Why are jobs headed overseas?

[Texsox]

Reagan was the master at this.

 

We have such a huge tolerance for debt. I believe when our society collapses, and all societies have throughout history, it will be from within and it will be largly because of our huge debt.

[Balta1701]

Very in agreement with.  Read through the GOP thread if you don't believe me.

But see, here's the problem....Conservatives can sit there and say "yeah we agree the deficit is too high", but if you're not willing to do anything about it, what does it matter what you agree about?

 

The Republican Congress has added handout after handout after handout to bills to benefit either their contributors or to try to help their re-election chances in the past few years. See, for example, the explosion of Pork, or the fact that they're cutting taxes at 5-10x the rate they're cutting other programs, or the Medicare drug company bailout bill.

 

Has this triggered a mass defection from the party? No. Has this triggered a significant number of primary challengers for the people who are writing these bills? Maybe one or two, but certainly nothing organized. Has this triggered a decrease in support for Tax cuts until we can reduce the deficit? No. Aside from "agreement", what has it done?

 

You can sit around all day and say "yeah we agree the deficit is too high", but when you say that and still vote and campaign for the exact people who made the deficit too high, then the agreement doesn't really do anything.

[southsider2k5]

But see, here's the problem....Conservatives can sit there and say "yeah we agree the deficit is too high", but if you're not willing to do anything about it, what does it matter what you agree about?

 

The Republican Congress has added handout after handout after handout to bills to benefit either their contributors or to try to help their re-election chances in the past few years.  See, for example, the explosion of Pork, or the fact that they're cutting taxes at 5-10x the rate they're cutting other programs, or the Medicare drug company bailout bill. 

 

Has this triggered a mass defection from the party?  No.  Has this triggered a significant number of primary challengers for the people who are writing these bills?  Maybe one or two, but certainly nothing organized.  Has this triggered a decrease in support for Tax cuts until we can reduce the deficit?  No.  Aside from "agreement", what has it done?

 

You can sit around all day and say "yeah we agree the deficit is too high", but when you say that and still vote and campaign for the exact people who made the deficit too high, then the agreement doesn't really do anything.

 

Well finally the national party has started to listen. Then again, not to many of them have the guts to actually do something about it, but there are many proposals, many of which the dems voted against, to cut many programs out there.

 

The tax cuts actually fit into my philosophy, it is the spending that does not. Right now no other viable party is offering any better alternative. I have yet to see a Democratic bill before anywhere that cut government spending substantially either, so I am not sure exactly what I am supposed to be doing here. Plus I have seen just as many democrats lining up at the trough for their share of the handouts. I have yet to see a Democratic bill that puts money in the hands of people who have the ability to create jobs, instead I see them putting more roadblocks in the way of business, which would only stand to hamper growth. It isn't just Repubs bringing home pork, if it was the outcry would be WAY louder about it.

 

To me the only viable alternative to republicans fiscal policy is even worse than what they are offering. It is the lesser of two evils. If I voted for the people who thought exactly like me, I would only be voting for myself.

 

Your post also got me thinking about this. Are you telling me that you agree with every blank of every canditate that you vote for? Or are you telling me that you should agree with everything that a canditate saids, if you are going to vote for them? I am also curious as to what you disagree with your party and canditates on as I don't think I have ever seen you actually say something like that?

[Balta1701]

Your post also got me thinking about this.  Are you telling me that you agree with every blank of every canditate that you vote for?  Or are you telling me that you should agree with everything that a canditate saids, if you are going to vote for them?  I am also curious as to what you disagree with your party and canditates on as I don't think I have ever seen you actually say something like that?

Of course I don't agree with everything either a candidate or a party says or does. Best example I could give is that I actually agree with you on the budget-deficit issue, and for example I thought that the Medicare drug bill the Democrats wrote was basically worse than the one the Republicans passed. The question I think you have to consider overall is...how important is each issue to you?

 

If I genuinely felt I had a candidate who would advocate a balanced budget, barring him being like a neo-Nazi or something like that, he or she would probably wind up getting my vote, simply because I think the idea of paying interest on debt to cover normal expenditures (and not recovering from a disaster like Katrina or launching a large infrastructure building program) is ludicrous. But like you, I don't see any candidate out there willing to do that. The best alternative I could give in that case would be the split-Congress solution, where each party controls 1 house, and each side has a chance to genuinely knock out the stupid handouts that the other side tries to write in.

 

Actually, when I was in the Dean camp before his meltdown in the primaries, I had 2 main reasons for being in his camp...#1 was Iraq, obviously, but #2 was his skills with Vermont's budget...Vt is the only state in the union not required to find a way to balance its budget every year, and it was badly out of balance when Dean took over that state, but he actually moved the budget back into balance and set aside reserves so that when the economy tanked in 00-01, Vt was able to weather the storm quite readily.

 

After that, well, then it came down to choosing between 2 people I wasn't thrilled with at all, but considering how I view Bush's performance, it wasn't really a contest.

 

If it makes you feel better, just to prove I can be bi-partisan, I did vote for Lugar in 00 when I was still living in Indiana, and I'd probably do that again in 06 unless the Dems ran someone dynamite against him.

[sox4lifeinPA]

so "to get to the otherside" wasn't the right answer???

[southsider2k5]

Of course I don't agree with everything either a candidate or a party says or does.  Best example I could give is that I actually agree with you on the budget-deficit issue, and for example I thought that the Medicare drug bill the Democrats wrote was basically worse than the one the Republicans passed.  The question I think you have to consider overall is...how important is each issue to you?

 

If I genuinely felt I had a candidate who would advocate a balanced budget, barring him being like a neo-Nazi or something like that, he or she would probably wind up getting my vote, simply because I think the idea of paying interest on debt to cover normal expenditures (and not recovering from a disaster like Katrina or launching a large infrastructure building program) is ludicrous.  But like you, I don't see any candidate out there willing to do that.  The best alternative I could give in that case would be the split-Congress solution, where each party controls 1 house, and each side has a chance to genuinely knock out the stupid handouts that the other side tries to write in.

 

Actually, when I was in the Dean camp before his meltdown in the primaries, I had 2 main reasons for being in his camp...#1 was Iraq, obviously, but #2 was his skills with Vermont's budget...Vt is the only state in the union not required to find a way to balance its budget every year, and it was badly out of balance when Dean took over that state, but he actually moved the budget back into balance and set aside reserves so that when the economy tanked in 00-01, Vt was able to weather the storm quite readily.

 

After that, well, then it came down to choosing between 2 people I wasn't thrilled with at all, but considering how I view Bush's performance, it wasn't really a contest.

 

If it makes you feel better, just to prove I can be bi-partisan, I did vote for Lugar in 00 when I was still living in Indiana, and I'd probably do that again in 06 unless the Dems ran someone dynamite against him.

 

All right, I probably read to much into your post then. I think basically we are saying the samething about how we pick canditates. Myself I would have been solidly for something other than Bush first off in 2000. McCain was definately my first choice. Once it got down to Bush and Gore, I saw too much connection to the Clinton corruption and went with Bush thinking he would end up something like his father. To be honest I wanted to crossover in 04, but somehow in John Kerry they found a canditate I disliked more than Gore, and he was involved in most of the same scandals as Gore/Clinton.

[kapkomet]

One of the big reasons why I am surprised that more Republicans (or should I call them "rightists") are not more up in arms with the guy.  Regarding anything fiscally related, he is as far from being a conservative as Ted Kennedy.

Oh, you won't get any arguments from any of us.

[kapkomet]

All right, I probably read to much into your post then.  I think basically we are saying the samething about how we pick canditates.  Myself I would have been solidly for something other than Bush first off in 2000.  McCain was definately my first choice.  Once it got down to Bush and Gore, I saw too much connection to the Clinton corruption and went with Bush thinking he would end up something like his father.  To be honest I wanted to crossover in 04, but somehow in John Kerry they found a canditate I disliked more than Gore, and he was involved in most of the same scandals as Gore/Clinton.

Exactly.

 

I still say if the Dems EVER come up with someone credible and will really stand up for the REAL values of America, it doesn't matter what their party affiliation is, they'll win in a landslide. The fringe left needs to let go of the party... bigtime.

[YASNY]

Exactly. 

 

I still say if the Dems EVER come up with someone credible and will really stand up for the REAL values of America, it doesn't matter what their party affiliation is, they'll win in a landslide.  The fringe left needs to let go of the party... bigtime.

 

I can't tell you how much I agree with that statement. The radical left turns me off to the Democrats so very much. A centrist Democrat would almost certainly get my vote.

[YASNY]

Reagan was the master at this.

 

We have such a huge tolerance for debt. I believe when our society collapses, and all societies have throughout history, it will be from within and it will be largly because of our huge debt.

 

Reagan's spending accomplished something though. It caused the downfall of the USSR. They couldn't keep up. When their economy went to s***, so did the USSR.

Edited January 13, 2006 by YASNY

[NorthSideSox72]

I can't tell you how much I agree with that statement.  The radical left turns me off to the Democrats so very much.  A centrist Democrat would almost certainly get my vote.

 

Candidates who toe the party line, even when it flies in the face of logic, turns me off. In either party. I have always liked candidates who were willing to make the right choice, even if it left their party "lines". People like McCain, Tsongas, Lugar, Powell (when he was considering it), Clark (though he had other problems) and even Kucinich. Those candidates may seem to be all over the board ideologically, but they all were willing to do the right thing, party affiliation or not. They had political cahones. I appreciate that type of courage in politicians.

 

If the Dems could put up a candidate who could demonstrate a history of and desire for fiscal discipline, is good at building real compromise (NOT the same as flip-flopping) and is willing to take the GOP to task on their far right wing's religious fanatacism and hatred, would sweep into the White House. That's whay the Dems need. They don't need to kow-tow to social conservatism - they need the courage to stand for their convictions (not just b**** and moan), and the willingness to take responsibility for the business (fiscally and ethically) of government.

[kapkomet]

Candidates who toe the party line, even when it flies in the face of logic, turns me off.  In either party.  I have always liked candidates who were willing to make the right choice, even if it left their party "lines".  People like McCain, Tsongas, Lugar, Powell (when he was considering it), Clark (though he had other problems) and even Kucinich.  Those candidates may seem to be all over the board ideologically, but they all were willing to do the right thing, party affiliation or not.  They had political cahones.  I appreciate that type of courage in politicians.

 

If the Dems could put up a candidate who could demonstrate a history of and desire for fiscal discipline, is good at building real compromise (NOT the same as flip-flopping) and is willing to take the GOP to task on their far right wing's religious fanatacism and hatred, would sweep into the White House.  That's whay the Dems need.  They don't need to kow-tow to social conservatism - they need the courage to stand for their convictions (not just b**** and moan), and the willingness to take responsibility for the business (fiscally and ethically) of government.

You are absolutely dead on.

 

That's my issue with the whiney sniveling liberals, and even some around here. They'd rather spend more time b****ing and pissing and moaning and talking about how that bastard in the White House has screwed the country so bad... then actually doing something constructive about trying to fix it. Rex is 100% right about one thing and that is it starts with the grass roots. Fix that, and you'll start getting "centrist" ideas, in both parties.

[Rex Kickass]

I can't tell you how much I agree with that statement.  The radical left turns me off to the Democrats so very much.  A centrist Democrat would almost certainly get my vote.

 

No offense, but that's like saying that I'll never vote for a Republican because of Pat Robertson, or Tom Coburn, or Mullah Dobson.

 

I may be a Democrat, but I don't let someone else in the party change my vote for who I think is the best candidate. Oh yeah, and the only time I ever voted straight party line, it was GOP.

[YASNY]

No offense, but that's like saying that I'll never vote for a Republican because of Pat Robertson, or Tom Coburn, or Mullah Dobson.

 

I may be a Democrat, but I don't let someone else in the party change my vote for who I think is the best candidate. Oh yeah, and the only time I ever voted straight party line, it was GOP.

 

No offense, but it seems to me that most of the Dems are closer to the radical left than Reps are to the radical right. Then, it's might be the influence that radical left has over the party. Whatever it is, it's what keeps me from voting Democrat unless the candidate stands head and shoulders above the other choices. On a national stage, I generally vote Republican because I am more inclined to hold conservative views, so the overall Republican agenda touches home with me more than the Democrat agenda.

Edited January 14, 2006 by YASNY

[The Critic]

No offense, but it seems to me that most of the Dems are closer to the radical left than Reps are to the radical right.  Then, it's might be the influence that radical left has over the party.  Whatever it is, it's what keeps me from voting Democrat unless the candidate stands head and shoulders above the other choices.  On a national stage, I generally vote Republican because I am more inclined to hold conservative views, so the overall Republican agenda touches home with me more than the Democrat agenda.

It's weird that you say the radical left overly influences the Dems, because I've always felt the religious right has an unduly strong influence on the Reps.

I guess it's at least partly just perception, and probably partly true, but I don't think either side is as influenced by their radical factions as the other side believes.

[YASNY]

It's weird that you say the radical left overly influences the Dems, because I've always felt the religious right has an unduly strong influence on the Reps.

I guess it's at least partly just perception, and probably partly true, but I don't think either side is as influenced by their radical factions as the other side believes.

 

I can't back my point up, because it's my perception. Maybe it's better if I say the DNC is farther left of center than the RNC is farther right of center. Either way, it's part of the equation.

[The Critic]

I can't back my point up, because it's my perception.  Maybe it's better if I say the DNC is farther left of center than the RNC is farther right of center.  Either way, it's part of the equation.

Oh, I understand what you meant. I was just adding my perception of things to show that I guess it's all how you look at it. And I don't know who's right or wrong, if there even IS a "right and wrong" with it.

[YASNY]

Oh, I understand what you meant. I was just adding my perception of things to show that I guess it's all how you look at it. And I don't know who's right or wrong, if there even IS a "right and wrong" with it.

 

In total agreement with you on that one. Who's right and/or wrong depends on what day it is.

[NorthSideSox72]

No offense, but it seems to me that most of the Dems are closer to the radical left than Reps are to the radical right.

 

YASNY, I've seen you make a lot of great points on here, many I agree with. This, however, is an absurd statement.

[YASNY]

YASNY, I've seen you make a lot of great points on here, many I agree with.  This, however, is an absurd statement.

 

Read the entire post, as I qualified that statement in subsequent sentences. You are taking the sentence of of it's context.

 

Edit: In fact, I qualified even further in the next post when I said that it 'my perception' of things.

Edited January 14, 2006 by YASNY

[Rex Kickass]

YAS,

 

I think its entirely your perception. The RNC doesn't really have a recognizable face. The DNC does. But neither chairman shapes the party.

 

Dean is responsible for one major change in the Dem party, the party is shifting to a more populist and grassroots approach. His comments on policy, don't always reflect the actions of the Dems. But it does fire up his base, and gets peoples boots on the ground. And its manpower, not just money, that wins elections.

[CrimsonWeltall]

Most people don't think of themselves as being FAR left or FAR right. So people who are somewhat left think that the righties are more extreme and people who are somewhat right think that the lefties are more extreme.

[NorthSideSox72]

Most people don't think of themselves as being FAR left or FAR right.  So people who are somewhat left think that the righties are more extreme and people who are somewhat right think that the lefties are more extreme.

 

Precisely.

[YASNY]

YAS,

 

I think its entirely your perception. The RNC doesn't really have a recognizable face. The DNC does. But neither chairman shapes the party.

 

Dean is responsible for one major change in the Dem party, the party is shifting to a more populist and grassroots approach. His comments on policy, don't always reflect the actions of the Dems. But it does fire up his base, and gets peoples boots on the ground. And its manpower, not just money, that wins elections.

 

A possibility I defintely allowed for, before one sentence was taken out of context and called absurd.

[NorthSideSox72]

A possibility I defintely allowed for, before one sentence was taken out of context and called absurd.

 

Looking back, I suppose the word "absurd" was a bit strong, since it was perspective being discussed (which is entirely subjective). Sorry about that.

 

I do agree with the responses here though, stating that it truly is the same from either side of the fence on this one. The other side on an issue always looks more extreme than your own.