The Cellar - View Single Post

Undertoad · 05-25-2004, 12:23 PM

I would like to protect America from the rising storm, but if it doesn't resemble America to start, what's the point? The turning point to me was the over-reach of a constitutional amendment actively denying rights to homosexuals for a purely political play. Don't even try to change the document that defines what America is, to use it to take rights away.

The failure to keep the public on target wrt the war on terror is a leadership failure. Some of this comes down to: are we in a war or aren't we? The right is claiming all sorts of reach on the basis that we're at war - but at the same time, putting Tommy Chong in jail? Addressing steroids in sports? Going to fucking Mars? Letting Ashcroft run anything? Going into deficit spending to make political gains? No, if we're really at war, these things are nonsense.

Then there are all sorts of policy oddities such as defunding No Child Left Behind. I don't get it. We admit public education is failing, we have tried funding it better and that didn't work, so we decide to reform it - and then de-fund parts of the reforming? I don't get it.

Economically speaking the spending is what's really alarming. I do not believe the "tax cuts for the rich" are all bad at all -- the dividends approach was getting rid of a "double taxation" and healthy for the market and good for investors, and the capital gains tax was always dumb. But continuing to spend during these cuts and/or during a war? You can't do that! If you're going to spend for political purposes, you should lose the voters who care about economic responsibility.

I think that Kerry faced with a Republican house might be the best of both worlds, where the basically Conservative house keeps spending in check while a basically Liberal president makes hard decisions about priorities and nominates the Supremes.

I think it would be interesting if the Ds reformed along the lines of economic responsibility. I know the progressive argument is that people should enjoy being taxed up the wazoo, well, *my* progressive argument is that a better government could do everything this one tries to do with about half the money, if it did a better job of it. Look at what privatization did for the cities. Look how welfare reform didn't lead to starving welfare moms like y'all thought it would. We had an economic boom instead!

BUT, all that said, I gues protecting the country is still the first priority -- but Kerry wants to turn too much of that job over to the UN. Still, if there isn't another attack it means that ironically Bush can afford to be replaced - because enough of the WoT has already been won?

I dunno, it's pretty hard to figure.

05-25-2004, 12:23 PM	#24
Undertoad Radical Centrist Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Cottage of Prussia Posts: 31,423	I would like to protect America from the rising storm, but if it doesn't resemble America to start, what's the point? The turning point to me was the over-reach of a constitutional amendment actively denying rights to homosexuals for a purely political play. Don't even try to change the document that defines what America is, to use it to take rights away. The failure to keep the public on target wrt the war on terror is a leadership failure. Some of this comes down to: are we in a war or aren't we? The right is claiming all sorts of reach on the basis that we're at war - but at the same time, putting Tommy Chong in jail? Addressing steroids in sports? Going to fucking Mars? Letting Ashcroft run anything? Going into deficit spending to make political gains? No, if we're really at war, these things are nonsense. Then there are all sorts of policy oddities such as defunding No Child Left Behind. I don't get it. We admit public education is failing, we have tried funding it better and that didn't work, so we decide to reform it - and then de-fund parts of the reforming? I don't get it. Economically speaking the spending is what's really alarming. I do not believe the "tax cuts for the rich" are all bad at all -- the dividends approach was getting rid of a "double taxation" and healthy for the market and good for investors, and the capital gains tax was always dumb. But continuing to spend during these cuts and/or during a war? You can't do that! If you're going to spend for political purposes, you should lose the voters who care about economic responsibility. I think that Kerry faced with a Republican house might be the best of both worlds, where the basically Conservative house keeps spending in check while a basically Liberal president makes hard decisions about priorities and nominates the Supremes. I think it would be interesting if the Ds reformed along the lines of economic responsibility. I know the progressive argument is that people should enjoy being taxed up the wazoo, well, my progressive argument is that a better government could do everything this one tries to do with about half the money, if it did a better job of it. Look at what privatization did for the cities. Look how welfare reform didn't lead to starving welfare moms like y'all thought it would. We had an economic boom instead! BUT, all that said, I gues protecting the country is still the first priority -- but Kerry wants to turn too much of that job over to the UN. Still, if there isn't another attack it means that ironically Bush can afford to be replaced - because enough of the WoT has already been won? I dunno, it's pretty hard to figure.