Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
User Journal

smitty_one_each's Journal: Lest anyone cry 'racism' 42

Journal by smitty_one_each

George W. Bush: He Gave Rise to the Tea Party
During his five years in office, President Obama has often blamed his problems on what George W. Bush left him with: two wars, a historic recession, an out-of-control financial system and a huge budget deficit. But W.'s most enduring legacy to his successor may have been the tea party movement, and the political dysfunction that it has brought.

A counter-argument would be that the dysfunction centers around the non-enumerated Federal power growth that is not seen as legitimate.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Lest anyone cry 'racism'

Comments Filter:
  • by pudge (3605) * Works for Slashdot

    Those of us "on the ground" with the GOP during Bush's tenure know that many conservatives abandoned the GOP due to the spending and controlling ways of Bush and the Congress, and the people who joined the Tea Party were mostly those disaffected conservatives, who had either left the GOP, or were at least angry at it. Obama wasn't the original cause of the Tea Party, he was just the final straw.

    • I don't mind admitting that I had a complacent attitude about everything.
      Mostly, Obama isn't anything new, just all the old stuff turned up to 11.
      Nevertheless, this junk will stop. The question is the ugliness of the crash.
  • GWB was the most conservative president we had experienced in our country up to 2008. For reasons unclear to thinking people, his deeply conservative administration caused a large number of people who actually were being harmed by conservative policies to yearn for even more conservative policies. Naturally at that point there was plenty of money around from the small numbers of people who found the GWB administration beneficial to sway people into acting against their own interests.

    The amusing bit is
    • For a differing perspective, Bush43 was cut from the same Progressive cloth as Bush41.
      More expensive foreign wars, more collapse of power into DC.
      I suppose the attempt to do something about the Social Security plantation after the '04 election is one thing I would consider 'conservative' about Bush43.
      He also (at least claimed that he) tried to do something about Fanny/Freddy fandango.
      'Conservative' is about limited government carrying out enumerated powers under the auspices of We The People.
      For a good
      • For a differing perspective, Bush43 was cut from the same Progressive cloth as Bush41.

        Actually I don't see the two as being much similar at all. From a policy standpoint Bush41 tried to undo some of what Reagan did, while GWB tried to turn Reaganomics up to 11.

        'Conservative' is about limited government carrying out enumerated powers under the auspices of We The People.

        If you really feel that the only problem is that DC is doing too much, then you haven't had a conservative president since ... well probably ever. We can discuss why that has never happened, if you want. I instead use the view of a conservative as being someone who has their prime motivation on their 1040 form - some would call th

        • I instead use the view of a conservative as being someone who has their prime motivation on their 1040 form - some would call that a fiscal conservative - and their secondary motivation in the Bible.

          Look, I don't deny that the IRS is Constitutional. The 16th Amendment is right there. But how about "about evaluating actual facts and actual events"? We're $17Tr in the hole at this point, without the slightest indication of another possible course. And what's the viability of our vaunted social safety net? Social Security/Medicare/Medicaid all creaky, and now you want to throw an ObamaCare bomb in there, too? Who's having whom on here?
          To stabilize the system:
          - Expand the House [thirty-thousand.org] to be, you know, represent

          • I instead use the view of a conservative as being someone who has their prime motivation on their 1040 form - some would call that a fiscal conservative - and their secondary motivation in the Bible.

            We're $17Tr in the hole at this point

            And how does one end up in debt? By spending more than you take in. Being as we have simultaneously reduced federal income (by lowering taxes) while increasing spending, this is not a single-factor problem. We cannot get out of this problem by reducing income; in fact reducing income is moving in the wrong direction.

            And what's the viability of our vaunted social safety net? Social Security/Medicare/Medicaid all creaky

            Which is again the result of reducing federal income.

            now you want to throw an ObamaCare bomb in there, too?

            Every review that has been done on the expenses of the Health Insurance Company Bailout Act of 2010 shows that it will not increase the

            • Why those ones in particular? What is it about them that you feel is so terrible?

              Because Amends. 16 & 17 + Federal Reserve Act + freezing the size of the House in 1910, plus a century of development and Cold War Communist assault, have our government now running open loop.
              Congress throws together a multi-ream pile of hooey, passes it unread. Then executive agencies write more reams of regulation against the legislation, and we're living in a tyranny of bureaucrats.
              A century on, the Progressive model is just done. I could pile on more negativity if you care, but it's finished. The

      • ...more collapse of power into DC.

        Again wrong. Power passes through D.C., but, as always, it resides (by definition) where the wealth and privilege are, on Wall Street. That is where policy is set, for the folks in D.C. to execute and enforce. They are who select the candidates, which you, the voters, blindly accept.

        • I think that's substantially accurate, though it's more complicated by the fact that the elected officials, themselves, accrue some decent fortunes over time.
          Also, the political parties have some influence in candidate selection, which gives rise to the tension between the GOP elite and the Tea Party, which does lob an occasional Cruz or Paul in there to keep things interesting.
          What's fascinating here is your strange comfort level with this status quo. We're on the cusp of using technology to redistribute
          • What's fascinating here is your strange comfort level with this status quo.

            You are still trapped in your infinite loop. This is how I know you're not listening, and simply not worth further response.

            • No really: are we just doomed, as you seem to argue, or is it time to realize the Founder's vision of an informed electorate?
              The future is likely some squishy amalgamation, as there are those who really do prefer life on the plantation. Been that way since the Jews kvetched about being led out of Egypt during the Exodus.
    • You may think Obama a failure, and thus the 'conservative' label is so that, by the time Hillary runs in 2016, the propaganda will be that BO was subverted by the Republican Party, using NRA mind control lasers and a selfie of Karl Rove in a towel.
      It's all so clear.
      • Fascinating, but no.

        I call Obama a conservative because he is following the play book of every conservative president we've ever had. He hasn't signed a single bill into law yet that Bush, Reagan, Bush Sr, Ford, Nixon, etc ... would not have signed. He has also reduced taxes on the wealthiest more than any of them ever dreamed of doing. He has funneled more money into large corporations than any of them ever dreamed of doing as well.

        There is no need for mind control or any other such malarkey. Oba
        • Obama essentially punked the whole country - by running as a liberal and then acting as a conservative.

          I am in awe of this. He promised to "fundamentally transform" this country. And he has. Look at ObamaCare. Look at the workforce participation. Look at the crony capitalism. Look at the number of people on foodstamps, or other bread & circus handout.
          You can call this "Europeanization" of America "conservative" if you want to. It's all Holy Progress from my vantage.
          Oh, and we're supposed to get to Single Prayer, after ObamaCare has utterly devastated our healthcare and economy.

          • He promised to "fundamentally transform" this country.

            I'm not sure that those were his words, but the point is reasonable regardless. I will even say I wanted him to transform the country, though of course I am well aware of the limits on the ability of the POTUS to do such a thing.

            And he has.

            Except he has not. He has made a few minor changes, but all of them were in the same direction that our country was already headed under the direction of the previous conservative presidents.

            Look at ObamaCare.

            The Health Insurance Company Bailout Act of 2010 is another piece of conservative legis

            • I would love to know why you feel that a bill that supports the current system would be capable of doing that.

              I'm confident you'll continue to filter out any economic news that points to the increased Europeanization of America: unemployment skyrocketing, people on the dole, the number of under-employed mounting.
              It's kind of funny, in this thread, if you step back and admire my rejection of your application of the 'conservative' label to #OccupyResoluteDesk, and your rejection of the Europeanization of America.
              But the two systems unite at the point of a smarmy group of quasi-aristocrats, our dorks in DC vs. the m

              • I'm confident you'll continue to filter out any economic news that points to the increased Europeanization of America

                It is hard to filter out news that isn't there. I ask you for news and you give me nonsense. You can do so much better than this, smitty. You are making a mockery of yourself when you clam up in conservative talking points.

                unemployment skyrocketing, people on the dole, the number of under-employed mounting.

                Those numbers have scarcely changed since 2003. Why have they barely moved? Because we are still using the same economic tactics that we used then, which are the same ones we used in the 80s under Reagan.

                Rooms of little pointy-headed, pencil-neck bureaucrats who're just one more tax hike away from crafting Utopia.

                Casting your nightmare scenario as definite reality doesn't help you any eith

                • I think I had an epiphany here. Are you calling Obama a 'conservative' based upon a far-far Left perspective, such that anyone who isn't up to your doctrinaire Socialist leanings is clearly 'conservative'?
                  Perhaps we can find a middle ground (or no-man's land) here and call BHO a 'centrist'. That way, neither of us really has to 'own' this knob.
                  But here is a broader point: the 1787 U.S. Constitution was initially designed to filter out tyranny, and preserve the individual as the unit of analysis.
                  I argue s
                  • Are you calling Obama a 'conservative' based upon a far-far Left perspective, such that anyone who isn't up to your doctrinaire Socialist leanings is clearly 'conservative'?

                    No. I call President Lawnchair a conservative because every policy and law he has ever signed has been a direct extension of every conservative president we have ever had in this country. You cannot show me a single bill that Obama has signed into law that would not have been signed by Reagan or either Bush. You could go further down into history through other conservative presidents and find the same result.

                    I argue strongly, at length and in detail, that the Constitution has been weakened since Woodrow Wilson, putting too much power in DC, and diminishing States into license plate stamping outfits.

                    If that is your thesis you need to accept that the current state is fundamentally no different

                    • If that is your thesis you need to accept that the current state is fundamentally no different than it was during any conservative president we've had since Hoover with regards to the powers of the federal government and the role of the market in the economy.

                      I have, in fact, been saying that all along. Wilson scored a mission kill on our Constitution, and power has been collapsing into DC for a century. The vaunted "two-party" system is a farce--it's all Progressives.

                      Those have both been on the same trajectory for 30+ years now, due to policies not changing in a meaningful way since the 80s.

                      Yes, the Federal Reserve is evil, been saying that, too.

                      You have provided a link to a campaign speech. Sure, he said that. But he has not lived up to it. He said it five days before the 2008 presidential election, when it seemed clear that the democrats would have the house, senate, and white house after the election was over.

                      Well, I got you to admit that he said that. This feels like improvement. But the transformation into a 3rd World Banana Republic continues apace. Did you see D'Souza's flick [2016themovie.com]? Revelatory.

                      the policies he has signed have been deeply conservative, particularly from a financial standpoint

                      Republican Presidents have cheerfully, wantonly, signed d

                    • The vaunted "two-party" system is a farce--it's all Progressives.

                      Just to try to get a better reading on you, are you trying to make an argument that our country has never had a conservative president? Because for some time conservatives were labeling Reagan (in particular) as the conservative high water mark in the presidency. Of course, you are free to disagree with that and propose otherwise. I just want to make sure I understand your claim accurately.

                      And frankly, if Reagan was not a conservative, I shudder to think of what a conservative would do to my ability t

                    • Because for some time conservatives were labeling Reagan (in particular) as the conservative high water mark in the presidency.

                      Sure, but let's be clear that, in economically vanquishing the Soviet Union, Reagan was unafraid of deficit spending. And he didn't do anything about entitlements, or the Federal Reserve. Worst of all, Reagan (arguably due to the lack of an internet) left no substantial intellectual heir. Jack Kemp didn't get the job done. No, conservativism reverted to the Bush family, and Ross Perot was ineffective in 1992.
                      It's only with the advent of the internet that those zany old folks who think gazinta should equal

                    • Because for some time conservatives were labeling Reagan (in particular) as the conservative high water mark in the presidency.

                      Sure

                      Just to make this extra-uber clear, do you then see Reagan as a conservative president, or not? One question I may have not adequately asked you is whether or not you view any president who has been elected in the US since 1776 to be a conservative.

                      but let's be clear that, in economically vanquishing the Soviet Union, Reagan was unafraid of deficit spending

                      Frankly, if he had decent intelligence behind him he would have realized that once he convinced the Soviets that the Star Wars Missile Defense was real he could have slashed the military budget to peanuts as he doomed the USSR at that point to spend themselves

                    • Just to make this extra-uber clear, do you then see Reagan as a conservative president, or not? One question I may have not adequately asked you is whether or not you view any president who has been elected in the US since 1776 to be a conservative.

                      I do consider Reagan conservative, though I think 'warts and all' is a view you have to take with any of these political nitwits. Even 'Silent Cal' Coolidge let the scourge of the Federal Reserve stand. So we should endeavor to go easy with the canonize/demonize urge, and take everyone in context. The Obama damage might not have exceeded Jimmy Carter so substantially if not for coming on the heels of your boy George W.

                      Frankly, if he had decent intelligence behind him he would have realized that once he convinced the Soviets that the Star Wars Missile Defense was real he could have slashed the military budget to peanuts as he doomed the USSR at that point to spend themselves into oblivion to counter a weapon that did not exist.

                      I confess I don't see any value to this counter-factual.

                      And being as Obama hasn't ventured away from Bush's Reaganomics-derived policy

                      Keystone XL?
                      The war on coal?
                      The

                    • And being as Obama hasn't ventured away from Bush's Reaganomics-derived policy

                      Keystone XL?

                      Keystone XL was asking for the federal government to dictate to landowners to grant right-of-passage to the pipeline. Bush and Reagan would have told the Keystone group to find another route as it was interfering with private property; hence Obama actually left the federal government out by not getting involved.

                      The war on coal?

                      We extract and burn more coal now than we ever have in the past. The war on coal is in your imagination.

                      The EPA trying to regulate carbon?

                      The EPA is not taking orders directly from Obama. The EPA has numbers to support the hypo

                    • hence Obama actually left the federal government out by not getting involved.

                      Oh, just blocking it [ogj.com].

                      The war on coal is in your imagination.

                      Which correlates with facts quite nicely [gop.com].

                      The EPA is not taking orders directly from Obama.

                      President Jarrett's agenda is sure cleaning house, though.

                      You have mentioned before that you favor elimination of some standing amendments, even though they are indeed Enumerated.

                      No, Enumerated Powers [wikipedia.org] are not Amendments [wikipedia.org].

                      And now you have ventured back into conspiracy theory mode.

                      No, the Second Bill of Rights [wikipedia.org] is a historical fact, as are the various federal agencies that mark its cancerous growth. Nor am I specifically accusing any person OR party of conspiratorially doing anything--the collapse into autocracy has occurred in plain sight. I'll venture you disagree with my characterization, but it is what it is.

                      Pretty well every republican who has ever run for president has laid claim to this.

                      Oh, that's ri

                    • hence Obama actually left the federal government out by not getting involved.

                      Oh, just blocking it.

                      If he would have granted the keystone group what they were asking for he would have been trampling on private property rights. I thought you liked those?

                      The war on coal is in your imagination.

                      Which correlates with facts quite nicely.

                      That link actually goes to the republican party. You could hardly find a more biased source of "information" if you tried. Look at the amount of coal that is coming out of the ground, and being burned for energy, today. It is more than any other time in history. Only someone foolish enough to believe that god will give us more coal when we use up wha

                    • I, for one, am comfortable with this amount of talking past each other.
                    • I am sorry that you have chosen that path. We used to be able to discuss these matters and now you are more a parody of what you were a very, very, short time ago. Blindly repeating partisan talking points without concern for factual reality doesn't help anyone.
  • They were both really caused by this: Reality vs perception [upworthy.com]

    • For a more global secular perspective on the point, see this [youtube.com].
      But what really fascinates me in your case, knowing that you're Christian, is that you miss the scriptural point in all of this:
      fretting all this vain loot under the sun is a straight-up 10th Commandment violation.
      Giving place to Satan to spread envy over the neighbor's material goods has been both:
      (a) a tremendous source of political power to demagogues, and
      (b) a source of spiritual darkness.
      We need to pray for Donald Trump's soul, and mayb
      • Envy? Massive violation of a major sin that cries out to heaven, and you're worried about ENVY that it causes?

        Yes, we need to pray for Donald Trump's soul, that's the point.

        • You're not seeing how envy is used as

          a tremendous source of political power to demagogues?

          • Oh it is, but it is the demagogues who are causing the envy with their own sin first. If there wasn't an economy based on death (1:3 people conceived under the age of 40 were not allowed to be born) and genocide of the poor, there wouldn't be any purpose to the envy.

            • Meh. Demagogues may inflame some sin, but they're tapping an ember that's in every human heart, saved or otherwise.
              • Yes, Original Sin exists. But that doesn't mean we should let the Demagogues flame it.

                • So you're agreeing that this class warfare talk is substantially a distraction?
                  • Class warfare exists- it's all from the top down though. It is the minority of owners against everybody else- the Tea Party recognized that first, Occupy second (liberals were late to that party). It isn't just envy- it is an outright attack on the poor and middle class on several fronts, not just in the market but also in population control measures to rid the rich of the "surplus population", and now, health care.

"I'm not a god, I was misquoted." -- Lister, Red Dwarf

Working...