Let's Talk

[dcwash]

I often say I am an independent and I really think of myself that way because I do not and never will belong to either Political parties. I was reading a column in the Washington Post by EJ Dionne and he was laying out the case for partisanship using the recent health summit as a case study if you will. I recommend it to you but they close paragraph is what really struck me as getting to the heart of the major difference between the two parties. He wrote:

[Alphagreg1906]

dc, the plain truth of the matter is that no solution is an either or proposition; there are few that really think that pure government or pure free market holds the key to our collective well being. Those that are true believers on either side are nuts.

[dcwash]

[Alphagreg1906]

You know dc, it's hard to claim the conservative title when we have let the folks on the far right take control of title. Sometimes I question whether I am a conservative or not simply because I just can't get my head around some of the nonsense that the far right spews. I am just too adult to believe that either party is totally right or wrong on any subject.

[dcwash]

[truthseeker]

DC I was in the process of posting the following earlier today, but the board went down before I got to post it. So here it goes now.

[truthseeker]

[truthseeker]

FYI I never did get the chance to read the Dionne piece today. But I will before I post again, and be able to comment more directly on all of his points.

Peace homey.

[Yeager]

It can be extremely difficult to discuss how ideological either party is when not talking about particular issues, and it often breaks down to people talking about 'the extremes' of both parties and how being 'independent' is the best answer.

But if you talk about particular issues, say Social Security. What is the difference between the parties on this big issue? I would say the differences are pretty large.

How about the war in Iraq, any difference in the parties there? Would we be in Iraq if Al Gore had been elected president? No. I would call that a big difference.

How about the economy, now there's a real easy one to distinguish real differences. We just a little over a year ago came out of 8 years of doing it the Republicans way, tax cuts for rich people, running up huge deficits and screw everybody else and while you may not like the way I framed that, you cannot argue with the tax cuts and the huge deficits, but we had 8 years of that. Now, contrast that with the years 1993-2001, when a Democrat was president and we were doing things far differently, raising taxes on rich people and cutting them for everybody else, and if there is any doubt in any person's mind about which philosophy made for a better economy, just concentrate on a couple of numbers; 22 million jobs created during the Clinton years, how many jobs were created during the Bush years? Was there even a net gain? Here's another number, a 200 billion dollar a year budget surplus when President Clinton left office, tell me, what was the year deficit when President Obama took over?

So my point is it becomes very easy to distinguish real differences in philosophies and public policy when you talk about specific issues, but if you just talk about generalities, it often becomes 'both parties are too extreme' or even 'there isn't a dimes worth of difference between the two parties,' how often have we heard that one? I can assure you, there is.

[thought-showers]

You have a problem with deficits, Yeager? That's funny because I haven't heard a peep out of you on deficits since Obama started tripling and quadrupling the deficit AND the debt.

[JWD]

[thought-showers]

Bwaaa haaa haaa!

[truthseeker]

[truthseeker]

Btw dc, I did read the entire Dionne column. And I stand by the point I made earlier. I still think Dionne is overstating, the degree to which pure ideology is at play in an exchange like the one that happened between the Prez and that Congressman from Wyoming. For instance I am willing to be anything, that if the party or segment of population the federal gov't was seeking to help, was a party or segment of population Barraso (sp?) was sympathetic towards, the congressman was put his small government ideology aside, and make room and arguments for why the federal government should be involved.

Gotta run now. But next time I'm here, I want to say more on this. And give you a couple of illustrations that I think help prove my point.

Peace.

[dcwash]

ts2 like you I wished I had more time to comment but I do think Mr Dionne is on to something not so much as it relates to individuals but as to what the two major parties in the country stand for and how they are perceived. I will agree that the reality of life is a lot different however.
_________________
"If you can't answer a man's argument, all is not lost; you can still call him vile names." Elbert Hubbard
Many on the left and the right aren't interested in the truth, but simply want news that confirms their viewpoints,Aaron Brown

[Yeager]

thought-showers, you ever hear of a fella name of Paul Krugman? I know, I know, he doesn't come up much on Rush or Sean's shows, but I'm betting you've heard of him anyway but here's the deal; this Krugman guy won a Nobel Prize in economics and I know that actually would count against him in Republican circles but most of the rest of the country takes him seriously but according to Nobel Prize winning economist Paul Krugman, the stimulus bill which helped create a chunk of this deficit was not big enough, we should have spent more money. So that means that Krugman believes, as did most economists, that preventing the economy from collapsing was more important than anything.

This president was handed an economic disaster, thanks to the guy you voted for twice; your guy passes off a shit sandwich to this president and now you want to complain about the taste of this shit sandwich?

Yes, yearly deficits are at record levels but that is thanks to Republicans, give this president a few years for his economic policies to take effect and just remember this, go back and read some of the things Republicans assured us of after the 1993 budget was passed, they were wrong then and will be wrong now.

For real comparisons thought-showers, just compare where the economy and the yearly deficit was when President Clinton left office, and where it was when George W Disaster left office.

[thought-showers]

[truthseeker]

t/s1, the "bailout" of financial institutions, started during the Bush 43 Administration. Did you start any threads here decrying those actions?

I don't remember seeing any such threads from you, when Paulson was taking those actions. I may have just forgotten them. But I honestly don't remember you starting any threads criticizing THAT spending. But I do remember you starting thread(s) mocking and criticizing the Obama approach to struggling financial institutions, toxic assets etc.. (One such thread you started has Geithner's name in the title. I'm just wondering if you EVER created a Paulson focused thread.)

I know you’ve been looking back at some old threads lately, if you run across a thread you started that chastised Bush for big spending, would you mind bringing that thread to my attention?

Thanks.

[thought-showers]

[truthseeker]

Okay then t/s, fair enough. You mentioned to Yeag that you don't recall hearing a peep out of him regarding deficits, and you correctly point out you have indeed at least mentioned that topic and problem, regardless of who is Prez. I still think it's accurate and fair to say, you are much more outspoken, and alarmist when the current Administration adds to the deficit than you were when the previous Administration did the same. But I agree with you that you were not silent on these issues, when the Prez was someone you liked.

[thought-showers]

http://forum.josephcphillips.com/viewtopic.php?t=102757&highlight=

[Alphagreg1906]

I think the POTUS need to shake up his economic advisory team a bit. I really don't get a warm and fuzzy when he puts the same guys in charge of the clean up that made the mess in the first place. It's kind of like placing the fox in charge of the hen house IMO.

[truthseeker]

Thanks for the tread links t/s1. I just looked all four of them over.

In the thread you started with the title "Dow dives below 10,000..." what "bailout" where you referring to there? I can't match the date up with what was going on at the time? Were you referring to Bear Stearns maybe? I can't remember what was going on the first week of October in '08.

But overall, I do see you made a comment critical of Bush and his high spending ways. And comments that criticized the Republican Party for doing the same.

Is your perception of yourself that you are an equal opportunity critic when it comes to these things? That you'll rip a conservative Repub as harshly or nastily as you'll rip a liberal Dem for such things?

I see you take a very different approach to how you criticize these folks, based on their party or ideology. I know several Dems you seem to completely despise. I can't think of one conservative Repub that I've sensed you have an equal degree of disdain for.

[truthseeker]

[Alphagreg1906]

I don't have anyone specific in mind I would like to see a wider range of ideas represented in the recovery team. For instants, there are two Nobel Laureates that have a different take on how to address the recovery. As I stated earlier, the POTUS seems to be relying on the same cast of characters from Wall Street that were a big part of the problem to now remedy the situation using the same financial markets. These guys seem to think the solutions can only come from reinvigorating the market through dumping more money in. There are those out there that think there are more effective ways to address our current woes. I would like to see their thoughts at least considered or factored into the recovery plan. A wide range of ideas exchanged in an open forum would be of value IMO.