The Vultures are Gathering

[Rohirrim]

As fiscal hawks surrendered, would-be government contractors were meeting in the Hart Senate Office Building to figure out how to get a share of the money. A "Katrina Reconstruction Summit," hosted by Sen. Mel Martinez (R-Fla.) and sponsored by Halliburton, among others, brought some 200 lobbyists, corporate representatives and government staffers to a room overlooking the Capitol for a five-hour conference that included time for a "networking break" and advice on "opportunities for private sector involvement."
Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) sent his budget director, Bill Hoagland, who cautioned that federal Katrina spending might not exceed $100 billion. But John Clerici, from a law firm that helped sponsor the event, told the group that spending would "probably be larger" than $200 billion. "It's going to be spent in a fast and furious way," Clerici said.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/26/AR2005092601859.html

[patteeu]

It's easy to call them vultures when you aren't struggling to get by after your city has been destroyed. One man's vulture is another man's emergency reconstruction savior. Having said that, I think the federal government should be pretty stingy when it comes to providing aid for reconstruction (especially for the city of New Orleans), but that's politically infeasible.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

It's easy to call them vultures when you aren't struggling to get by after your city has been destroyed.

And it's even easier when your pResident does something like repeal the Davis-Bacon Act to make sure you aren't even paid the prevailing wage as you struggle to get by and to rebuild your city.

[enjolras]

It's easy to call them vultures when you aren't struggling to get by after your city has been destroyed. One man's vulture is another man's emergency reconstruction savior. Having said that, I think the federal government should be pretty stingy when it comes to providing aid for reconstruction (especially for the city of New Orleans), but that's politically infeasible.

So the half empty cruise ships you and I are paying for is a reconstruction savior? Carnival is making.. DOUBLE.. what they'd make if the cruise was actually running and the ship isn't even MOVING!

Its just dumb.. stupid.. and should be criminal. In light of these meetings it really makes you step back and go WTF?!?!

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9507503/

[TheDave]

So the half empty cruise ships you and I are paying for is a reconstruction savior? Carnival is making.. DOUBLE.. what they'd make if the cruise was actually running and the ship isn't even MOVING!

Its just dumb.. stupid.. and should be criminal. In light of these meetings it really makes you step back and go WTF?!?!

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9507503/

That is absolutely pathetic... Cancel those damn contracts, and stop pissing away money.

[patteeu]

So the half empty cruise ships you and I are paying for is a reconstruction savior? Carnival is making.. DOUBLE.. what they'd make if the cruise was actually running and the ship isn't even MOVING!

Its just dumb.. stupid.. and should be criminal. In light of these meetings it really makes you step back and go WTF?!?!

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9507503/

I'd bet that the people who are half filling those cruise ships think it's a pretty swell situation.

[patteeu]

And it's even easier when your pResident does something like repeal the Davis-Bacon Act to make sure you aren't even paid the prevailing wage as you struggle to get by and to rebuild your city.

That creates a situation where federal dollars can go farther. More bang for the buck. So which is it? Is Bush bad because he's paying (so to speak) too much to help the people of New Orleans or is he bad because he's not paying enough?

[patteeu]

That is absolutely pathetic... Cancel those damn contracts, and stop pissing away money.

What you people don't understand is that you can't have everything. You can't have rock bottom costs, maximum effectiveness, and rapid response all at the same time. What was the first big criticism of the response? Answer: it was too slow. These contracts are what happen when the government tries to do things fast. They had to sacrifice competitive bidding (i.e. lowest prices) for speed.

All of you should try to be honest and tell me what your reaction would have been if people had languished in the streets of New Orleans for another 10 days while the feds negotiated contracts with cruise line operators to get the best price while the ships sat empty waiting for orders to head for New Orleans?

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

What you people don't understand is that you can't have everything.

Hilarious!

This from a shill for the same misadministration that says it's OK to cut taxes on millionaires, billionaires, and corporations while spending half a trillion dollars to wage a war of choice in Iraq?

OMG, that's just too funny!

rofl

http://www.bartcop.com/beam-monkey.jpg

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

That creates a situation where federal dollars can go farther. More bang for the buck. So which is it? Is Bush bad because he's paying (so to speak) too much to help the people of New Orleans or is he bad because he's not paying enough?

:laugh:

Surely you don't think you're fooling anyone with your RNC talking points?

For the rest of us, there's the following facts:

Bush Helps Disaster Profiteers

President Bush is taking advantage of the Katrina tragedy to get rid of workers' protections in favor of higher profits for politically connected corporations.

President Bush has been justly criticized for his mishandling of the Katrina disaster, for his failure of leadership and for his indecisiveness. But on two matters involving post-hurricane reconstruction, Bush has been exceedingly decisive. First, he suspended federal rules to allow FEMA and the Army Corps of Engineers to extend no-bid contracts to corporations engaged in the rebuilding. In doing so, he also allowed companies with close political ties to get to the front of the line.

Second, Bush sweetened these contracts even more by suspending the federal Davis-Bacon Act, the Depression-era law that requires contractors with federal funds to pay local "prevailing wages" on construction projects. Through these actions, Bush revealed that despite all the rhetoric about compassion toward the victims of Katrina, the administration's crony capitalism and corporate agenda is never far below the surface.

Katrina is a disaster for the people of the gulf region and for the nation's economy. About 400,000 Americans will lose their jobs, according to the Congressional Budget Office. But for some companies, especially those with political connections, Katrina - like the war in Iraq - is a bonanza.

Congress has already appropriated $62 billion for post-Katrina relief and repair, and the figure is expected to exceed $100 billion. The reconstruction of New Orleans and the gulf coast, like the rebuilding of Iraq, has unleashed a feeding frenzy of government contracts to companies. FEMA and the Army Corps of Engineers quickly suspended rules in order to allow no-bid contracts and speed up reconstruction. Politically connected firms like Haliburton, Fluor Corporation, and Bechtel have already scooped up hundreds of millions of dollars for post-Katrina reconstruction.

Haliburton, formerly run by Vice President Dick Cheney, is facing questions for allegedly overcharging on work done in Iraq. The Department of Defense has been criticized for awarding Iraq reconstruction contracts to Haliburton and Bechtel without competition. Since the storm hit, Haliburton's shares have risen by more than 10 percent to $65.

This crony capitalism, rampant during the Bush Administration, is bad enough. But Bush added insult to injury by suspending the Davis-Bacon law for Katrina-damaged areas of Alabama, Florida, Louisiana and Mississippi.

The Davis-Bacon law, enacted in 1931, sets a minimum pay scale for workers on federal contracts by requiring contractors to pay the prevailing or average pay in the region. The prevailing wage in New Orleans is $9/hour for construction work, far below that of most other parts of the country. The Executive Order came a day after a group of 35 Republican members of Congress asked Bush to suspend the law for recovery effort. The Bush administration, Congressional Republicans and their corporate allies have long opposed the Davis-Bacon law, just as they've opposed raising the federal minimum wage from the current below-poverty level of $5.15.

During the 2004 election cycle, the construction industry donated $71 million to candidates for the White House and Congress. Seventy-two percent of those contributions went to Republicans, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonpartisan watchdog group. Now it's pay-back time.

President Bush's behavior is consistent. In the wake of the 9/11 tragedy, Bush used concerns over national security as a pretext for undermining workers' rights. His legislation sought to strip 170,000 federal employees being transferred to the new Department of Homeland Security of various workplace protections, including civil service regulations and collective bargaining rights. Similarly, the legislation federalizing about 56,000 airport screeners exempted them from union protections. Soon after 9/11, Bush also established a quota requiring government agencies to outsource at least 425,000 (later upped to 850,000) federal jobs to private contractors (many of which, it turns out, had contributed to his campaign).

In December 2001, Bush also revoked rules prohibiting companies with a track record of violating federal labor laws - as well as environmental, consumer protection, civil rights and tax laws - from signing outsource employment contracts with federal agencies.

Now Bush is taking advantage of the Katrina tragedy to get rid of workers' protections in favor of higher profits for favored corporations. The suspension of Davis-Bacon is an open invitation to employers to hire people who are desperate for jobs, and pay them low wages.

Edward Sullivan, president of the AFL-CIO Building and Construction Trades Department, called Bush's act "legalized looting of these workers who will be cleaning up toxic sites and struggling to rebuild their communities, while favored contractors rake in huge profits from FEMA reconstruction contracts."

Indeed, suspending Davis-Bacon is the exactly the wrong move at this time. What the devastated areas need is people with jobs that pay decent wages so they can contribute to stimulating the local economy. Federal funds should be used to help get families back on their feet, not to exacerbate their suffering.

As the reconstruction proceeds, the federal government will not only be rebuilding levees, dams and road, but also subsidizing the rebuilding of the region's low-wage tourism economy, including its hotels and casinos. Three years ago in New Orleans, ACORN (a community group) and the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) initiated a referendum - supported by 63% of voters - to adopt a municipal wage of $1 above the federal level for businesses with over $500,000 in revenues. The law would have benefited about 70,000 low-income workers, mostly African-Americans, mostly employed in the tourism industry. Those businesses led the opposition to the minimum wage proposal. After the voters approved it, the major New Orleans employers successfully filed suit in Louisiana Supreme Court to overturn the people's will.

These same firms will soon have their hands out to receive federal largesse to rebuild their enterprises. If major hotel and casino chains - as well as big construction firms - are going to get billions of dollars in taxpayer funds and government-backed insurance, shouldn't there be some quid-pro-quos - like requiring them to pay a living wage - that guarantee fairness for the real victims of the Bush administration's failure of leadership in protecting people from Katrina?

The Bush administration obviously doesn't think so. Even amidst the tragedy of Katrina, Bush's conservatism trumps his compassion.

[Rohirrim]

What exactly does the GOP stand for anymore? I know it used to be fiscal conservativism, but obviously, that's no longer the case. They're blowing money like a bunch of drunken sailors and adding it all to the deficit. They also used to be against international adventurism and nation-building. Obviously, that's no longer true. So, what is it?

[patteeu]

What exactly does the GOP stand for anymore? I know it used to be fiscal conservativism, but obviously, that's no longer the case. They're blowing money like a bunch of drunken sailors and adding it all to the deficit. They also used to be against international adventurism and nation-building. Obviously, that's no longer true. So, what is it?

That is a good question. I'm sure there are still some small government conservatives in the GOP, but right now, the big government conservatives (oxymoron?) seem to be in charge. Personally, I don't fault them for spending what it takes to win in Iraq now that we're there, but I've got problems with a lot of their other spending programs (from Katrina rebuilding to prescription drugs and highway pork). Unfortunately, there isn't any reason to think democrats would be any better other than the likelihood that the republicans would go back to being small government advocates and provide some resistance to democrat spending unlike the current opposition which is more than happy to go along with Washington's big spending binge.

[Garcia Bronco]

That is a good question. I'm sure there are still some small government conservatives in the GOP, but right now, the big government conservatives (oxymoron?) seem to be in charge. Personally, I don't fault them for spending what it takes to win in Iraq now that we're there, but I've got problems with a lot of their other spending programs (from Katrina rebuilding to prescription drugs and highway pork). Unfortunately, there isn't any reason to think democrats would be any better other than the likelihood that the republicans would go back to being small government advocates and provide some resistance to democrat spending unlike the current opposition which is more than happy to go along with Washington's big spending binge.

Indeed.

[enjolras]

I certainly don't think democrats as a whole represent a better option for controlling our spending. Historically a split executive/congressional branch has produced the best results.

However, in this case these hastily negotiated contracts are a RESULT of poor planning. Not to mention the accute lack of sense shown in the amount being paid and the term its being paid for... throwing *my* money away, for whatever reason, pisses me off. I've been directly involved in negotiating more than one multi-million dollar contract (I have one going on right now), some of which have been neogtiated under enormous time pressure. We manage to strike reasonable deals, as do thousands of other businesses across the country, because we're capable of protecting our money. Consistently, over the last few years, the people put in charge of *my* money have lacked the leadership and experience needed to do that. That's the fundamental problem here...

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Personally, I don't fault them for spending what it takes to win in Iraq now that we're there, but I've got problems with a lot of their other spending programs (from Katrina rebuilding to prescription drugs and highway pork).

You forgot to factor in Bush's tax cuts.

Never before has an administration tried to pay for a war while cutting taxes on millionaires and billionaires at the same time.

Unfortunately, there isn't any reason to think democrats would be any better

That's ridiculous.

Democrats always clean up the economic messes created by republican administrations.

That's what we do.

Clinton worked for eight years to get the massive deficits created during the Raygun and Poppy years under control. We were making real progress, and then Dim Son came along and fVcked everything up again.

[W*GS]

Democrats always clean up the economic messes created by republican administrations.

Quoting:

"That's ridiculous".

Clinton worked for eight years to get the massive deficits created during the Raygun and Poppy years under control. We were making real progress, and then Dim Son came along and fVcked everything up again.

Back to doing several fatties a day, are we, LABF?

Meaning, someone would have be stoned out of their mind to believe the above. Besides, Clinton was no liberal - he was a Republican Lite. All the real progressives (into whose camp your rhetoric solidly places you) thought so during Clinton's watch, and they still think so. Indeed, we haven't had even a chance at a real liberal for President since McGovern got creamed in '72.

[Taco John]

Unfortunately, there isn't any reason to think democrats would be any better...


If I remember correctly, the Democrats were the last party to run a balanced budget. That's not a reason to think the democrats would be any better? What are you looking for as a signal?

[Taco John]

That said, I wouldn't have voted for Kerry unless it came with a free car. That said, I wouldn't vote for Bush even IF it came with a free car.

[patteeu]

If I remember correctly, the Democrats were the last party to run a balanced budget. That's not a reason to think the democrats would be any better? What are you looking for as a signal?

During that brief window of balanced budgets, spending was at an all time high. Don't kid yourself.

Besides, the restrained growth of spending we saw during that period was due to the divided government factor to which I alluded and which enjolras mentioned explicitly.

[patteeu]

That said, I wouldn't have voted for Kerry unless it came with a free car. That said, I wouldn't vote for Bush even IF it came with a free car.

Didn't you try to talk your neighbor into voting for Kerry or something like that?

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

If I remember correctly, the Democrats were the last party to run a balanced budget. That's not a reason to think the democrats would be any better? What are you looking for as a signal?

:thumbsup: Rep.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

During that brief window of balanced budgets, spending was at an all time high. Don't kid yourself.

???

An "all time high?"

What sort of facts do you have that would support such an assertion?

In any event, even if you were right, the fact that there was a balanced budget sort of renders your point moot, doesn't it?

[patteeu]

???

An "all time high?"

What sort of facts do you have that would support such an assertion?

In any event, even if you were right, the fact that there was a balanced budget sort of renders your point moot, doesn't it?

Here is some historical budget data (spending in $billions by year) from the CBO (http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=1821&sequence=0):


Year Billions Spent
1962 106.8
1963 111.3
1964 118.5
1965 118.2
1966 134.5
1967 157.5
1968 178.1
1969 183.6

1970 195.7
1971 210.2
1972 230.7
1973 245.7
1974 269.4
1975 332.3
1976 371.8
1977 409.2
1978 458.7
1979 504

1980 590.9
1981 678.2
1982 745.7
1983 808.4
1984 851.9
1985 946.4
1986 990.4
1987 1,004.10
1988 1,064.50
1989 1,143.80

1990 1,253.10
1991 1,324.30
1992 1,381.60
1993 1,409.50
1994 1,461.90
1995 1,515.80
1996 1,560.50
1997 1,601.20
1998 1,652.60
1999 1,701.90

2000 1,789.10
2001 1,863.00
2002 2,011.00
2003 2,159.90
2004 2,292.20

2001 was the last balanced budget. $1.8 trillion in spending that year was an all time high. As you can see from the table, spending increased each and every year under Clinton's administration.

And no, the fact that there were balanced budgets during Clinton's final years doesn't make the point moot. Big government is still big government even if it has a balanced budget.

[patteeu]

If I remember correctly, the Democrats were the last party to run a balanced budget. That's not a reason to think the democrats would be any better? What are you looking for as a signal?

Furthermore, if balanced budgets are important to you, the democrats are the ones killing any chance of reform for the biggest threats to future balanced budgets, Social Security and Medicare. Without fundamental reform of those programs, the flirtation we had with balanced budgets at the end of Clinton's term is like building a sand castle as a hurricane approaches.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Furthermore, if balanced budgets are important to you, the democrats are the ones killing any chance of reform for the biggest threats to future balanced budgets, Social Security and Medicare. Without fundamental reform of those programs, the flirtation we had with balanced budgets at the end of Clinton's term is like building a sand castle as a hurricane approaches.
Complete BS! Show me ANY plan introduced by ANY republican that doesn't add a trillion or more to the decifit and keeps SS solvent.

Another fact for you, Bush's Medicare package (fraud) was a lie from the very beginning.

Let's take a look at the the rest of the figures you posted earlier. Notice what years there is deficit spending and what years there aren't?

.

[patteeu]

Complete BS! Show me ANY plan introduced by ANY republican that doesn't add a trillion or more to the decifit and keeps SS solvent.

What does that have to do with anything I said? Absent just cancelling SS altogether, that program is going to have a burdensome impact on Federal finances no matter what is done. If it is reformed in a fundamental way that fixes the problem for good (i.e. moves us away from the current ponzi scheme), there will be transition costs in the relative short term. If nothing is done, it will eventually have an even bigger impact. BTW, where is the Democrat plan that doesn't just kick the can down the road like all the other SS fixes we've had over the past few decades?

Another fact for you, Bush's Medicare package (fraud) was a lie from the very beginning.

I don't know what you are talking about but it sounds more like an opinion than a fact.

Let's take a look at the the rest of the figures you posted earlier. Notice what years there is deficit spending and what years there aren't?

These aren't "the rest" of the figures. These are additional figures that were irrelevant to the challenge LABF made to my assertion that Clinton's budgets included "all time high" levels of spending. As for noticing which years represent balanced budgets and which years represent deficit spending, that subject has already been discussed in this thread.

ATTENTION EVERYONE. PLEASE PAUSE THE THREAD WHILE BEERSLUG CATCHES UP. THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.

There, that should help. Take your time and let us know when you are ready to move on.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

What does that have to do with anything I said?
Like I said....................
Complete BS! Show me ANY plan introduced by ANY republican that doesn't add a trillion or more to the decifit and keeps SS solvent.
Furthermore, if balanced budgets are important to you, the democrats are the ones killing any chance of reform for the biggest threats to future balanced budgets, Social Security and Medicare.




I don't know what you are talking about but it sounds more like an opinion than a fact.
Of course you don't! Otherwise you wouldn't have mentioned that democrats
were responsible for the new version of the Medicare fraud when it comes to balancing the budget. If you really are ignorant about Bush's Medicare fraud program, google it or search here.



These aren't "the rest" of the figures. These are additional figures that were irrelevant to the challenge LABF made to my assertion that Clinton's budgets included "all time high" levels of spending. As for noticing which years represent balanced budgets and which years represent deficit spending, that subject has already been discussed in this thread.
Ah yes, the "additional figures" which blow your above statemnets about democrats responsible for not balancing the budget all to hell! Trying to defend the all-time record spending by Bush by blaming democrats for not balancing the budget brings you right down on level to errand's genius.


ATTENTION EVERYONE. PLEASE PAUSE THE THREAD WHILE BEERSLUG CATCHES UP. THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.



Now, after YOU catch up, come back for some additional classes.

[enjolras]

Ahh fun with numbers..

While government spending in 1999 was at an all time high, so was the income the government was bringing in. Lets dig a little deeper..

The total amount of increase between 1990-1999 was 448 billion. Basically in 1 decade government spending increased by that amount. Since 2000 spending increased by 503 billion. That means that overall government has grown in half a decade 55 billion MORE than in the entirety of the previous decade.

From 1990-1999 the government increased its collections by 795.5 billion which means collections (during that period) outgrew spending by 347.5 billion

Since 2000 collections decreased by 145.1 billion. Meaning that spending outgrew collections by 648.1 billion!

In short, the government has lost spending power since 2000 (not surprising given the weaker economy), but has actually increased its spending by a much larger margin than it did during the whole of the previous decade. That is an incredibly irresponsible policy, and absolutely shocking when a supposedly 'conservative' party is in power.

It highlights how the current republican party is only conservative in the restriction of liberties (social conservatism), but is actually quite prone to tremendous fiscal irresponsibility. Give me the republicans of the early 90's (just as responsible for the balanced budget as the Dem's) any day.

[Rohirrim]

Ahh fun with numbers..

While government spending in 1999 was at an all time high, so was the income the government was bringing in. Lets dig a little deeper..

The total amount of increase between 1990-1999 was 448 billion. Basically in 1 decade government spending increased by that amount. Since 2000 spending increased by 503 billion. That means that overall government has grown in half a decade 55 billion MORE than in the entirety of the previous decade.

From 1990-1999 the government increased its collections by 795.5 billion which means collections (during that period) outgrew spending by 347.5 billion

Since 2000 collections decreased by 145.1 billion. Meaning that spending outgrew collections by 648.1 billion!

In short, the government has lost spending power since 2000 (not surprising given the weaker economy), but has actually increased its spending by a much larger margin than it did during the whole of the previous decade. That is an incredibly irresponsible policy, and absolutely shocking when a supposedly 'conservative' party is in power.

It highlights how the current republican party is only conservative in the restriction of liberties (social conservatism), but is actually quite prone to tremendous fiscal irresponsibility. Give me the republicans of the early 90's (just as responsible for the balanced budget as the Dem's) any day.

I have to agree with Krugman, that the Bush neocons have nothing to do with the old GOP, but are a rogue, "revolutionary" movement, in other words, extremists.

[patteeu]

Like I said....................
Complete BS! Show me ANY plan introduced by ANY republican that doesn't add a trillion or more to the decifit and keeps SS solvent.

I don't know of any such plan. Now you show me the democrat plan that doesn't just kick the can down the road. And then show me how any of this is relevant to anything I said in this thread before you tried to stumble your way through it.

Of course you don't! Otherwise you wouldn't have mentioned that democrats were responsible for the new version of the Medicare fraud when it comes to balancing the budget. If you really are ignorant about Bush's Medicare fraud program, google it or search here.

Did a tree fall on your head when the hurricane hit, Beerslug? I don't even know what the "new version of the Medicare fraud" is so it's pretty unlikely that I mentioned that the democrats are responsible for it. What I did say is that democrats stand in the way of real reform of entitlements. That was true a decade ago, it's true today, and it will probably be true until the day after Jake Plummer is inducted into the HOF.

My google search returned zero results (I've attached a screenshot of the results page). I guess I'll have to remain ignorant about this important, but irrelevant sideshow you bring to the table.

Ah yes, the "additional figures" which blow your above statemnets about democrats responsible for not balancing the budget all to hell! Trying to defend the all-time record spending by Bush by blaming democrats for not balancing the budget brings you right down on level to errand's genius.

Are we going to need to ask Taco John to assign someone to help you work your way through these threads? I've made no "above statements about democrats responsible for not balancing the budget" to blow all to hell. There is also no defense of "the all-time record spending by Bush." In fact, quite the opposite. I was critical of Republican spending under Bush.

Now, after YOU catch up, come back for some additional classes.

Isn't this a little unimaginative? Kind of like the "I'm not but you are" smack you might hear on a grade school playground?

But thanks for the offer anyway. I could use a class on how to attach an image like the one you did in post #25. Is there any way to position the image in the middle of my response instead of at the end?

[patteeu]

Ahh fun with numbers..

While government spending in 1999 was at an all time high, so was the income the government was bringing in. Lets dig a little deeper..

The total amount of increase between 1990-1999 was 448 billion. Basically in 1 decade government spending increased by that amount. Since 2000 spending increased by 503 billion. That means that overall government has grown in half a decade 55 billion MORE than in the entirety of the previous decade.

From 1990-1999 the government increased its collections by 795.5 billion which means collections (during that period) outgrew spending by 347.5 billion

Since 2000 collections decreased by 145.1 billion. Meaning that spending outgrew collections by 648.1 billion!

In short, the government has lost spending power since 2000 (not surprising given the weaker economy), but has actually increased its spending by a much larger margin than it did during the whole of the previous decade. That is an incredibly irresponsible policy, and absolutely shocking when a supposedly 'conservative' party is in power.

It highlights how the current republican party is only conservative in the restriction of liberties (social conservatism), but is actually quite prone to tremendous fiscal irresponsibility. Give me the republicans of the early 90's (just as responsible for the balanced budget as the Dem's) any day.

Thanks for confirming my original assertion and I agree with your concluding sentence.

I do take issue with your claim that the current republican party is conservative in the restriction of liberties. Aside from GWoT related issues (e.g. Padilla, Patriot Act, enemy combatants, etc.) where it is arguable that liberties have been restricted, I don't see much in the way of restricted liberties coming from this administration. And even if we stipulate that those GWoT issues do constitute significant restrictions of liberty, they aren't really the kind of restrictions that one would associate with conservatism. They are the kind of restrictions that I'd associate with the party in power. Clinton spearheaded security reforms during his Presidency (in the wake of OK City and TWA 500), it's just that he didn't have a war to base more significant reforms on.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

I don't know of any such plan.

Your search skills seem to be on par with your comprehension skills today.


http://72.22.74.110/BB/showthread.php?t=11477&highlight=medicare+bush

http://72.22.74.110/BB/showthread.php?t=19625&highlight=medicare+bush


.
http://img130.imageshack.us/img130/228/medicarefraud7st.jpg

[enjolras]

Thanks for confirming my original assertion and I agree with your concluding sentence.

I do take issue with your claim that the current republican party is conservative in the restriction of liberties. Aside from GWoT related issues (e.g. Padilla, Patriot Act, enemy combatants, etc.) where it is arguable that liberties have been restricted, I don't see much in the way of restricted liberties coming from this administration. And even if we stipulate that those GWoT issues do constitute significant restrictions of liberty, they aren't really the kind of restrictions that one would associate with conservatism. They are the kind of restrictions that I'd associate with the party in power. Clinton spearheaded security reforms during his Presidency (in the wake of OK City and TWA 500), it's just that he didn't have a war to base more significant reforms on.

Republicans in general consistently come down on the side of restriction. You can't simply shrug off the patriot act, DMCA, and a host of other restricting laws. There are other hot button issues as well. Abortion is one example, gay marraige, casino gambling, etc.. Those at the federal level set the tone, but the most egregious offenses do occur at the state level (like the proposed ban on sexually suggestive cheerleading routines here in Texas). Its all the 'family value' fluff that Republicans are so fond of.. its social conservatism by its very definition.

Do note: I'm not suggesting that Democrats are better in this regard. They tend to restriction a DIFFERENT set of liberties with things like seat belt laws, incredibly over the top environmental protection, and their love of laws that protect you from yourself.

I think the best example of this is prostitution which is essentially a victimless crime. The republicans oppose prostitution on a largely religious ground (generally wrapped in a save the children type of argument), the democrats on the grounds that it 'victimizes' women. Both restrict a liberty, and both do it for reasons the government just shouldn't be concerned about. A better solution is to regulate prostitution with the establishment of red light districts and STD tests. This gets the women out of the neighborhoods (a true problem with prostitution) and allows the undesirable nature of it to be mitigated as much as possible.

Another example in the current news:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9534365/. Essentially in the wake of Katrina some are arguing that the casinos should be allowed ashore. The predictable republican response: "The more they become woven into the fabric of the community,” says Churck Register, senior pastor at the Gulfport First Baptist Church, “the more we see teenagers becoming addicted and families being dissolved."

Here we see a religious message that gambling is bad, being wrapped in the 'save the children' style argument. The fundamental question to answer: "Is it governments job to protect people (and peoples families) from themselves?" I don't think so.. that's the job of the people. So in this case we are seeing something really beneficial being fought tooth and nail because of a desire to restrict liberties.

If you look at pure platform, its what seperates the Republicans (low spending, high order) from the Libertarians (low spending, low order). Of course, the neocon movement has all but abandoned fiscal responsibility which puts them in a very different category. This isn't a case of democrats good, republicans bad.. but really something much larger. The death of personal responsibility has been accompanied by the death of personal liberties. We have a government concerned with what se SHOULDN'T do, instead of finding ways to facilitate freedom, while preserving the safety and happiness of the people as a whole.

BTW: I recognize that the republican party is a diverse bunch. There are many republicans who are really a sort of mainstream libertarian (they where actually the crux of the party in the early 90's, before being hijacked by the religious crusaders). I'm really stereotyping here, but I do think as a general rule it holds.

[BroncoInferno]

Republicans in general consistently come down on the side of restriction. You can't simply shrug off the patriot act, DMCA, and a host of other restricting laws. There are other hot button issues as well. Abortion is one example, gay marraige, casino gambling, etc.. Those at the federal level set the tone, but the most egregious offenses do occur at the state level (like the proposed ban on sexually suggestive cheerleading routines here in Texas). Its all the 'family value' fluff that Republicans are so fond of.. its social conservatism by its very definition.

Do note: I'm not suggesting that Democrats are better in this regard. They tend to restriction a DIFFERENT set of liberties with things like seat belt laws, incredibly over the top environmental protection, and their love of laws that protect you from yourself.

I think the best example of this is prostitution which is essentially a victimless crime. The republicans oppose prostitution on a largely religious ground (generally wrapped in a save the children type of argument), the democrats on the grounds that it 'victimizes' women. Both restrict a liberty, and both do it for reasons the government just shouldn't be concerned about. A better solution is to regulate prostitution with the establishment of red light districts and STD tests. This gets the women out of the neighborhoods (a true problem with prostitution) and allows the undesirable nature of it to be mitigated as much as possible.

Another example in the current news:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9534365/. Essentially in the wake of Katrina some are arguing that the casinos should be allowed ashore. The predictable republican response: "The more they become woven into the fabric of the community,” says Churck Register, senior pastor at the Gulfport First Baptist Church, “the more we see teenagers becoming addicted and families being dissolved."

Here we see a religious message that gambling is bad, being wrapped in the 'save the children' style argument. The fundamental question to answer: "Is it governments job to protect people (and peoples families) from themselves?" I don't think so.. that's the job of the people. So in this case we are seeing something really beneficial being fought tooth and nail because of a desire to restrict liberties.

If you look at pure platform, its what seperates the Republicans (low spending, high order) from the Libertarians (low spending, low order). Of course, the neocon movement has all but abandoned fiscal responsibility which puts them in a very different category. This isn't a case of democrats good, republicans bad.. but really something much larger. The death of personal responsibility has been accompanied by the death of personal liberties. We have a government concerned with what se SHOULDN'T do, instead of finding ways to facilitate freedom, while preserving the safety and happiness of the people as a whole.

BTW: I recognize that the republican party is a diverse bunch. There are many republicans who are really a sort of mainstream libertarian (they where actually the crux of the party in the early 90's, before being hijacked by the religious crusaders). I'm really stereotyping here, but I do think as a general rule it holds.

Wow. Strong post. I pretty much agree with everything here.

[W*GS]

[...]This isn't a case of democrats good, republicans bad.. but really something much larger. The death of personal responsibility has been accompanied by the death of personal liberties. We have a government concerned with what se SHOULDN'T do, instead of finding ways to facilitate freedom, while preserving the safety and happiness of the people as a whole.

Well, I'd say it's a case "democrats bad, republicans bad".

Both parties are far more interested in increasing State power at the expense of our rights than anything else. Despite what their partisans say, both parties have done their part to make a mockery of the Constitution and our liberties that it protects.

[Taco John]

During that brief window of balanced budgets, spending was at an all time high. Don't kid yourself.

Besides, the restrained growth of spending we saw during that period was due to the divided government factor to which I alluded and which enjolras mentioned explicitly.


Nevertheless... I'd rather have high spending and a balanced budget than high spending and a deficit-spending oriented budget. Wouldn't you?

[Taco John]

Didn't you try to talk your neighbor into voting for Kerry or something like that?


Not really. I talked my neighbor out of voting for Bush. I suppose I'd have voted for Kerry if there was any danger of Bush winning in Washington. But because there wasn't, I was happy to vote for Michael Badnarik. I just didn't want my state to be one of the guilty parties... ugh!~

[enjolras]

Well, I'd say it's a case "democrats bad, republicans bad".

Both parties are far more interested in increasing State power at the expense of our rights than anything else. Despite what their partisans say, both parties have done their part to make a mockery of the Constitution and our liberties that it protects.

That's what I was trying to infer... reading back through it I see that I didn't do that clearly:)

One thing that's interesting to note: Its interesting that on this principle argument most of us agree. We want our liberties back and we want our government minimized... the two choices we have don't give us that. How long until we replace them with something that will?

[Taco John]

Well, I'd say it's a case "democrats bad, republicans bad".

Both parties are far more interested in increasing State power at the expense of our rights than anything else. Despite what their partisans say, both parties have done their part to make a mockery of the Constitution and our liberties that it protects.



That's why we need an honest broker in congress... A third party to balance out the other two.

That's why I vote Libertarian whenever I get the chance.

[patteeu]

Republicans in general consistently come down on the side of restriction. You can't simply shrug off the patriot act, DMCA, and a host of other restricting laws. There are other hot button issues as well. Abortion is one example, gay marraige, casino gambling, etc.. Those at the federal level set the tone, but the most egregious offenses do occur at the state level (like the proposed ban on sexually suggestive cheerleading routines here in Texas). Its all the 'family value' fluff that Republicans are so fond of.. its social conservatism by its very definition.

Do note: I'm not suggesting that Democrats are better in this regard. They tend to restriction a DIFFERENT set of liberties with things like seat belt laws, incredibly over the top environmental protection, and their love of laws that protect you from yourself.

I think the best example of this is prostitution which is essentially a victimless crime. The republicans oppose prostitution on a largely religious ground (generally wrapped in a save the children type of argument), the democrats on the grounds that it 'victimizes' women. Both restrict a liberty, and both do it for reasons the government just shouldn't be concerned about. A better solution is to regulate prostitution with the establishment of red light districts and STD tests. This gets the women out of the neighborhoods (a true problem with prostitution) and allows the undesirable nature of it to be mitigated as much as possible.

Another example in the current news:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9534365/. Essentially in the wake of Katrina some are arguing that the casinos should be allowed ashore. The predictable republican response: "The more they become woven into the fabric of the community,” says Churck Register, senior pastor at the Gulfport First Baptist Church, “the more we see teenagers becoming addicted and families being dissolved."

Here we see a religious message that gambling is bad, being wrapped in the 'save the children' style argument. The fundamental question to answer: "Is it governments job to protect people (and peoples families) from themselves?" I don't think so.. that's the job of the people. So in this case we are seeing something really beneficial being fought tooth and nail because of a desire to restrict liberties.

If you look at pure platform, its what seperates the Republicans (low spending, high order) from the Libertarians (low spending, low order). Of course, the neocon movement has all but abandoned fiscal responsibility which puts them in a very different category. This isn't a case of democrats good, republicans bad.. but really something much larger. The death of personal responsibility has been accompanied by the death of personal liberties. We have a government concerned with what se SHOULDN'T do, instead of finding ways to facilitate freedom, while preserving the safety and happiness of the people as a whole.

BTW: I recognize that the republican party is a diverse bunch. There are many republicans who are really a sort of mainstream libertarian (they where actually the crux of the party in the early 90's, before being hijacked by the religious crusaders). I'm really stereotyping here, but I do think as a general rule it holds.


I agree almost completely with your analysis here, but I have a small disagreement with the presentation.

Your analysis correctly points out that both Republicans and democrats (generally speaking of course) are guilty of favoring restrictions, albiet different types of restrictions. My quibble is over your first sentence. Republicans aren't consistently on the side of restriction because they often oppose the types of restrictions that democrats favor.

Most of your examples of Republican restrictive predilections haven't led to any kind of actual restriction though. For example, there's a lot of talk about restricting abortion, but very little action. Your DMCA example was an excellent one that I hadn't thought of though. It's one of the few non-security-related restrictions that have been implemented during the Bush presidency.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Nevertheless... I'd rather have high spending and a balanced budget than high spending and a deficit-spending oriented budget. Wouldn't you?

Yep.

:thumbsup:

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Wow, just when you thought things couldn't get any worse for right-wingers...

Krispy Kreme sued by largest franchise

http://www.yahoo.com/_ylh=X3oDMTEwdnZjMjFhBF9TAzI3MTYxNDkEdGVzdAMwBHRtc GwDaW5kZXgtY3Nz/s/256240

:D

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Let's take a look at the the rest of the figures you posted earlier. Notice what years there is deficit spending and what years there aren't?


Bingo.

This is how republican administrations always hose the economy.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

http://www.bartcop.com/comp-bk.gif

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Vulture update:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/03/AR2005100301691.html

Most Katrina monies are going to big corporations not situated in the affected areas. Nice. 10/5