process of Solicitor General Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court.) This has nothing to do with growing a thicker skin, rather it has to do with limiting the opportunities for others to twist the true meanings of your messages. I would imagine that's why most elected officials - regardless of party affiliation - do not post on blogs. The fallacy that most/all politicians do not want to hear from the their constituents is simply just not true, but to not recognize the dangers of this medium would be to simply ignore the reality of today's divisive political scene. (For example, I've seen some very good people who've worked tirelessly for Freehold Borough get unfairly criticized and targeted on this very board.) dfx Exactly. Well said and quite astute. |
|
|
|
Post by richardkelsey on Aug 2, 2010 9:10:24 GMT -5
Thanks Dan -- I see your point about having people come along later, take what you say out of context, and misuse it in another place. If one person here can appreciate that tactic, it's me.
One way to fix this would be to dump my mistaken mis-post, and that would eliminate the opportunity for third-party foul play. (We should probably then eliminate the references to it so as to not make the thread confusing.)
Since you were the victim of my error -- I don't want to impose a remedy with which you are unhappy.
|
|
