Will Republicans Save Us?

Will Republicans Save Us?

Walter E. Williams
August 18, 2010

Democrat control of the White House, House of Representatives and the Senate has produced an unprecedented level of political brazenness and contempt for the limitations placed on the federal government by the U.S. Constitution. As such, it has raised a level of constitutional interest and anger against Washington's interference in our lives that has been dormant for far too long.

Part of this heightened interest and anger is seen in the strength of the tea party movement around the nation. Another is the angry reception that many congressmen receive when they return to their districts and at town hall meetings. According to the most recent Gallup poll, only 20 percent of Americans approve of the job Congress is doing, but that's up from a March 2010 low of 16 percent.

The smart money suggests that there will be a Republican takeover of the House of Representatives and possibly the Senate. The question is what can liberty-minded Americans expect from a Republican majority? Maybe a good starting point for an answer might be to examine how Republicans have handled their majority in the past.

Democrat President Lyndon Johnson's term of office saw massive increases in federal spending. When Johnson was elected into office in 1964, federal spending was $118 billion. When he left office in 1968, federal spending was $178 billion, a 66 percent increase. Worse than the massive increase in federal spending, his administration and Democratically controlled Congress saddled us with two programs that have helped fuel today's fiscal disaster -- Medicare and Medicaid.

The 1994 elections gave Republican control of both the House and Senate. They held a majority for a decade. The 2000 election of George W. Bush as president gave Republicans what the Democrats have now, total control of the legislative and executive branches of government. When Bush came to office, federal spending was $1.788 trillion. When he left office, federal spending was $2.982 trillion. That's a 60 percent increase in federal spending, closely matching the profligacy of Lyndon Johnson's presidency.

During the Republican control, the nation was saddled with massive federal interference in education through No Child Left Behind. Prescription drug handouts became a part of the Republican-controlled Congress' legacy. And it was during this interval that Congress accelerated its interference, assisted by the Federal Reserve Bank, in the housing market in the name of homeownership that produced much of the financial meltdown that the nation suffered in 2008.

During the last two years, Democrats have amassed unprecedented growth of federal government power in the forms of bailouts, corporate takeovers, favors to their political allies and nationalization of our health care system. My question is how likely is it for Republicans to behave differently if they gain control? Their past behavior doesn't make one confident that they will behave much differently, but I could be wrong.

If Republicans win the House of Representatives, there are measures they should take in their first month of office, and that is to undo most of what the Democratically controlled Congress has done. If they don't win a veto-proof Senate, they can't undo Obamacare but the House alone can refuse to fund any part of it. There are numerous blocking tactics that a Republican-controlled House can take against those hell-bent on trampling on our Constitution. The question is whether they will have guts and principle to do it. After all, many Americans, including those who are Republicans, have a stake in big government control, special privileges and handouts.

Ultimately, we Americans must act to ensure that our liberty does not depend on personalities in Washington. Our founders tried to do that with our Constitution. Thomas Jefferson offered us a solution when he said, "The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions, that I wish it to be always kept alive. It will often be exercised when wrong, but better so than not to be exercised at all. I like a little rebellion now and then."

Dr. Williams serves on the faculty of George Mason University as John M. Olin Distinguished Professor of Economics

Q: Will Republicans Save Us?
A: No

So, you'd rather have one party rule in DC? You're getting the same thing that one party rule did under Bush. Chaos.

The question is - will the Republicans save us? My answer to that, and only that, is no. In the nearly two years that Obama has been in office (and supposedly with the Democrats in control), according to many they've screwed America. Okay, that may be so. But again, the question was about Republicans being able to save us... In those same two years that Obama and the Democrats have been in control, the Republicans have done absolutely nothing. I don't see why anyone would think they would be able to (or want to) save us.

Now just going by your comment, I basically agree. We could use more ideas in Congress. I get that and I agree with that. But I don't think that's what any Repbulican (or Democrat) has in mind anymore. They just want to take over for taking-overs sake. Getting things done is now beside the point. Unfortunately.

i_luv_miley wrote:In those same two years that Obama and the Democrats have been in control, the Republicans have done absolutely nothing.

In those two years, the Democrats have torpedoed 90% of amendments to legislation that the GOP has offered. It's unprecedented. Why would anyone vote for a bill that the opposition is not allowing you to partake in? Amendments to bills are when the opposition adds things to it that the originating party hasn't put in. Or it's taking things out that the originating party has in it.

If you, another liberal and me are on a committee for some legislation and you two have it hammered out and then i come along with a couple ideas to add to it and then you say no to it, why would i vote for it?

You can't have it both ways, man. The committees are set up by the majority and the numbers of members of each side corresponds with the number in the majority or minority. If a committee has 10 people but the DNC has a 70% majority in the House, you don't get a 6 to 4 split. More like a 7 to 3 split.

You (not you Tex, but Americans generally) bemoan the lack of compromise in government but you never seem willing and able to break the two party system by registering your dissatisfaction by voting independent or smaller parties in sufficient numbers.

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:You (not you Tex, but Americans generally) bemoan the lack of compromise in government but you never seem willing and able to break the two party system by registering your dissatisfaction by voting independent or smaller parties in sufficient numbers.

It's why i registered with the Minnesota Independence Party when i moved here in 2006. That's not to be confused with national politics. I went Libertarian and voted that way in the last national election (as you know).

But yeah, people are stuck in this two party bullshit. You get what you deserve in that regard, imo. People cant blame me for Democrat or Republican malfeasance.

The obvious problem with a two party system is that more often than not the party in opposition can rely on winning an election simply by being not as bad as the current government. They know they need only be mediocre to win.

TexasBlue wrote:

i_luv_miley wrote:In those same two years that Obama and the Democrats have been in control, the Republicans have done absolutely nothing.

In those two years, the Democrats have torpedoed 90% of amendments to legislation that the GOP has offered. It's unprecedented. Why would anyone vote for a bill that the opposition is not allowing you to partake in? Amendments to bills are when the opposition adds things to it that the originating party hasn't put in. Or it's taking things out that the originating party has in it.

If you, another liberal and me are on a committee for some legislation and you two have it hammered out and then i come along with a couple ideas to add to it and then you say no to it, why would i vote for it?

You can't have it both ways, man. The committees are set up by the majority and the numbers of members of each side corresponds with the number in the majority or minority. If a committee has 10 people but the DNC has a 70% majority in the House, you don't get a 6 to 4 split. More like a 7 to 3 split.

You're assuming that the GOP has offered ideas of their own. I look at it quite differently. From day one of Obama taking office, all I've seen is that they want him out of office, and they will do whatever it takes to achieve that goal. They've even said as much. Of course they've offered "things", such as in the healthcare reform, but even going in they knew nobody would accept what was offered. Even knowing that, they still put forth the "things". As I see it, the GOP has just been playing the role of sore loser for two years. They say they want to be involved, but they act like they want everything their own way, and in the end they get (deservedly) shut out. Again, I don't see how that is doing anyone any favors. Of course both sides are playing this game - but the GOP were playing the same game when they had absolute control. So in the end, the real issue is about hypocrisy - from the right.

Of course, having seen the subsequent messages, I have to agree with what The_Amber_Spyglass has said. Politics is no longer about offering the best solutions (or any solutions for that matter). It's about winning the next election. I would think we all agree that that is something that needs to change.

You haven't answered my question. Do you want one party rule? Do you not want any compromise? Compromise will happen if the GOP gets control of the House.

Regarding the no ideas bit? You made me do it;

Bama said that he "waited in vain for a bipartisan compromise to emerge — a virtual impossibility from the start given the determination of top Republicans to kill his effort and cripple his administration." Republicans have been shunned by committee chairs and Dem leaders who refused to accept GOP amendments to the healthcare bill, even when those amendments aligned with Bama's stated goals for healthcare reform. So, which party is killing bipartisanship? Here comes more meat.....

An amendment was offered to allow Americans to purchase health insurance across state lines was turned down. Never left committee.

More? The GOP offered an amendment that would explicitly prohibit federal officials from making bureaucratic decisions. Chairman Henry Waxman (Dem) and committee Democrats killed that amendment. Guess what? Bama was on the GOP's side on that issue!

Another? Dems killed an amendment that would've prohibited any health care legislation from going into effect unless it were deficit neutral. Bama talked about having that, too. The Dems didn't like that. They killed that, too.

The GOP also tried to help Bama to keep his campaign pledge of not raising taxes for individuals making less than $200,000 per year. Another amendment offered would've exempted all individuals making less than that from all taxes contained in the bill. It was killed in the Ways and Means Committee. A similar amendment in the Education and Labor Committee was shot down by panel Dems.

Here's another. Obama said in a congressional speech to not pay attention to scary stories about how seniors' Medicare benefits will be cut. So, Repubs offered an amendment that would strip the bill of language that cuts funding for Medicare Advantage. But Chairman Charlie Rangel and committee Dems defeated that amendment, too.

Look them up! These are the bills that were proposed by the GOP in the House. You can do a search and find this as fact! H.R. 77; H.R. 109; H.R. 198; H.R. 270; H.R. 321; H.R. 464; H.R. 502; H.R. 544; H.R. 917; H.R. 1086; H.R. 1118; H.R. 1441; H.R. 1458; H.R. 1468; H.R. 1658; H.R. 1891; H.R. 2520; H.R. 2607; H.R. 2692; H.R. 2784; H.R. 2785; H.R. 2786; H.R. 2787; H.R. 3141; H.R. 3217; H.R. 3218; H.R. 3356; H.R. 3372; H.R. 3400; H.R. 3438; H.R. 3454; and H.R. 3478. All of them.... struck down.

Democrats from the start have opposed GOP amendments while screaming about the GOP's refusal to work with the majority party. It's a big fucking lie.

An amendment was offered to allow Americans to purchase health insurance across state lines was turned down. Never left committee...

It's a dumb idea.

The GOP offered an amendment that would explicitly prohibit federal officials from making bureaucratic decisions...

Another dumb idea. It follows the premise that government is bad. It's nothing but right-wing rhetoric.

Dems killed an amendment that would've prohibited any health care legislation from going into effect unless it were deficit neutral...

Things like healthcare cost money - and a lot of it. The Democrats realize this and knew that cuts would have to be made elsewhere (such as defense). The GOP didn't want the cuts (in programs they support), and they knew their ideas would be rejected. And rightfully so, they were.

The GOP also tried to help Bama to keep his campaign pledge of not raising taxes for individuals making less than $200,000 per year...

And yet the GOP is totally against repealing the Bush tax cuts, even they they know healthcare (as an example) costs money. The GOP still won't allow more money to come in in order to do these things that everyone says should be done. Hypocrisy.

So yeah, I agree the Democrats have stopped these GOP "ideas". But they were never reasonable ideas to begin with. From the start, the GOP was only trying to protect their interests (in helping the rich)... When are they going to start proposing ideas that are actually intended to help real people?

I do however agree with you that Obama actually supported some of the "ideas". But again, that only reinforces the right-wing hypocrisy when they spent months saying he was trying to socialize medicine... The fact is, both he and the GOP were trying to protect the insurance companies and pharmaceuticals. So I say good for the Democrats for stopping these "ideas".

And I also agree that it would be better if the two parties would work together... But obviously that's not going to happen. Not anymore unfortunately.

i_luv_miley wrote:An amendment was offered to allow Americans to purchase health insurance across state lines was turned down. Never left committee...

It's a dumb idea.

No. It would lower the cost of insurance. If an insurance company is offering far cheaper insurance in Wisconsin, i have to move there to buy it. I can't since i'm in Minnesota. Another example is in California. Anthem hiked its insurance premiums by 38%. Why did they increase premiums? Cali brought thousands of citizens into its own state version of Medicaid. These people started swarming into hospitals and to doctors for their "free" medical care. California also cut back on payments to health care providers at the same time. The health care providers then shifted their costs over to actual paying customers... customers insured by Anthem. There go the premiums. Had those people been able to buy insurance in another state, their premiums wouldn't have been that high. Your logic is incorrect.

i_luv_miley wrote:The GOP offered an amendment that would explicitly prohibit federal officials from making bureaucratic decisions...

Another dumb idea. It follows the premise that government is bad. It's nothing but right-wing rhetoric.

Why would you want the gov't making a decision on your health? That's mind-boggling beyond all belief.

i_luv_miley wrote:Dems killed an amendment that would've prohibited any health care legislation from going into effect unless it were deficit neutral...

Things like healthcare cost money - and a lot of it. The Democrats realize this and knew that cuts would have to be made elsewhere (such as defense). The GOP didn't want the cuts (in programs they support), and they knew their ideas would be rejected. And rightfully so, they were.

That isn't the point. They wanted it to be deficit neutral. You seem to want to add to it. This bill will have this gov't swimming in even more red ink than it is already. All the tax increases that Dems can came up with won't get us back into the black. That's a fact.

i_luv_miley wrote:The GOP also tried to help Bama to keep his campaign pledge of not raising taxes for individuals making less than $200,000 per year...

And yet the GOP is totally against repealing the Bush tax cuts, even they they know healthcare (as an example) costs money. The GOP still won't allow more money to come in in order to do these things that everyone says should be done. Hypocrisy.

I've already proven to you more than once (with gov't stats) that tax cuts bring in more revenue. It's the spending that causes debt/deficit. Yet, Bama's pledge will be null and void with this bill as it is.

Just remember... even if the GOP can't repeal this bill, they can refuse to fund a dime of this bill unless other tweaks are made. That is a fact. The House controls appropriations, not the Senate and not the president.

i_luv_miley wrote:So yeah, I agree the Democrats have stopped these GOP "ideas". But they were never reasonable ideas to begin with. From the start, the GOP was only trying to protect their interests (in helping the rich)... When are they going to start proposing ideas that are actually intended to help real people?

Doesn't matter what you think they were trying to protect. The fact is that a majority of people in this country want this bill repealed. The fact is that they were allowed no input at all. Therefore, you get no votes because of that alone. I'd expect no less from Democrats if the situation were reversed.

i_luv_miley wrote:I do however agree with you that Obama actually supported some of the "ideas". But again, that only reinforces the right-wing hypocrisy when they spent months saying he was trying to socialize medicine... The fact is, both he and the GOP were trying to protect the insurance companies and pharmaceuticals. So I say good for the Democrats for stopping these "ideas".

Pharmaceuticals helped write the bill. No go.

i_luv_miley wrote:And I also agree that it would be better if the two parties would work together... But obviously that's not going to happen. Not anymore unfortunately.

With your attitude as written, there will be no working together. It's not like the GOP was trying to change the bill 100%. They wanted input. It's called compromise. If you don't compromise, you get what we have right now in DC. When the GOP (who i'm definitely not a fan of) takes back the House (and they will), Obama will have to compromise to get anything done in his last 2 yrs in the WH. It's going to be interesting.

In time I will respond (or at least try to) to your responses above, Tex. But I wanted to mention something that slipped my mind at the time of my last post. And that is - healthcare-speaking-wise, it most certainly wasn't a case of all GOP being "bad". Nor was it a case that all Democrats were "good". Olympia Snowe tried to put through the bill as it was first offered. I commend her for that. Also, Ben Nelson showed his true (greedy) colors with his shenanigans. IMO, he is a traitor to democracy. Anyway, I just wanted to make that point

Also, another point that I didn't mention, as I was simply responding to your points, was that once the public-option was taken out of healthcare, IMO that rendered the bill (almost) meaningless. That one point alone assured that the insurance companies would be able to continue doing what they'd been doing (picking-and-choosing who they would cover). And yes, I ultimately blame Obama for that. He should have stuck to his (proverbial) guns and pushed healthcare with the public option... And since it didn't happen, that's even more reason to criticize the GOP for their rhetoric. The truth is, Obama did a lot to appease the right. He tried to make them happy. But IMO, they weren't interested in "being happy". They wanted everything their way. In the end we got a very watered-down healthcare bill which will ultimately not do much. But it was better than anything that the GOP had to offer.

And politically-speaking, us liberals got a major victory. But yeah, it was a small victory for America. Once the public option was dropped, the only "victory" that could have been gotten was a political one.

As I said above Tex, I will try to respond to your other points above - in time...

i_luv_miley wrote:In time I will respond (or at least try to) to your responses above, Tex. But I wanted to mention something that slipped my mind at the time of my last post. And that is - healthcare-speaking-wise, it most certainly wasn't a case of all GOP being "bad". Nor was it a case that all Democrats were "good". Olympia Snowe tried to put through the bill as it was first offered. I commend her for that. Also, Ben Nelson showed his true (greedy) colors with his shenanigans. IMO, he is a traitor to democracy. Anyway, I just wanted to make that point

Snowe is a liberal Repub. I expected nothing less from her.

Nelson was a jerk for getting his state to be the sole recipient of not having to pay the costs of Medicare. He pissed off alot of people in his own state.

i_luv_miley wrote:Also, another point that I didn't mention, as I was simply responding to your points, was that once the public-option was taken out of healthcare, IMO that rendered the bill (almost) meaningless. That one point alone assured that the insurance companies would be able to continue doing what they'd been doing (picking-and-choosing who they would cover). And yes, I ultimately blame Obama for that. He should have stuck to his (proverbial) guns and pushed healthcare with the public option... And since it didn't happen, that's even more reason to criticize the GOP for their rhetoric. The truth is, Obama did a lot to appease the right. He tried to make them happy. But IMO, they weren't interested in "being happy". They wanted everything their way. In the end we got a very watered-down healthcare bill which will ultimately not do much. But it was better than anything that the GOP had to offer.

How can he make them happy when he never stopped the Dems from striking down any amendments offered up. That's not bipartisanship. You have to work out little differences to be bi-partisan. The way Pelosi went about it was totally partisan.

Again, all of this will cost your party (this fall) much in the same way the GOP was arrogant on many issues for 6 years prior to 2006. The GOP got what they deserved.

Heck, my uncle is turning away from Obama and he voted for the guy!

i_luv_miley wrote:And politically-speaking, us liberals got a major victory. But yeah, it was a small victory for America. Once the public option was dropped, the only "victory" that could have been gotten was a political one.

You do realize that you're in the minority on this HC issue, don't you? The more that's exposed about this bill, the more people are turning away from your side.

i_luv_miley wrote:As I said above Tex, I will try to respond to your other points above - in time...

Just keep in mind... it's about compromise.

i_luv_miley wrote:. From day one of Obama taking office, all I've seen is that they want him out of office, and they will do whatever it takes to achieve that goal. They've even said as much.

I agree with that. As soon as Obama got elected, Conservatives like Palin were talking about 'taking back the Universities' and 're-conquering the school system'. Then the Tea Party was founded almost immediately after Obama was elected and conservatives were just all up in arms about how Obama was going to ban guns, increase welfare, etc. even though he said nothing about that kinda stuff.

No

BubbleBliss wrote:

i_luv_miley wrote:. From day one of Obama taking office, all I've seen is that they want him out of office, and they will do whatever it takes to achieve that goal. They've even said as much.

I agree with that. As soon as Obama got elected, Conservatives like Palin were talking about 'taking back the Universities' and 're-conquering the school system'. Then the Tea Party was founded almost immediately after Obama was elected and conservatives were just all up in arms about how Obama was going to ban guns, increase welfare, etc. even though he said nothing about that kinda stuff.

Obama has increased welfare.

Making fun of the TP again? Too bad you won't be here to see how they succeed in helping the Dems lose seats this fall.

What about the guns and all the other things conservatives were freaking out about? What about the pets you were scared you were going to lose?

How was I making fun of the TP? Yeah, they'll help the Dems lose seats, but I'm sure they'll help them win those seats back come the election after that.

BubbleBliss wrote:What about the guns and all the other things conservatives were freaking out about? What about the pets you were scared you were going to lose?

Scared conservatives. That's it. Democrats, and liberals in particular, have a history of gun control in this country.

The pet thing wasn't an Obama thing. It was a legislative thing. Not applicable to what we're talking about.

BubbleBliss wrote:How was I making fun of the TP? Yeah, they'll help the Dems lose seats, but I'm sure they'll help them win those seats back come the election after that.

You constantly deride them.

TexasBlue wrote:

BubbleBliss wrote:How was I making fun of the TP? Yeah, they'll help the Dems lose seats, but I'm sure they'll help them win those seats back come the election after that.

You constantly deride them.

He's not the only one. The Tea Party is pointless. They have an agenda - and it's not political. I've already acknowledged that a lot of people disagree with Obama's policies (and rightly so as its a free country). Those people are fine. They are what I call "conservatives". But as has been shown time and time again, (since the very day Obama took office), that's not what the Tea Party is about. They are about spreading fear because "their kind" is no longer in control. But as it's a free country, they are free to speak their minds. But more than that, if they really were concerned about the economy then where the hell were they during the Bush years? That's the one thing they can't (or should I say won't) answer - because if they do answer it (truthfully), they expose what they really stand for. They're fascists, racists and probably some other "ists" hiding behind the Constitution... Yeah, they may and probably will win some seats in November - and I almost hope they do. Only then will America see what they really stand for.

i_luv_miley wrote:But more than that, if they really were concerned about the economy then where the hell were they during the Bush years? That's the one thing they can't (or should I say won't) answer - because if they do answer it (truthfully), they expose what they really stand for.

Did you ever stop to think that these people are where they are because of Bush? It's why i bolted from the Republicans in 2005. It's why his poll ratings were in the 30% range at the end. The only ones left were the hardcore. The TP people want fiscal conservatism and a gov't that does what it's supposed to do under the constitution.

i_luv_miley wrote:They're fascists, racists and probably some other "ists" hiding behind the Constitution... Yeah, they may and probably will win some seats in November - and I almost hope they do. Only then will America see what they really stand for.

Now this i can't take. You're labeling a whole movement as racists and fascists. That is not a fair statement to make.

Also, they're not a party and can't "win" any seats.

TexasBlue wrote:

i_luv_miley wrote:But more than that, if they really were concerned about the economy then where the hell were they during the Bush years? That's the one thing they can't (or should I say won't) answer - because if they do answer it (truthfully), they expose what they really stand for.

Did you ever stop to think that these people are where they are because of Bush? It's why i bolted from the Republicans in 2005. It's why his poll ratings were in the 30% range at the end. The only ones left were the hardcore. The TP people want fiscal conservatism and a gov't that does what it's supposed to do under the constitution.

I get that. But again, my complaint is where were they during Bush? They had eight years of his shenanigans to protest. Where were they?

TexasBlue wrote:

i_luv_miley wrote:They're fascists, racists and probably some other "ists" hiding behind the Constitution... Yeah, they may and probably will win some seats in November - and I almost hope they do. Only then will America see what they really stand for.

Now this i can't take. You're labeling a whole movement as racists and fascists. That is not a fair statement to make.

Also, they're not a party and can't "win" any seats.

Maybe it isn't fair. But neither is calling Obama a socialist when he is clearly not. Nor is he a Muslim. And yes, he was born in America. And death panels. And terror babies, etc... And that's my whole point from above and with my previous post in the thread. Why should I be "fair" about them when they are spewing blatant lies? They abuse the Constitution and then they hide behind it. That's why I despise them Of course, that not to say that all TP'ers are like that. They're not (necessarily). But if that's the case then why can't the "reasonable" ones speak out against the crazy ones? It's like the GOP is unwilling to call-out "that element" of the Tea Party because they realize they'll probably need them come November - and in 2012. It's hypocrisy. Period.

i_luv_miley wrote:I get that. But again, my complaint is where were they during Bush? They had eight years of his shenanigans to protest. Where were they?

Many bailed. Many were disgusted. But at the same time, we weren't in 9.5% unemployment either. Most people vote with their pocketbooks. The shenanigans going on now is far worse than under Bush (other than the war). Poll numbers show it. His numbers are falling just like Bush's were.

i_luv_miley wrote:Maybe it isn't fair. But neither is calling Obama a socialist when he is clearly not. Nor is he a Muslim. And yes, he was born in America. And death panels. And terror babies, etc... And that's my whole point from above and with my previous post in the thread. Why should I be "fair" about them when they are spewing blatant lies? They abuse the Constitution and then they hide behind it. That's why I despise them Of course, that not to say that all TP'ers are like that. They're not (necessarily). But if that's the case then why can't the "reasonable" ones speak out against the crazy ones? It's like the GOP is unwilling to call-out "that element" of the Tea Party because they realize they'll probably need them come November - and in 2012. It's hypocrisy. Period.

The point here is that nobody in here says Obama is a socialist or a Muslim. But again, even if there were people calling him that, it isn't making a blanket statement on a whole group of people. If you were to call someone a fascist in here, Matt probably would scold you. I leave that up to him. He's the mod, not me. To call them racist or fascist is disingenuous since there's now Democrats in that movement (small numbers though) and blacks are in that movement also.

Would you like it if i called you liberals/Democrats baby killers, socialists, communists, etc? It wouldn't be fair at all. That's what i'm getting at.

TexasBlue wrote:

i_luv_miley wrote:I get that. But again, my complaint is where were they during Bush? They had eight years of his shenanigans to protest. Where were they?

Many bailed. Many were disgusted. But at the same time, we weren't in 9.5% unemployment either. Most people vote with their pocketbooks. The shenanigans going on now is far worse than under Bush (other than the war). Poll numbers show it. His numbers are falling just like Bush's were.

But we were heading in that direction and everyone knew it. And by 2007 the bottom had fallen out of the economy? Where were they then? Where were they when we didn't find any WMD's? Where were they when New Orleans was underwater? Where were they on September 12? That's my point. People had plenty to complain about. But they didn't - not to the degree that they're doing now.

TexasBlue wrote:The point here is that nobody in here says Obama is a socialist or a Muslim. But again, even if there were people calling him that, it isn't making a blanket statement on a whole group of people. If you were to call someone a fascist in here, Matt probably would scold you. I leave that up to him. He's the mod, not me. To call them racist or fascist is disingenuous since there's now Democrats in that movement (small numbers though) and blacks are in that movement also.

Would you like it if i called you liberals/Democrats baby killers, socialists, communists, etc? It wouldn't be fair at all. That's what i'm getting at.

People have been calling us that and for forty years. Of course, I know a lot of them are just pissed off and generalizing their comments. But it works both ways... And the right doesn't accept that. And in their responses, they abuse the Constitution and then hide behind it. That's hypocrisy.

And of course I wasn't implying that anyone in here had those views. If anything, I'm overjoyed that we can actually have a discussion like this and even though we may disagree in general, we can still get our points across. IMO, it's a far cry from a certain section of a certain other forum. Obviously a lot of people can dish it out but not so many can actually take it without resorting to childish behavior both in forums and in the real world. I'm pleased this forum isn't like that.

Well, in all honesty, these people are conservatives and a supposed conservative (Bush) didn't grow gov't like this president has. Bush made Clinton look like a right winger in the gov't growth department.

The point (again) is the left wing policies of Obama and more so, congress. Apathy got this country where it is today. People either ignored shit and went on with their lives and now when things are affecting them, they've woken up.

Lefty's called Bush Hitler for 8 years. That wasn't acceptable tome no more than righty's calling Bama a socialist. As Matt has pointed out, some Americans don't know what a real socialist is. If they called a social Democrat (a la Europe), they'd be more accurate.

I try to have this form not be like others. I don't want people of either side coming here and making blanket statements. If you say you hate conservatives (and i know you don't), you'd be within your rights to say so because that's your own feelings towards the subject.

I just don't want a trashy forum. I've also resigned myself to not doing any moderating unless it's absolutely necessary. Matt's going on vacation here soon, so i'd have to mod in his place. Otherwise, i let him do his thing. Fair is fair. If this forum ever gets bigger, i'll probably need another mod, too. I just want to debate and do forum related stuff here. It's actually fun doing things behind the scenes.