A CNN article, Conservatives, don't despair, is allegedly by a Republican, written for Republicans. A good deal of truth in it, if one assumes there is a real need to check liberal excess. For discussion purposes...

Originally Posted by David Frum

Obama has changes in mind that conservatives and Republicans will oppose. He will want to raise taxes, he will want to sustain social spending at a permanently higher level, he has in mind new regulations over health care, energy production and banking. He'll win some, he'll lose some. To the extent that his wins prove injurious, future Republican Congresses and administrations will struggle to undo them. That's politics: a contest that never ends, and in which the only certainty is the certainty of constant change.

The Republican challenge next is to reassemble a new coalition for limited government and private enterprise. That coalition must include Americans of all ethnicities. To assume from the start that only certain ethnicities will contribute, and that others aspire only to grab, is not only ugly prejudice; it is also self-destructive delusion.

I am not absolutely sure the existence of a Republican opposition should be taken for granted. He's assuming that the political debate will always be an echo of bigger against smaller government. He's assuming that the Republicans will always be around advocating the small side. In a 4th Turning, this can change. Also, even during the unravelling big v small government wasn't the sole and simple issue. The Republicans were for big military and using government to enforce their perspective on the culture war issues.

Still, without saying 'all Republicans are bigots,' the assumption that the divide between contributors and grabbers is racial does seem politically dangerous. Given demographics, such an assumption invites shooting one's self in the foot, and weakening the political influence of those who want smaller government.

Not that I'd mind Republicans shooting themselves in the foot just now. Their unraveling world view and political doctrines need taking down a notch or three. This should not be meant to imply that bigger government is always better. It's just that the Republicans had too much influence of late, and the pendulum needs swinging the other way.

Originally Posted by JDFP

Social and economic policies that seek the betterment of the individual in America and seeks to embrace our culture as well as maintaining our moral standards. Come on, Eric, this is an argument we've had before and we'll continue to disagree.

"Our" culture? America is a multicultural society. America has cultural rifts analogous to those that existed in the old Yugoslavia, except that many of them have a basis in social class. Do you really believe that people in the Little Manila and Little Vietnam enclaves in some urban areas in California have much in common with Appalachian whites? We have some cultural blending, and even much intermarriage, but that is generally between people with shared attitudes.

Centralized government is not always necessary for anyone. Do you see humans as fundamentally evil? If you do then we fundamentally disagree on this issue as well. I believe the human nature is ultimately good and we seek to do good not only for ourselves but to treat others in such a manner as well. Without a centralized government people would still govern themselves according to the mandates of their nature - which I believe is fundamentally good. There is a distinction between self-governing which we are all capable of doing and centralized government which you seem to think is necessary or we'll all rape and murder one another. I fundamentally disagree.

Wrong -- tragically wrong. Weak government has created the playground of the crime boss, the lynch mob, the slave-trafficker, and the feudal lord. Neither Afghanistan, Colombia, Iraq, nor Somalia is a free country. One needs government strong enough to establish law and order, a shared defense, some basic infrastructure, enforcement of contracts -- and even civil liberties. It took a very strong government -- that of Britain in the 19th century -- to abolish slavery. It took the federal authority of the US government to abolish the tradition of Jim Crow subjection.

It is the American public sector that replaced the Cross of Satan with forty-eight stars and thirteen stripes at Dachau Concentration Camp.

So you associate strong government with horrible tyrants? No surprise. That's why we need democracy and a people wise enough to reject thugs like Hitler and Mugabe before things go bad.

Reagan and the resurgence of conservative ideology was a salvation from the horror the late 2T had become - we saw what road that led to with the malaise of Carter. It was an ugly time period of American disenchantment prior to the waking up from the horror of what the late 2T had become - no matter how pretty ("flower power!") it may have begun. It truly was a morning in America again.

To which I can say that the recent 3T began innocuously enough but since degenerated into a rationale for economic inequality characteristic of a fascist dictatorship, economic hustles that substituted for rational investment in plant and equipment, and the introduction of politics that depended more upon political strategy (pander to NASCAR fans to make them yours) than service. Conservatism became a rationale for rottenness even in morals and culture. The malaise of Jimmy Carter looks benign in contrast to the wreck that Dubya left. Maybe the generational cycle mandates an end with an unsuitable and inadequate leader like Buchanan, Hoover, or Dubya.

Could it be that Barack Obama is the liberal mirror-image of Ronald Reagan? Could it be that he is as much a solution to 3T rot as Reagan was to 2T rot?

As a Catholic I certainly believe in giving help to those who need help. I try to do my share - unfortunately, with working as much as I do I don't have an opportunity to give back to my community as much as I would like to do. I honestly wish I could do more. I've offered to drive homeless people (and have) to buy food and bought food for them. I used to leave mass disgusted at the homeless around us begging for some cash and discovered very few who took me up on my offer of getting food for them to bring to them. Race did not and never will enter into this equation. I've given to myself to charities through my time and energy. Have I done enough? Absolutely not. Again, I wish I could do more. But I disagree that taking more of my hard earned money through higher taxation is the way to solve this issue of poverty.

Personal charity is never enough to wholly undo the harm that economic inequity mandates. It can meet emergency needs, and it can give some comfort to children with incurable diseases. It can fund medical research that private for-profit entities cannot. It can endow universities. The non-profit sector can do much good. I don't hand out cash to skid-row drunks -- in part because I can think of better uses for a $20 than that some complete stranger buy booze or drugs. Maybe a set of Beethoven symphonies to a relative?

Again, we fundamentally disagree. Hero worship of Reagan isn't my intention just as I hope it's not with most towards Obama (though I wonder regarding some of the brainwashed Millies). But I certainly give respect to those who I believe deserve respect for their commitment and giving of themselves to this nation.

The judgment of history will be upon President Obama. So far it looks as if it will be more flattering than derogatory.

Originally Posted by JohnMc82

Sort of a liberal-tarian here...

And it looks like they used the Moral Foundations Questionaire that has been linked here before from http://www.yourmorals.org, so I'm actually part of this sample of self-identified libertarians... lol

My scores were in green:



About as liberal as liberals on fairness and harm reduction, and then much more liberal than liberals on rejecting tribal loyalty, authority, and purity/sanctity.

Most libertarians went the other way on fairness and harm reduction, but we shared a lack of in-group loyalty, deference to authority, and purity-obsession.

Hmm, they had a 7-variable MFQ that included economic liberty. Maybe they just broke the results down a little differently than what they show to users.

Here is my results:

Originally Posted by Odin

Here is my results:

Ohh... when did you save that file? It has different baselines than the current data!

I wonder if it is showing a shift in the public mood, or if the sample is averaging out better with a larger size.

Originally Posted by JohnMc82

Ohh... when did you save that file? It has different baselines than the current data!

I wonder if it is showing a shift in the public mood, or if the sample is averaging out better with a larger size.

I took it a year ago, soon after I found the site.

Originally Posted by JohnMc82

Sort of a liberal-tarian here...

And it looks like they used the Moral Foundations Questionaire that has been linked here before from http://www.yourmorals.org, so I'm actually part of this sample of self-identified libertarians... lol

My scores were in green:



About as liberal as liberals on fairness and harm reduction, and then much more liberal than liberals on rejecting tribal loyalty, authority, and purity/sanctity.

Most libertarians went the other way on fairness and harm reduction, but we shared a lack of in-group loyalty, deference to authority, and purity-obsession.

Hmm, they had a 7-variable MFQ that included economic liberty. Maybe they just broke the results down a little differently than what they show to users.

Thanks for the chart!

Originally Posted by Odin

Ran into this glorious rant:

That rant sounds like a riff on an old Tom Lehrer song called "National Brotherhood Week."

I like questionnaires.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

To which I can say that the recent 3T began innocuously enough but since degenerated into a rationale for economic inequality characteristic of a fascist dictatorship, economic hustles that substituted for rational investment in plant and equipment, and the introduction of politics that depended more upon political strategy (pander to NASCAR fans to make them yours) than service. Conservatism became a rationale for rottenness even in morals and culture. The malaise of Jimmy Carter looks benign in contrast to the wreck that Dubya left. Maybe the generational cycle mandates an end with an unsuitable and inadequate leader like Buchanan, Hoover, or Dubya.

Could it be that Barack Obama is the liberal mirror-image of Ronald Reagan? Could it be that he is as much a solution to 3T rot as Reagan was to 2T rot?

I can agree with this. The New Deal was appropriate and necessary. The Great Society quite arguably took the notion of tax and spend big government solving big problems too far. FDR was a great president in shaping the new direction of the country. LBJ rode FDR's pendulum to the point where it had to swing back the other way. Similarly, Reagan jumped on the pendulum just as it was ready to change directions. He read the mood of the country, and steered things in an appropriate direction. Bush 43 rode Reagan's vision too far. Romney tried to ride Reagan's vision well beyond its time.

Crises and Awakenings are idealistic times when we come together to solve problems. Unravelings are selfish times of maximum freedom and minimum ability to get anything done. I enjoyed the unraveling, but it can't go on forever.

Obama? He wants to nudge the pendulum back in the correct direction for the time, but Reagan's 3T values are still hanging on. I suspect he will be remembered better in the history books than during his time in power.

Originally Posted by JDFP

Social and economic policies that seek the betterment of the individual in America and seeks to embrace our culture as well as maintaining our moral standards.

Trickle-down economics protects only the interests of the wealthy. People need to see through the Reagan smokescreen, and rediscover this fact. It is not the government's role to "maintain moral standards" or "embrace our culture." It IS the government's role to assure equal opportunity in a society where there are powerful people who prey on others. I'm always game for a discussion in which I can debunk the Reagan ideology. That is the most important thing to do today in America.

Centralized government is not always necessary for anyone. Do you see humans as fundamentally evil? If you do then we fundamentally disagree on this issue as well. I believe the human nature is ultimately good and we seek to do good not only for ourselves but to treat others in such a manner as well. Without a centralized government people would still govern themselves according to the mandates of their nature - which I believe is fundamentally good. There is a distinction between self-governing which we are all capable of doing and centralized government which you seem to think is necessary or we'll all rape and murder one another. I fundamentally disagree.

It is your side that sees people as fundamentally evil. That's why you enable authority, and want to boost tradition. These things keep people in their place instead of being allowed to be free. If you are in favor of people being governed according to the mandates of their nature, then why are you for the government maintaining traditional culture and authority, and the power of the wealthy elites?

Centralized government is a different question. I am open to a less-centralized government, as are all Greens. But it has to work in the interests of justice for all and for the environment. Remember we agree on the question of possibly splitting the country into smaller units. I think we also need a somewhat less-powerful, less-imperial presidency, and/or a parliamentary system.

Again, we fundamentally disagree and will continue to do so. Reagan and the resurgence of conservative ideology was a salvation from the horror the late 2T had become - we saw what road that led to with the malaise of Carter. It was an ugly time period of American disenchantment prior to the waking up from the horror of what the late 2T had become - no matter how pretty ("flower power!") it may have begun. It truly was a morning in America again.

It was probably the beginning of evening in America, unless we repair the damage and start again to move forward.

There was no horror in the 2T. There were some people who had over-indulged in drugs and sexual irresponsibility, and that is a personal process people went through. But Carter had the country on the right track-- toward peace and environmental protection. It is true that he seemed a weak figure in the face of larger than normal challenges from OPEC, inflation, hostage-taking, and Soviet advances. But he did the right things on those problems. It's just that he struck a weak figure, in moments like his "malaise" speech, and that was a negative tone. People wanted a cowboy actor to make them feel strong and confident. Reagan provided that, but that was a minor accomplishment compared to his replacement of smart policies with dumb trickle-down/supply-side economics and defense-overspending/secret wars, policies from which we still suffer terribly.

Who are you addressing here, Eric?....I disagree that taking more of my hard earned money through higher taxation is the way to solve this issue of poverty.

You, because you say things like that. Everything I wrote was about that attitude on your part. WHY do you resent taxes taking your "hard-earned" money, if you also give to charity? Remember your heroes like Boehner want to take away your deductions from your taxes for giving to charity. Using taxes to solve poverty WORKS. Relying on charity alone DOES NOT. The stats about poverty reduction correlated to the policies of the two parties proves that.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

"Our" culture? America is a multicultural society. America has cultural rifts analogous to those that existed in the old Yugoslavia, except that many of them have a basis in social class. Do you really believe that people in the Little Manila and Little Vietnam enclaves in some urban areas in California have much in common with Appalachian whites? We have some cultural blending, and even much intermarriage, but that is generally between people with shared attitudes.

Eric was directing that question towards myself and Southerners pointedly. Not towards the entire American society. I wouldn't feel comfortable in speaking for all Americans - and am a bit cautious about speaking towards all Southerns at that - but we are generally more socially conservative and joined together as a people than probably any other region of this nation.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

Wrong -- tragically wrong. Weak government has created the playground of the crime boss, the lynch mob, the slave-trafficker, and the feudal lord. Neither Afghanistan, Colombia, Iraq, nor Somalia is a free country. One needs government strong enough to establish law and order, a shared defense, some basic infrastructure, enforcement of contracts -- and even civil liberties. It took a very strong government -- that of Britain in the 19th century -- to abolish slavery. It took the federal authority of the US government to abolish the tradition of Jim Crow subjection.

We'll have to agree to disagree. A too strong centralized government is the bastion of despotism and tyranny. It has given us fascism and communism in the last century. From Stalin on one end to Generalisimo Franco on the other. Such governments may start out promising - such as Hitler managing in a 4 year span from 1932 to 1936 to take Germany and turn it from a country of over 6 million unemployed and most people living in poverty to the strongest European nation by 1936 under National Socialism - but they ultimately devolve into tyrannical power. I don't say that the answer to this is to have only a weakened centralized government (as this does not serve to be any better) - but rather as I argue in another thread stronger regional governments in a loose confederation of a central power.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

So you associate strong government with horrible tyrants? No surprise. That's why we need democracy and a people wise enough to reject thugs like Hitler and Mugabe before things go bad.

I can't speak for Mugabe - but a strong centralized government was the very essence of National Socialism and the Francoist regime as well as Duce and the worst forms of despotism and tyranny that we've seen as a society.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

To which I can say that the recent 3T began innocuously enough but since degenerated into a rationale for economic inequality characteristic of a fascist dictatorship, economic hustles that substituted for rational investment in plant and equipment, and the introduction of politics that depended more upon political strategy (pander to NASCAR fans to make them yours) than service. Conservatism became a rationale for rottenness even in morals and culture. The malaise of Jimmy Carter looks benign in contrast to the wreck that Dubya left. Maybe the generational cycle mandates an end with an unsuitable and inadequate leader like Buchanan, Hoover, or Dubya.

Reagan's visionary city on a hill was usurped by neoconservatives for their own rationale. Likewise, the visionary movement of the early 2T led to the polarizing split in this nation through the cultural wars and an attack on the very fabric of what makes us a great nation by the end of the 2T. Dubya was not a conservative in the same vein of someone like Goldwater or Reagan - he was a "Republican" in name only.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

Could it be that Barack Obama is the liberal mirror-image of Ronald Reagan? Could it be that he is as much a solution to 3T rot as Reagan was to 2T rot?

I agree with you here. Obama, in many ways, is the mirror-image of Reagan's ideology. Obama likes to model himself after The Great Communicator - the vast distinction being that Reagan had the uncanny ability to reach across aisles even to people he fundamentally disagreed with in order to seek results for the betterment of our nation. Reagan and Tip O'Neill were good friends and even had a running joke that: "Before 6PM we're bitter rivals but after 6PM we're the best of friends." Obama has the same time of charismatic touch as Reagan did in attempting to be a strong leader and is no doubt seen as a Reagan for those who hero-worship the man. The man is not a statesman as Reagan was though - can you picture Obama and John Boehner going out for drinks and enjoying each others company as Reagan and O'Neill did? Obama is no Ronald Reagan. Likewise, John Boehner is no Tip O'Neill either. However, I woefully disagree that his ideology can implement anything but disastrous ruin for our nation.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

Personal charity is never enough to wholly undo the harm that economic inequity mandates. It can meet emergency needs, and it can give some comfort to children with incurable diseases. It can fund medical research that private for-profit entities cannot. It can endow universities. The non-profit sector can do much good. I don't hand out cash to skid-row drunks -- in part because I can think of better uses for a $20 than that some complete stranger buy booze or drugs. Maybe a set of Beethoven symphonies to a relative?

I always enjoyed Herbert von Karajan's take on Beethoven. I enjoy Beethoven as much as I can classical music - but I'm not an overall fan of most of it. I do greatly enjoy some of Wagner's work though. Classical music just isn't my thing. I agree with you here on what you say.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

The judgment of history will be upon President Obama. So far it looks as if it will be more flattering than derogatory.

I unequivocally disagree with you here. But history will be the ultimate judge of this - not either of us.

j.p.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

California needs to get rid of the ballot-initiative system. It works against you. Show me a ballot initiative that did good, and I'll point to at least three that did serious harm.

Yes, you have a point there too. Personally I would not want to get rid of it, but the problem is the money in politics generally. That may be harder to solve, and so I can understand someone saying we should get rid of initiatives.

Originally Posted by B Butler

A CNN article, Conservatives, don't despair, is allegedly by a Republican, written for Republicans.

A good read.

The Republicans need to rediscover old virtues that they abandoned in the name of political expediency. What was good for winning two Presidential (2000, 2004) and four midterm elections (1994, 1996, 2002, and 2010) may no longer be enough. Demographic change is their enemy, and although the economic elites that funded them and the poor whites to whom they pandered will still be around, such will not be enough. The Tea Party has had its short stay in the sun, and Americans are wise to it.

I am not absolutely sure the existence of a Republican opposition should be taken for granted. He's assuming that the political debate will always be an echo of bigger against smaller government. He's assuming that the Republicans will always be around advocating the small side. In a 4th Turning, this can change. Also, even during the unravelling big v small government wasn't the sole and simple issue. The Republicans were for big military and using government to enforce their perspective on the culture war issues.

Republicans will have to become relevant to the 4T lest they go into oblivion -- with perhaps the Democrats becoming an unwieldy Big Tent party that quickly splits into two or more parties. Budgetary realities can force a reduction in our military hardware -- or the sell-off of the public sector. Such could be the debate.

If we have a military cataclysm as the focus of the latter part of this 4T -- remember well that the United States built its military machine practically from scratch during World War II. Huge concentrations of battleships, tanks, troops, and military aircraft are brittle targets for a nuclear strike.

Still, without saying 'all Republicans are bigots,' the assumption that the divide between contributors and grabbers is racial does seem politically dangerous. Given demographics, such an assumption invites shooting one's self in the foot, and weakening the political influence of those who want smaller government.

Republicans need to realize that appealing to bigots and ignoramuses has unwelcome consequences. The divide between "makers and takers" fails to recognize that some of the "takers" are either people that we don't want to press into becoming 'makers' so early that their ability to 'make' competently is compromised (think of the destructive effect of child labor upon the Lost).

Originally Posted by JDFP

"Will become"? That's being rather optimistic. California has been a cesspool for most people for quite awhile now. It HAS failed.

Broken California: Wasting Money and Hurting Business

I'm just glad I'm no where around that place. It's a disaster only becoming worse. And there are several other states not too far behind it.

j.p.

Do you live here? It's not at all a cesspool. M&L's response was correct. And if CA is such a cesspool, why are property values so high that most people can no longer afford to live here? Because it's a desirable place to live, that's why. I'm sure there's also a lot of white folks who have left because they don't like the huge hispanic influx. CA is definitely a racially/ethnically-mixed society now; everyone in the world is here. Some people don't like that, so they move to Idaho, Arizona or Texas. Meanwhile we have reformed our political system in a way most other states can only dream of. I expect and hope that will produce results in the future. We now have a balanced budget, thanks to the Governor's Prop.30, and we can build on that now that the extremist Republicans are finally out of power-- if we can continue to replace the 2/3 requirement from 1978 by Prop.13 for the legislature to do anything.

The trickle-down and anti-ecology arguments from the wealthy magnates like Forbes miss the mark. Businesses who do not want to be socially and environmentally responsible should LEAVE CA, and don't bother to close the door on your way out. They can go to red places like Indiana that don't care about quality of life for their residents. Our taxes are not out of line; in fact Prop.13 has kept them from being raised for years. If we have a problem, it is low funding for schools, which we may now be able to rectify. Unemployment is lower than the national average in places like San Jose. It is high statewide because of many poor immigrants, but most especially because of the housing bubble. Speculators drove up prices for 3 decades, and so the recession hit CA hard. Foreclosures are higher here than most other states. But again, that's because of the high demand from people who want to live and work here.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Trickle-down economics protects only the interests of the wealthy. People need to see through the Reagan smokescreen, and rediscover this fact. It is not the government's role to "maintain moral standards" or "embrace our culture." It IS the government's role to assure equal opportunity in a society where there are powerful people who prey on others. I'm always game for a discussion in which I can debunk the Reagan ideology. That is the most important thing to do today in America.

We're just not going to see eye to eye on this, Eric. The powerful people who prey on others is the very government itself against the hard working Americans out there.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

It is your side that sees people as fundamentally evil. That's why you enable authority, and want to boost tradition. These things keep people in their place instead of being allowed to be free. If you are in favor of people being governed according to the mandates of their nature, then why are you for the government maintaining traditional culture and authority, and the power of the wealthy elites?

Nonsense. I certainly do not see people as fundamentally evil (except maybe fans of reality television and 'American Idol'). Enable authority? That's a funny statement coming from a liberal. It is up to all of us to fight for traditional values and principles as such this nation was founded upon - not the government's role to dictate the sanctity of life and take the role from the church for what marriage should be. Government doesn't have a damn bit of business in the marriage industry - Holy Matrimony is and should remain a religious Sacrament matter, the government does not get to dictate by new taxation codes and a piece of paper from the courthouse a "marriage".

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Centralized government is a different question. I am open to a less-centralized government, as are all Greens. But it has to work in the interests of justice for all and for the environment. Remember we agree on the question of possibly splitting the country into smaller units. I think we also need a somewhat less-powerful, less-imperial presidency, and/or a parliamentary system.

Here I agree with you 100%. It's interesting - on some issues we are hopelessly deadlocked but on others we can have an earnest discussion. Even when we vehemently disagree we can at least discuss matters - if only our government could take a page from us! Whether anyone likes it or not - the center cannot hold - the country will eventually either break into regional areas or we'll have this Cold Civil War eventually heat up.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

It was probably the beginning of evening in America, unless we repair the damage and start again to move forward.

It won't happen until 2014 at the earliest - and highly doubtful even then unless Obama moves closer to the center as Clinton successfully did for the betterment of this nation during his second term.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

There was no horror in the 2T. There were some people who had over-indulged in drugs and sexual irresponsibility, and that is a personal process people went through. But Carter had the country on the right track-- toward peace and environmental protection. It is true that he seemed a weak figure in the face of larger than normal challenges from OPEC, inflation, hostage-taking, and Soviet advances. But he did the right things on those problems. It's just that he struck a weak figure, in moments like his "malaise" speech, and that was a negative tone. People wanted a cowboy actor to make them feel strong and confident. Reagan provided that, but that was a minor accomplishment compared to his replacement of smart policies with dumb trickle-down/supply-side economics and defense-overspending/secret wars, policies from which we still suffer terribly.

Again, we're going to have to agree to disagree. We'll never fundamentally see eye to eye on this issue. The late 70's was an unquestionably awful period in American history - it was the first time in American history when people began to lose hope in our nation and people began, for the first time in our history, to begin to believe the future of our children's lives would be worse off than their own lives. Thank God I missed out on that period (and disco music too) and had the opportunity to experience the resurgence of our nation again in youth. A strong leader such as Reagan was desperately needed after the terrible era of the late 2T of mismanagement and cultural wars that your side keeps attempting to fight.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

You, because you say things like that. Everything I wrote was about that attitude on your part. WHY do you resent taxes taking your "hard-earned" money, if you also give to charity? Remember your heroes like Boehner want to take away your deductions from your taxes for giving to charity. Using taxes to solve poverty WORKS. Relying on charity alone DOES NOT. The stats about poverty reduction correlated to the policies of the two parties proves that.

Tell you what - give me say on exactly how my tax money is spent and where it goes and I won't say a word about a raise in taxes against my income. If I can ensure my funds are not going towards pork and to places such as Planned Parenthood and I can have some say over how exactly my tax funds are spent I'd gladly agree to have more of my income taken from me. Otherwise, the major distinction is that through my time and energy I know exactly how my resources are being spent - when it's taken from my check (and thus causing me to work even more hours and then causing me to have even less available time in my community to help directly as I'm working more hours to make up the difference) then I do not have any idea how these funds are being spent - or if they are causing more harm than good which is a possibility as well.

j.p.

Originally Posted by JDFP

Eric was directing that question towards myself and Southerners pointedly. Not towards the entire American society. I wouldn't feel comfortable in speaking for all Americans - and am a bit cautious about speaking towards all Southerns at that - but we are generally more socially conservative and joined together as a people than probably any other region of this nation.

White people that is.

Reagan's visionary city on a hill was usurped by neoconservatives for their own rationale. Likewise, the visionary movement of the early 2T led to the polarizing split in this nation through the cultural wars and an attack on the very fabric of what makes us a great nation by the end of the 2T. Dubya was not a conservative in the same vein of someone like Goldwater or Reagan - he was a "Republican" in name only.

Not only do I see no difference between Dubya and Reagan, but I don't know what "attack on the very fabric" you mean, unless I addressed it in my previous post.

Likewise, John Boehner is no Tip O'Neill either.

Well, that's the problem, isn't it? Reagan had a partner to deal with; Obama does not.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Not only do I see no difference between Dubya and Reagan, but I don't know what "attack on the very fabric" you mean, unless I addressed it in my previous post.

Well, that's because you like to see things through your own glasses that don't always line up with reality. If you don't see a difference between Reagan and Dubya you need to get those fantasy glasses checked soon as they are fogging up even worse than usual.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Well, that's the problem, isn't it? Reagan have a partner to deal with; Obama does not.

I love how you took 50% of my statement and went with that while completely ignoring the other 50%. You're right, Reagan did had a partner to deal with as he could work with O'Neill as being a master statesman. In fact, Clinton could work with Gingrich as well - both parties could come to agreements on some fundamental issues and were at least keen on working towards a good outcome. The difference today is that Obama doesn't know how to work with the other side and refuses to do so - instead, he just attempts to circumvent at every opportunity he has. Here's the other half again for you as you missed it the first time: Boehner is no O'Neill - and Obama sure as hell is no Reagan when it comes to being a statesman.

j.p.

Originally Posted by JDFP

We're just not going to see eye to eye on this, Eric. The powerful people who prey on others is the very government itself against the hard working Americans out there.

Why do you give a pass to businesses who pollute the environment around you so that it is unliveable? Why do you give a pass to companies that refuse to pay their employees a living wage, or discriminate against women? Why do you give a pass to insurance companies that gouge us, or drug companies that put out unsafe drugs? Why do you give a pass to big businesses who drive smaller companies out of business so they can peddle junk to us (Wallmart, etc.), and others who gamble with our money to cause recessions and ship peoples jobs overseas?

As opposed to governments who ask the richest Americans to pay their fair share in income taxes? I mean come on, j.p., where do you get this stuff?

Nonsense. I certainly do not see people as fundamentally evil (except maybe fans of reality television and 'American Idol'). Enable authority? That's a funny statement coming from a liberal. It is up to all of us to fight for traditional values and principles as such this nation was founded upon - not the government's role to dictate the sanctity of life and take the role from the church for what marriage should be. Government doesn't have a damn bit of business in the marriage industry - Holy Matrimony is and should remain a religious Sacrament matter, the government does not get to dictate by new taxation codes and a piece of paper from the courthouse a "marriage".

These are just authoritarian positions from someone who sees people as fundamentally evil, so they can't be allowed to be free to love whom they please and take charge of their own reproductive system. I'm not against common sense restrictions on late-term abortions, but why do you guys want this issue instead of just making the abortion pill available and have done with it? Why is it that you want the government to dictate sexual behavior, instead of trusting these "fundamentally good" people to regulate their own lives? Instead you use that very slogan to justify corporate misbehavior that really does injure people and the environment we depend upon.

Here I agree with you 100%. It's interesting - on some issues we are hopelessly deadlocked but on others we can have an earnest discussion. Even when we vehemently disagree we can at least discuss matters - if only our government could take a page from us! Whether anyone likes it or not - the center cannot hold - the country will eventually either break into regional areas or we'll have this Cold Civil War eventually heat up.

Yes, it's an alternative to consider.

It won't happen until 2014 at the earliest - and highly doubtful even then unless Obama moves closer to the center as Clinton successfully did for the betterment of this nation during his second term.

Unfortunately the "center" now is too far to the right. He needs to insist on the tax hike on the rich come hell or high water--- which of course is what is coming if we don't act to stop global warming!

Again, we're going to have to agree to disagree. We'll never fundamentally see eye to eye on this issue. The late 70's was an unquestionably awful period in American history - it was the first time in American history when people began to lose hope in our nation and people began, for the first time in our history, to begin to believe the future of our children's lives would be worse off than their own lives. Thank God I missed out on that period (and disco music too) and had the opportunity to experience the resurgence of our nation again in youth. A strong leader such as Reagan was desperately needed after the terrible era of the late 2T of mismanagement and cultural wars that your side keeps attempting to fight.

Our side? All our side wants is to be left alone by YOUR side! We don't need the Reagan era's culture wars. I can do without disco too (thank goodness for Justin Bieber and his friends!), but it is Reaganomics that created the national economic decline from which we suffer today. In the 70s we suffered the challenges of relying too much on foreign oil, and that was the main reason for the economic problems of that decade. It was not due to a few welfare queens, even if it's true there were some things about welfare that needed to be reformed. Carter tried to free us from oil; Reagan reversed that, and escalated our addiction. The result: Katrina and Sandy and Joplin..... and sky high gas prices....

Tell you what - give me say on exactly how my tax money is spent and where it goes and I won't say a word about a raise in taxes against my income. If I can ensure my funds are not going towards pork and to places such as Planned Parenthood and I can have some say over how exactly my tax funds are spent I'd gladly agree to have more of my income taken from me. Otherwise, the major distinction is that through my time and energy I know exactly how my resources are being spent - when it's taken from my check (and thus causing me to work even more hours and then causing me to have even less available time in my community to help directly as I'm working more hours to make up the difference) then I do not have any idea how these funds are being spent - or if they are causing more harm than good which is a possibility as well.

j.p.

Every individual can't determine where their taxes go; it seems to me that would be too cumbersome. Perhaps in the age of computers something like that could be worked out eventually. That would not save you any more working time though. Our taxes if anything are far too low now, especially on the wealthy. Middle class taxes today are the lowest since the Great Depression at least. I would not worry about such a small expenditure as aid to Planned Parenthood. The amount that goes for abortions from your taxes would probably not even amount to 1 cent, if any. I'm all with you on reducing pork, but why can't we reform the system to take it out? It is usually Republicans who block any political reforms, especially if it would redound to the credit of a Democratic president. Meanwhile tell your guy Boehner to take his bleepin' hands off of charitable deductions.

Originally Posted by JDFP

Well, that's because you like to see things through your own glasses that don't always line up with reality. If you don't see a difference between Reagan and Dubya you need to get those fantasy glasses checked soon as they are fogging up even worse than usual.

Well you don't exactly make a case with statements like that. Reagan and Dubya both got us into wars and increasing defense spending, although yes Reagan was not as stupid as Dubya to start a war just because some dictator attacked his daddy. But they both believed in and pursued trickle-down economics to benefit "job creaters" and they both escalated the national debt.

I love how you took 50% of my statement and went with that while completely ignoring the other 50%. You're right, Reagan did had a partner to deal with as he could work with O'Neill as being a master statesman. In fact, Clinton could work with Gingrich as well - both parties could come to agreements on some fundamental issues and were at least keen on working towards a good outcome. The difference today is that Obama doesn't know how to work with the other side and refuses to do so - instead, he just attempts to circumvent at every opportunity he has. Here's the other half again for you as you missed it the first time: Boehner is no O'Neill - and Obama sure as hell is no Reagan when it comes to being a statesman.

j.p.

I don't know yet; Reagan pursued his "statesmanship" in his second term. We'll see about Obama. The problem is mostly that the other side has become much further right-wing, pushed by the extremist Tea Party. You just can't ignore that fact when you talk about Obama. Caving in to those lunatics would not be statesmanship in my opinion, even if it would be in yours.

Obama is already AT the Center, JP.

Youth Vote Gap Suggests Republicans Risk Losing An 'Entire Generation' To Democrats

So what do people think of the President after he has won and the smear campaigns are over?

Originally Posted by Scott Rasmussen

November 12, 2012

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Monday shows that 54% of Likely Voters at least somewhat approve of President Obama's job performance. Forty-five percent (45%) at least somewhat disapprove.

That is the president’s highest job approval rating since July 2009 (see trends).

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/publ..._tracking_poll

That would be good for an Eisenhower-style landslide.

Nate Sliver's polls were the target of a lot of criticism, but it turned out he was square on. Now, after the fact, he is grading how well various other polling insutituions did.

Rasmussen Reports didn't do so well.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

Republicans need to realize that appealing to bigots and ignoramuses has unwelcome consequences. The divide between "makers and takers" fails to recognize that some of the "takers" are either people that we don't want to press into becoming 'makers' so early that their ability to 'make' competently is compromised (think of the destructive effect of child labor upon the Lost).

Dude, the "takers" won the election.

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

Dude, the "takers" won the election.

Yeah, in the House of Representatives! Or should I say, they gerrymandered themselves into control.