Posted by Reasoning on Thu, Oct 30, 2014, at 6:41 AM:
Well, this isn't going to go over well.
Replies (69)
I'd agree that it won't "go over well" but then again, the majority of the SO friends may not read much of it, but it is very accurate.
"He is lame duck."
Not really. The most appropriate description of a "lame duck" is a politician who ran for and wanted re-election and was defeated. During the period between his defeat and the newly elected person taking office, the loser would be a "lame duck."
So logically, since President Obama cannot run again, he is not an authentic "lame duck."
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Thu, Oct 30, 2014, at 7:23 AM
So logically, since President Obama cannot run again, he is not an authentic "lame duck."
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Thu, Oct 30, 2014, at 7:23 AM
So... leave off the "duck" part Common, he is just plain "lame"!
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Thu, Oct 30, 2014, at 7:41 AM
Is Obama a Republican?
Posted by miccheck on Thu, Oct 30, 2014, at 6:26 AM:
-- Posted by FreedomFadingFast on Thu, Oct 30, 2014, at 7:53 AM
Short answer, no.
The article picks a handful of issues and finds Republicans who agree with those positions, and says, therefore, Mr. Obama is a Republican.
The bottom line remains: Mr. Obama is committed to micromanaging everything at the federal level, and has a wanton disregard for the rights of states. While it is true that many Republicans merely give lip service to states' rights, the support of them remains a basic tenet of Republican policy, and remains the defining issue that separates Democrats (including Mr. Obama) from Republicans.
This is just more evidence that the Democrats are trying to disown him. It is curious to me that this idea has now been put forward only twice: once when they were trying to convince Republicans that they ought to vote for him (2008) and now, when they are trying to convince Democrats that he is not representative of him. When he was popular, the Democrats were proud to call him the head of their party.
Nobody loves you when you're down and out.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Oct 30, 2014, at 8:23 AM
The same could be said of Bush II who was a Democrat and not a Republican. The only solution to American's problems is to elect a third party candidate for President.
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Thu, Oct 30, 2014, at 8:48 AM
Yeah, I think it would have been better to title the article "Is Obama a Conservative?".
-- Posted by miccheck on Thu, Oct 30, 2014, at 9:01 AM
That would be a definite NO!!
-- Posted by BonScott on Thu, Oct 30, 2014, at 9:08 AM
Is it really a basic tenet of Republican policy? Like you said, they may give lip service to it, but is there any evidence in practice?
Yes.
Back in the Bush I days, some of us were wondering if Mr. Bush was a Democrat. So, there.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Oct 30, 2014, at 9:16 AM
You can look for instance, at the gay marriage issue. While some want to prohibit it at the federal level, most Republicans want only to permit the states to recognize it, or not, with no impact upon other states.
Abortion is another issue in which the Republicans generally favour turning the matter back to the states so they may prohibit it, or not, as they see fit.
Republicans have long advocated for the abolition or depowering of the Department of Education in favour of individual states and school districts having broader powers over the schools.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Oct 30, 2014, at 9:19 AM
"The article highlights some pretty big issues where he's been acting like a conservative."
There both the article and you conflate "conservative" and "Republican", as if the two are synonymous. They are not.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Oct 30, 2014, at 9:20 AM
Health care is one issue, for example, where he is wrong. While it is frequently noted that the mandate idea was floated by Republicans, it was never embraced by the Republicans and was a compromise with the universal coverage crowd to expand coverage without broadening governmental control. Mr. Obama's proposal differs broadly from that.
He also cites the lowering of the deficit, but fails to note that the lowest deficit of Mr. Obama's administration is still higher than the highest Republican-run deficit under Mr. Bush. One cannot count the 2009 deficit as Mr. Bush's because Mr. Obama signed the Omnibus Spending Act and the Stimulus Bill, significantly raising the 2009 deficit and giving him at least half ownership in that years budget. It is also significant to note that the deficit reduction came only after the Republicans regained the House, and that several shutdown threats and the sequestration measure were necessary to achieve it.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Oct 30, 2014, at 9:29 AM
"Did the Republican party (in the House) not take up the defense of the Defense of Marriage Act after the DoJ opted not to after it's defeat in the lower courts?"
Yes. And what does it do? It allows individual states to refuse to recognize marriages performed in other states. Sounds pretty much like states' rights to me.
"I haven't checked lately, but in the not-too-distant past, the GOP platform called for a Constitutional amendment regarding abortion."
They have proposed it, but in most instances the proposals have included wording such as the Whitehurst Amendment:
"Section 1. Nothing in this Constitution shall bar any State or territory or the District of Columbia, with regard to any area over which it has jurisdiction, from allowing, regulating, or prohibiting the practice of abortion."
Sounds like states' rights to me. Roe vs. Wade deprived the states of authority over abortion, the amendments seek to restore it to them.
"Four words for you: No Child Left Behind."
No Child Left Behind was a bi-partisan bill, a compromise on educaton, if you will. States are free to opt out of it by refusing federal funds. States' rights, again.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Oct 30, 2014, at 9:41 AM
"Healthcare: the PPACA is at it's core an embrace of private insurance companies. You can't get much more pro-big business than that!"
It forces people to purchase a product they may not want. You can't get much more anti-freedom than that.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Oct 30, 2014, at 9:43 AM
"Deficit: No matter how you try to ignore it, Obama has not been the tax-and-spend liberal cliche the right tries to paint him as."
He has consistently championed increased taxes "on the rich", and has continued (and promoted) the shift in spending towards mandatory spending increases.
When inflation indicated there should be no increase in Social Security payments, Mr. Obama pushed for, and won, a $250 per recipient "gift". Hardly the stuff of fiscal restraint. He cut the taxes that fund the Social Security and Medicare Programme, even as spending for both those programmes increased. Again, hardly the stuff of fiscal responsibility.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Oct 30, 2014, at 9:52 AM
"DOMA prevented the federal government from recognizing certain marriage legally recognized by some states."
Which has nothing to do with violating states' rights.
"The Whitehurst Amendment was from 1973. The 2012 GOP platform calls for a human life amendment to the Constitution and the extension of 14th amendment protections to unborn children."
The 14th Amendment does not prohibit the execution of persons, born or unborn, by the states, provided due process is served.
"NCLB is quite the opposite of de-powering the Dept. of Education."
NCLB only affects those states and schools that receive federal funds. The federal government has the authority and the responsibility to regulate how federal dollars are spent. Again, the states can refuse the funds and retain their rights. That has usually been to the dismay of the Democrats.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Oct 30, 2014, at 9:56 AM
"The Whitehurst Amendment was from 1973. The 2012 GOP platform calls for a human life amendment to the Constitution and the extension of 14th amendment protections to unborn children. "
The Human Life Amendment was drafted in 1973. So far as I know, no final text of the proposed amendment has been agreed upon since. All proposals I have seen that have received broad Republican support have pushed for the measure to return to the states.
____________
As I noted before, No Child Left Behind was a bi-partisan bill. The majority of the opposition to it came from Republicans.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Oct 30, 2014, at 10:02 AM
"To clarify again: we're talking about the views of the Republican party and mainstream conservative movement, not your particular views."
Yes. The majority of Republicans did not support the health care proposal that included the mandate. Ergo, my view is consistent with the Republican majority's.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Oct 30, 2014, at 10:03 AM
"You can look for instance, at the gay marriage issue. While some want to prohibit it at the federal level, most Republicans want only to permit the states to recognize it, or not, with no impact upon other states" Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Oct 30, 2014, at 9:19 AM
"States Rights" is the right-wing code-word for "I choose to discriminate against groups and I don't want the federal government telling me I cannot do so."
Same sex marriage, abortion, education. Control!
-- Posted by Reasoning on Thu, Oct 30, 2014, at 10:16 AM
Reasoning and miccheck, have you two ever read the constitution? There is not one area of the constitution that grants the federal government the power to dictate abortion, marriage, education, or healthcare.
-- Posted by BonScott on Thu, Oct 30, 2014, at 10:26 AM
For the very things I just mentioned, for starters.
Please cite for me where in the constitution in grants the federal government that authority?
-- Posted by BonScott on Thu, Oct 30, 2014, at 10:45 AM
Those are conservative issues, especially for this guy. I don't want the federal government involved in any of that, including big business, because they have ZERO authority to do so. Those are state issues...The military is a different story.
-- Posted by BonScott on Thu, Oct 30, 2014, at 10:53 AM
Shapley stated it earlier. A true constitutional conservative is not the same as the establishment republican. I don't know why that's so hard to understand.
-- Posted by BonScott on Thu, Oct 30, 2014, at 11:01 AM
"Same sex marriage, abortion, education. Control!"
In the case of marriage and abortion, it would seem that the federal government is less interested in "controlling" than it is in allowing individuals to make up their own minds.
This seems to be a very conservative attitude in allowing personal freedom.
In the field of education the federal government's mission, "...to promote student achievement and preparation for global competitiveness by fostering educational excellence and ensuring equal access," has little to do with controlling content, which is rightfully left to states and local school boards.
There a good example is Common Core Standards which is "...Hosted and maintained by the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) and the National Governors Association Center for Best Practices (NGA Center)."
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Thu, Oct 30, 2014, at 11:06 AM
Posted by commonsensematters on Thu, Oct 30, 2014, at 11:06
Once again, the federal government has ZERO authority to be involved in education....And Common Core is a perfect example. Completely propped up by federal funding.
-- Posted by BonScott on Thu, Oct 30, 2014, at 11:10 AM
"It forces people to purchase a product they may not want."
While there be one or two that are in that category, there are millions more that do want the product, and (with the exception of a few on religious grounds)there are probably no Americans that have not needed medical services for themselves or a family member, without a requirement for insurance, they sponge off others by going to the emergency room and making others pay for them.
"You can't get much more anti-freedom than that."
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Thu, Oct 30, 2014, at 11:18 AM
"Well, duh! The whole point of this discussion was to show that, when viewed objectively, there was no reason for the opposition to the individual mandate because it was essentially a classic GOP idea."
If it were a "classic GOP idea" it would have been proposed, passed through the House and/or Senate, and been signed into law at the time when the GOP held both houses of Congress and the presidency, would it not? Ergo, it was not a "classic GOP idea", it was merely one compromise proposal made by some Republicans and rejected by the majority of Republicans. As I have already pointed out.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Oct 30, 2014, at 11:18 AM
Common, did you take your ball and go home? Quitters never win...:)
-- Posted by BonScott on Thu, Oct 30, 2014, at 11:23 AM
"States Rights" is the right-wing code-word for "I choose to discriminate against groups and I don't want the federal government telling me I cannot do so."
It's not a "Code word" if you don't know the code. It's a time-honoured concept in this nation that says that subsidiarity is the rule of law. We are a united group of states, united under a government whose purpose is to ensure that the states operate in a republican manner. Its purpose is not to override them.
Yes, society does discriminate. States' rights allows them to discriminate at varying levels, rather than having one uniform policy of discrimination nation-wide. But that is not its purpose, its purpose is to ensure that things that may be desirable or necessary in one part of the nation are forced upon other parts of the nation where they are neither desirable nor necessary.
"Same sex marriage, abortion, education."
How does letting the states decide whether they want to sanction or permit same sex marriage or abortion amount to "control". I see it as quite the opposite. Requiring people to recognize, permit, sanction, and even perform activities they find abhorrent is more "controlling" than allowing communities to prohibit them within their midst. If the state tells you cannot get a marriage license in their state, that is hardly "controlling".
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Oct 30, 2014, at 11:25 AM
-- Posted by miccheck on Thu, Oct 30, 2014, at 11:16 AM
Please define mainstream or establishment conservative...
-- Posted by BonScott on Thu, Oct 30, 2014, at 11:25 AM
"You are not a mainstream conservative."
How would you know that? How do you know what defines a "mainstream" conservative? Is it because what you think a conservative ought to be defines who they are? Methinks your view of what is and what is not conservative is no more accurate than mine.
I, at least, count myself among their number.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Oct 30, 2014, at 11:28 AM
"Not necessarily. It's hard to get things done in Washington, and until Obama, healthcare reform was not a priority."
And it was not a priority among Republicans even when Mr. Obama was making it his. Ergo, Mr. Obama is not a Republican. Your argument fails.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Oct 30, 2014, at 11:29 AM
Shapley, let's not forget also, the 10th amendment was established because it's easier to change your state government than it is federal.
-- Posted by BonScott on Thu, Oct 30, 2014, at 11:29 AM
"[President] Obama is committed to micromanaging everything at the federal level, and has a wanton disregard for the rights of states."
It seems that lately the right claims that the president is "ignoring" everything, so how is that "micromanaging?"
He also turned over the ACA to state exchanges which are doing fine in the states that took advantage of the offer. Maybe you could ask Senator McConnell how Kentucky did it.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Thu, Oct 30, 2014, at 11:31 AM
"... they sponge off others by going to the emergency room and making others pay for them."
They are billed for the services they receive.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Oct 30, 2014, at 11:33 AM
"The fact remains that a policy requiring people to support private insurance companies is one of the most classic Repuclican/mainstream conservative moves one could make."
Where do you come up with that idea? The idea was proposed by the Heritage Foundation, but did not receive broad support. It was proposed during the Clinton administration as a bill, with some Republican support, as an alternative to "Hillarycare", but it did not pass. It has never garnered broad Republican support. Nor have Republicans, by and large, supported the idea of forcing people to purchase the products offered.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Oct 30, 2014, at 11:37 AM
"How does letting the states decide whether they want to sanction or permit same sex marriage or abortion amount to "control".
It is "control" because the states want to limit freedom, not allow it. No one is forcing same sex marriage or abortion on anyone.
Personally I feel same sex marriage is equivalent to kids playing house (you be the daddy and I'll be the mommy) but do not feel a need to make a law against it.
With abortion, it's a personal decision, not some the state should control. As has always been the case, it you don't like it, don't have one.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Thu, Oct 30, 2014, at 11:39 AM
"That doesn't change the fact that it is a plan that has all the markings of a plan the GOP would love...and you keep ignoring that fact for some reason."
No, I'm not ignoring it, I'm refuting it. If you were a Republican, or a conservative, you would understand that it does not have "all the markings of a plan the GOP would love". The fact that it has never enjoyed majority Republican/conservative support shows that I am correct about that.
It has all the markings of a plan you think Republicans/conservatives would love, because you understand neither Republicans nor conservatives. You think that, because it involves private corporations making large sums of money, then they would go for it. They do not. They like corporations to be allowed to make lots of money, "allowed" being the operative word.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Oct 30, 2014, at 11:41 AM
"It is "control" because the states want to limit freedom, not allow it. No one is forcing same sex marriage or abortion on anyone."
Tell that to Idaho.
It does not limit freedom. Same sex couples are free to copulate as they choose. The prohibition merely means the state does not have to sanction it, nor do the residents of the state have to pay to provide pensions and/or other benefits to the partners of unions they do not wish to sanction. That is freedom. 'tis a pity you can't see that.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Oct 30, 2014, at 11:44 AM
Common, federal money is used to promote/perform abortions. Therefore it is wrong. Where in the constitution does it allow the federal government to dictate abortions or marriage?
-- Posted by BonScott on Thu, Oct 30, 2014, at 11:46 AM
"With abortion, it's a personal decision, not some the state should control. As has always been the case, it you don't like it, don't have one."
The state has always had the authority to prohibit certain procedures within its jurisdiction. Not all states will prohibit it, but the states ought to be able to make that decision.
For those worried about discrimination, abortion is the ultimate tool thereof. As Justice Ginsberg let slip, abortion allows us to limit the births of those populations of which we don't want to have too many. We use abortion to limit the births of girls, of children likely to be born with Downs' syndrome, and for other discriminatory practices, yet the anti-discriminatory crowd is silent.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Oct 30, 2014, at 11:53 AM
"No, you're ignoring it. If you were refuting it, you wouldn't be using arguments like "individual freedoms" or "well, the Republicans never passed it"."
Oh? So I should be using arguments with out proof, as you are doing? I have provided valid evidence that the mainstream of Republicans do not support it, and your only argument is that they ought to because you think they ought to.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Oct 30, 2014, at 11:56 AM
"Are you saying the GOP is not pro-big business?"
I've already answered that. Apparently you do not understand the difference between "allowing" and "mandating" commerce. I can't help you understand it. Perhaps a dictionary might help.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Oct 30, 2014, at 11:58 AM
This has gone on enough. I've said my piece. Good day, all.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Oct 30, 2014, at 11:59 AM
"Well, they didn't make is law. That proves nothing. Is the public option not a classic Democrat idea because it didn't pass?"
That was not my argument. My argument is that is has not enjoyed widespread Republican support. Many liberal ideas have been proposed by Republicans, even by "mainstream" Republicans, but that does not make them "classic Republican ideas".
"Your views are not that of the classic mainstream Republican/conservative."
You make such statements, yet you do not seem to be able to define what is "mainstream Republican/conservative".
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Oct 30, 2014, at 12:11 PM
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Oct 30, 2014, at 12:11 PM
I asked the same question Shapley and he avoided it like Ebola.
-- Posted by BonScott on Thu, Oct 30, 2014, at 12:19 PM
Requiring people to recognize, permit, sanction, and even perform activities they find abhorrent is more "controlling" than allowing communities to prohibit them within their midst. If the state tells you cannot get a marriage license in their state, that is hardly "controlling".
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Oct 30, 2014, at 11:25 AM
No one is saying they must permit or perform and it is ridiculous to insinuate that is so.
By saying you cannot get a marriage license in this state because I do not like the gender/color/weight/voice of your chosen mate is the ultimate controlling gesture! Why not just return to arranged marriages?
-- Posted by Reasoning on Thu, Oct 30, 2014, at 12:55 PM
"...but the states ought to be able to make that decision."
The decision is still a personal one that that is not detrimental to the "state."
"We use abortion to limit the births of girls, of children likely to be born with Downs' syndrome..."
Who is the "we?" Last time I checked Americams valued girls as much as boys, maybe more.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Thu, Oct 30, 2014, at 1:31 PM
"No one is saying they must permit or perform and it is ridiculous to insinuate that is so."
Is Idaho an outlier? Perhaps Colorado is more "Mainstream"?
Before you define what is "ridiculous", you should look at what is happening around you.
By its very nature, the licensing of marriage is the granting of society's sanction to it. Licensing says, in essense, we permit what you are wanting to do and grant you the perquisites associated with doing so. But, the authority to license carries with it the authority to refuse to grant license. It would be understandable to me if the courts ruled that state licensing laws are unconstitutional with regard to marriage, etc., but to require the issuance of license while acknowledging that the authority to grant (and thus deny) license exists is ridiculous.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Oct 30, 2014, at 1:52 PM
"Who is the "we?" Last time I checked Americams valued girls as much as boys, maybe more."
Ah! You've not heard of it, therefore it does not exist? Gender-selective abortion is well known, and is practiced here as abroad. Less frequently than in other nations (notably China), but practiced nonetheless.
From Wikipedia:
"Like in other countries, sex-selective abortion is difficult to track in the United States because of lack of data. However, based on the sex ratios in the United States, it is certainly rare for the population overall. Abrevaya (2009) found that among firstborn children in the U.S., the sex ratio is the normal 102-106 males per 100 females. However, he also found that among some Korean, Chinese, and Indian parents with one daughter, the sex ratio is 117 and when they have two daughters, the ratio is 151.
"While the majority of parents in" United States do not practice sex-selective abortion, there is certainly a trend toward male preference. According to a 2011 Gallup poll, if they were only allowed to have one child, 40% of respondents said they would prefer a boy, while only 28% preferred a girl. When told about prenatal sex selection techniques such as sperm sorting and in vitro fertilization embryo selection, 40% of Americans surveyed thought that picking embryos by sex was an acceptable manifestation of reproductive rights. These selecting techniques are available at about half of American fertility clinics, as of 2006.
"However, it is notable that minority groups that immigrate into the United States bring their cultural views and mindsets into the country with them. A study carried out at a Massachusetts infertility clinic shows that the majority of couples using these techniques, such as Preimplantation genetic diagnosis came from a Chinese or Asian background. This is thought to branch from the social importance of giving birth to male children in China and other Asian countries.
"Because of this movement toward sex preference and selection, many bans on sex-selective abortion have been proposed at the state and federal level. In 2010 and 2011, sex-selective abortions were banned in Oklahoma and Arizona, respectively. Legislators in Georgia, West Virginia, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, and New York have also tried to pass acts banning the procedure."
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Oct 30, 2014, at 1:58 PM
"The decision is still a personal one that that is not detrimental to the "state"."
It is costly to the state. The extension of spousal benefits and survivors' benefits, for example, is not free.
As I've said, couples are free to agree to whatever living arrangements they choose, but society does not owe it to them to approve of them, nor to sanction or subsidize them.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Oct 30, 2014, at 2:00 PM
"My opinion , marriage is all about love between 2 people and not legal contracts."
Matrimony is about the love between two people. Marriage is a contractual arrangement. Marriage licenses are about the government's (society's) stamp of approval for such arrangements.
Recall, If you will, the desire of young couples to obtain their parents' blessing before being wed. The failure to obtain such a blessing did not always prevent the couple from marrying, but it withheld from them the parents' sanction, along with such things as dowries and inheritances. There exists no power on Earth that can compel the parents' to bestow their blessing. They can only be asked to reconsider.
So it is with society's "blessing", in the form of license. Society has the authority, in as much as it has the authority to grant license, to withhold that license for those marriages it does not regard as beneficial to society.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Oct 30, 2014, at 2:07 PM
""society" may disapprove of anything but should have no bearing on private lives of people."
It is because they people turn to society to ask their approval that they are disappointed. It is because they ask society to provide them a dowry that they are mad when turned away, in my humble opinion. It's not about love, which exists without the approval of anyone but the couple, it's about the money and benefits. It is greed: they are demanding that which society has not seen fit to grant to them.
Society extends benefits to heterosexual couples because they see benefits in having heterosexual couples wed. They do not see that homosexual coupling provides the same benefit, so they do not extend benefits designed to promote and preserve such unions. That should be their prerogative.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Oct 30, 2014, at 2:40 PM
The TEA Party exists because disenfranchised Republicans were seeking a restoration of the libertarian values that were espoused (thought not always) in the Ronald Reagan era. They seek to overturn the existing party structure which, as many have noted, is not overly distinguishable from the Democratic Party structure. They see the Republican Party as ripe for a libertarian renewal, as it has become "Democratic Party Lite" in recent years. That scares big-government Republicans, big-government Democrats, and big-government media alike. Hence the need to attack them.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Oct 30, 2014, at 2:44 PM
So it is with society's "blessing", in the form of license. Society has the authority, in as much as it has the authority to grant license, to withhold that license for those marriages it does not regard as beneficial to society.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Oct 30, 2014, at 2:07 PM
Well now, why would you not think a same sex marriage unbeneficial? Surely you are not referring to procreation.
-- Posted by Reasoning on Thu, Oct 30, 2014, at 2:49 PM
"Well now, why would you not think a same sex marriage unbeneficial? Surely you are not referring to procreation."
Ask society why they first decided to sanction heterosexual weddings and not homosexual ones. I'm sure procreation figures into the mix. We are not talking about why I think same sex marriage is not beneficial, we are talking about why society thinks it not beneficial, or not sufficiently beneficial to grant it license.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Oct 30, 2014, at 3:00 PM
Military spending is a constitutional function of government.
The national debt rose primarily because entitlement spending rose. Mr. Reagan expressed opposition to entitlement growth, but his budgets were "dead on arrival" at the speaker's podium.
Mr. Reagan proposed a number of libertarian measures, including more state control of education and other spending measures. He was largely unsuccessful.
I do not know why you think of the Earned Income Tax Credit when you think of him. He did sign a much-needed overhaul of the tax code, one which lowered rates and reduced loopholes, working closer to a flat-tax (a libertarian ideal), though not achieving one. Liberals like to quote him as saying "the Earned Income Tax Credit is the best anti-poverty, the best pro-family, the best job creation measure to come out of Congress", but he didn't say that, what he said referred to the tax bill as a whole, in which he said:
"For all these reasons, this tax bill is less a freedom -- or a reform, I should say -- than a revolution. Millions of working poor will be dropped from the tax rolls altogether, and families will get a long-overdue break with lower rates and an almost doubled personal exemption. We're going to make it economical to raise children again. Flatter rates will mean more reward for that extra effort, and vanishing loopholes and a minimum tax will mean that everybody and every corporation pay their fair share. And that's why I'm certain that the bill I'm signing today is not only an historic overhaul of our tax code and a sweeping victory for fairness, it's also the best anti-poverty bill, the best pro-family measure, and the best job-creation program ever to come out of the Congress of the United States."
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Oct 30, 2014, at 3:23 PM
The Libertarian Party (Big "L") is not the same as libertarianism. The Libertarian Party is dominated by the legal dope crowd, which is why true libertarians find themselves drawn to the Republican Party or the Constitution Party, or have given up on political parties altogether.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Oct 30, 2014, at 3:44 PM
"Because it was the biggest redistribution of wealth since Medicaid, and thus a big deal."
I don't know where you get that data, but it wasn't Mr. Reagan's idea, since it was enacted before him, and was not revised by him until late in his term, and was re-revisited a mere four years later.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Oct 30, 2014, at 3:50 PM
"So? That has nothing to do with my question. "
Yes it does. Libertarianism is all about the Constitution, and defense spending is constitutional spending, as opposed to entitlement spending, which is not (speaking from the libertarian point of view).
Since were "at war" (the Cold War), defense spending was permissible, though many libertarians disagree (a sticking point with libertarian Republicans, and one of the foundations of the TEA Party movement separating TEA Party Republicans form "Neo-Cons"). As I've said about wars, if you commit to them, you have to commit fully. That is a lesson that ought to have been learned in Vietnam, Korea, World War II, and the Great War, if not before. Mr. Reagan was holding to that principle. It was a move largely supported by the older generation (World War II, Korea) but less so by the younger generation (Vietnam and beyond).
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Oct 30, 2014, at 3:55 PM
"No libertarian can support foreign wars, that would be against libertarian principles. The initiation of violence is against libertarian principles. Wars can only be for defense purposes only."
The Constitution clearly gives the Congress the authority to wage foreign wars, distinguishing between national defense forces (the militia) and armies raises specifically for the fighting of wars. Almost immediately after becoming a nation, we engaged in the Barbary Wars, so I do not know from whence a principle opposed to the fighting of foreign wars arises.
The Income Tax is constitutional only because the Constitution was amended to permit it. Most libertarians I know begrudgingly admit that, and many work for the repeal of the amendment. However those that accept the Income Tax as a "necessary evil" also tend to favour a flat tax or some version of the "Fair Tax", most of which I've found abhorrent and unfair.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Oct 30, 2014, at 4:24 PM
As I said, I do not know from whence you define libertarianism. Most libertarians I know, which is to say those who define themselves by that label, might better be called "constitutionalists", because they define their libertarianism within the framework of the founders' intents, based on the idea of protection of individual liberties as delineated within the Bill of Rights.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Oct 30, 2014, at 5:05 PM
BC, Was not all the migration to American colonies made possible by those seeking money and power? There were private companies seeking financial reward and kings seeking power.
Thus it should be natural that those seeking loose from British rule to expect opportunity for power and wealth. By the people for the people allowed the best way to create the wealth and power to be controlled by the elite.
-- Posted by Old John on Thu, Oct 30, 2014, at 5:18 PM
Just curious BC, how do you feel about abortion?
-- Posted by Reasoning on Thu, Oct 30, 2014, at 8:36 PM
-- Posted by BCStoned on Thu, Oct 30, 2014, at 9:10 PM
Then I have to ask; how do you feel about capital punishment?
-- Posted by BonScott on Thu, Oct 30, 2014, at 11:03 PM
-- Posted by Rick▪ on Fri, Oct 31, 2014, at 6:01 AM
It's two different things Rick. One is an innocent life, the other has chosen to take a life.
-- Posted by BonScott on Fri, Oct 31, 2014, at 7:29 AM
Is Obama a narcissist?
Expects to be recognized as superior and special, without superior accomplishments
Expects constant attention, admiration and positive reinforcement from others
Envies others and believes others envy him/her
Is preoccupied with thoughts and fantasies of great success, enormous attractiveness, power, intelligence
Lacks the ability to empathize with the feelings or desires of others
Is arrogant in attitudes and behavior
Has expectations of special treatment that are unrealistic
-- Posted by not_sorry on Fri, Oct 31, 2014, at 9:41 AM
Why would you claim the President is a "socialist?"
It must because...
...he set up a program for the individual states to exchange private health insurance.
...he approved a plan for states to implement more stringent 'welfare to work" plans.
...the stock market rose to all time high levels during his administration.
...the deficit fell from $1.4 trillion (9.8% of GDP) to $500 billion (2.9% of GDP) during his presidency.
...the increase in private sector jobs during his administration caused the unemployment rate to fall from about 10% to about 5%.
...his actions allowed the private sector, American automobile industry to survive.
...he indorsed deeper spending cuts during the 2011 budget negotiations that the republicans "walked away from.
All that is much more "conservative" that "socialist."
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Tue, Nov 4, 2014, at 5:16 AM
Common, half of those things you listed, the government has no constitutional authority to be involved in. So yes, he is more of a socialist.
-- Posted by BonScott on Tue, Nov 4, 2014, at 7:18 AM
...he approved a plan for states to implement more stringent 'welfare to work" plans.-- Posted by commonsensematters on Tue, Nov 4, 2014, at 5:16 AM
It's ok to support your guy to death - we get that. But don't mislead or post absolute mistruths. Look at your statement above and then read what the GAO said:
Government Accountability Office (GAO) confirmed that President Barack Obama did in fact change the rules in Bill Clinton's landmark Welfare Reform Act despite the Obama administration's claims to the contrary.
The GAO said the Obama administration gutted the work requirements in the welfare law by giving states more latitude to get waivers for the work requirements or define "work" in a way that would allow those on welfare to receive benefits while doing things like going to fitness classes, which states could define as "work."
========
BonScott - half those things Common listed are outright.... "mistruths".
-- Posted by not_sorry on Tue, Nov 4, 2014, at 8:36 AM
factcheck.org is a soros funded web site. Sorry - not much credibility there when it comes to a neutral interpretation.
The principal authors of the 1996 welfare reform, Robert Rector of the Heritage Foundation, and Douglas Besharov, who advised Hillary Clinton on the 1996 welfare reform law, say that the work requirements are now relaxed.
Ron Haskins, one of the reform bill's authors now at the liberal Brookings Institution doesn't deny the Obama administration plans to waive the work requirements.
The Obama administration removed the federal work requirements and let states set their own. States have credited personal journaling, motivational reading, exercise at home, and helping friends run errands as "work."
======
Saw a news story last night. 2008 - 6,000,000+ on welfare. Now - 11,000,000 on welfare. If the economy is so good why is welfare up so high? Because states consider "exercising", "personal journaling" and "running errands" as work - so a person can receive welfare.
-- Posted by not_sorry on Tue, Nov 4, 2014, at 11:06 AM
Menu
Well, this isn't going to go over well.
Replies (69)