Politics

[enrico514]

I don't agree that it is just my opinion. On some arguments you can have a philosophical difference with what was said tonight, I guess. But certain things aren't opinion: namely that the dog whistle swing state ads about welfare reform are out and out untrue; and the assertion that the Romney/Ryan line about cutting $716B from medicare is not only an intentional distortion of the facts, but laughably hypocritical coming from Paul Ryan.

In addition, I think you will see the narrative about the economy that has been sharpened by the Obama campaign since the weekend and amplified by Clinton tonight will be incredibly effective. You may say that is more opinion than fact, but I'm not totally convinced of that. I think that common sense dictates that you cannot expect this or any President to totally fix an economy that was as broken as the one Obama inherited in under four years. Clinton explained that masterfully. I predict that it will reach enough people to move the election a point or two, and that could easily be the difference.

Clinton has always been a great and powerful speaker. However, many would argue that Obama actions/decisions made the long term economic position of the US weaker.

 

[connor_in]

RI...ok...I see I am an R and therefore what I see is only an opinion but you supporting the D what you stated of what you see is fact. Got it.

Also, I am saddened tonseenyou do believen innthe NBCl/DNC belief that every thing put out by the Romney campaign is some sort of coded racist dog whistle. If that is your chosen belief than fine. However, my belief that D's use clas/racial/gender identity politics to the xetriment of those groups is also valid and easily substantiated. Tonight with Fluke and with the party platform you have seen what the D's thinknof women..they are not the dancing vaginas that shownup to someof these D get togethers (google it) the D's see them as voting vaginas. Their bone thrownto the group is all about what is from the waist down. Oh you will bring up equal pay but your own party is part and parcelpart of the problem. See the storieson the WH staff and the staff of congressional reps and see the D's are only capablenof talking agood game but not walking the walk. Besides if we are to get women equal pay forequal work first we should get them Joe Biden's favorite 3 letter word J O B S. Also, as far as the narritive of the economy...almost every measurement of the economy is worse than before this group took over. I seriously wish HRC had won in 08 as I don't think wewould have been this far down the rabbit hole. I wasn't a McCain supporter but voted for him because theD's went Obama...and it has nothing to do with race but with political views. Bill Clinton actually worked with Rs...I thought HRC might too

 

[enrico514]

How exactly are there people that care about this? I literally could not care any less about this, and neither should anyone else. It is not an issue of national significance; it is not an issue of any significance; it isn't even an issue.

If you honestly thought that this was interesting you really need to find a hobby.

How can people actually not care about this?

The principal of anyone pushing their own agenda and totally disregarding what their delegates/voters/people want repulses me. I guess "the people's vote" only counts when it serves the thugs running the show!

 

[Bogtrotter07]

you can predict a couple things...

I think they'd raise a militia against this government. I think they'd be libertarians, quite honestly, but if Adams were around, the Libertarian foreign policy might be a little better

It is pretty clear that BOTH these men thought God/religeon was pretty important, although Adams can be portrayed as a bit of a dichotomy on the subject, it is beyond refute that he liked the "governed" to be god fearing...

"We have no government armed in power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Our Constitution was made only for a religious and moral people. It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other." -Adams

I don't think there is debate on Jefferson's view of God/religeon, and its role.

The fact that the left seems bent on removing faith and religion from everything...thats totally inconsistant with the views and INTENT of Adams and Jefferson...ya know those guys you described as "Visionary" earlier...Irony, when one adds to a tower calling it progress, themselves then progressive, by pulling from its foundation.

Also, both pattriots were generally hard over on the sanctity of property...wealth included. Many make the mistake of assuming Adams was ok with "public" philanthropy. Adams marveling at "public" charities WAS NOT an endorsement for government involvement in charitable endeavors...so before we even go there...ERRRR....GONG! He marveled at PRIVATE donations for the public good...specifically at Franklin's ability to make that happen. Adams and Jefferson had their moments, but they agreed on some fundamental things. Jefferson was certainly more of the visionary when it came to predicting progressives of today. Both voiced concern that the "Democracy" would eventually eat itself...Jefferson just told ya why he thought it could happen...

"To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers, have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, the guarantee to everyone the free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it.”
-Jefferson

“A wise and frugal government … shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government.”
-Jefferson

Much can be predicted if you do not torture what people say to fit your view...

This politics stuff...I have beliefs, for sure. But most of the time I come on here to mess around with people, and trade some barbs...I don't get this political missionary thing you are doing...defend your position...great...interject when you disagree...cool. But it seems like every discussion you are in you ratchet up to people getting angry...political stuff can be fun if you actually have a sense of humor...you may...and maybe there is a blindness on my part to italicized text when you type it...but lately your posts...lookin for a fight all the time...why?

Do you read the quotes you include? Jefferson was not even considered a Christian by his peers, in practice or belief.

Jefferson and Adams distinguished between aquiring wealth through labor and acumulation of capital. Both were for the former, and you show me where they were not against the later.

Adams was a landholder. But he was nearly wiped out through the revolution. His legal career, in which he was quite successful, was one long act of charity. So was his government service. Though they had property and farmed, he was far from the wealthy capatilst he is oft portrayed. And he would tell you, what the Adams' had, they owed to Abigail, one of the greatest minds (recorded) of the time.

Jefferson was considered wealthy, but was nearly broke at the time of his death. There are plenty of indicaters that decry his inclination to support today's tea party, as a few moderns want to promote. And to the man, in his time, just read of his involvement with his slave-children, and how he treated his slaves at his demise. This shows the evolutionary nature of his persona, not the inflexible unchanging character stamped in the role of "Founding Father" by today's far right. He made a "revolutionary" change in his preception of the accepted institution of slavery within his own lifetime, and came to conclusions not supported by the convention of his times. He was a free and innovative thinker; not a conservative bastion, by any means.

Among the wealthist of people at the time of the Revolution was Martha Washington. Yes I said Martha. The view we have today is often an amazing caricature of these people.

Back to the founding fathers: They had a number of shortcomings, that everyone wants to overlook. This speaks to their humanity. They are among the greatest men of all time, but they still had their flaws, flaws that preclude them only from being the be all and end all. Only Abigail Adams saw the folly of (not) dealing with slavery the way the founding fathers did. And she rightly predicted that it would end in civil war.

This links her more successfully with at least one modern successful politition, actually the most popular, most highly approved living politician.

Last night, in what may be the final deathblow to the modern "trickle down economic theory" Bill Clinton identified its shortcoming. First he showed that job growth was slower under Republicans and then he explained why, when he showed how certain programs that encourage all people to join the economic middle, and contribute, make business sense, promote economic gain, and is the morally correct thing to do. Watch the speach again. There is no disconect between doing the morally right thing and doing good business. Feeding a poor child, providing educational experience, providing jobs, all pay everybody, from the wealthiest to the poorest. And it is the right thing to do.

Anyone idealized founding father to youngest affected child, cannot argue with this rhetoric; it is logical and provable; backed by the history of our country.

 

[RDU Irish]

"brass balls" Bill Clinton won election with 43% and 49% of the vote in 92 and 96. The glory boy of the DNC never broke 50%! Yet we are left in awe of his awesomeness any time he speaks. If I had more spare time I would YouTube his speach because I have a hard time believing he is 100% behind Obama. Any time I have seen him talk he sounds frustrated that Hillary isn't on the ballot.

Plus, if he actually measured meaningful defense of Barack Obama I would really like to know what it is. I'll go on a limb and guess it starts with blaming Bush and ends with transforming to a "green" economy.

 

[RDU Irish]

So Bill Clinton wants to be the invisible hand...... look out ladies.

 

[RDU Irish]

and Bog - Show me the people dying in the streets or denied health care? The best you have is Sandra Fluck who needs us to pay for her to avoid abortions.

I am all for a safety net, I don't hear anyone arguing against that. What I have a problem with is a saftey HAMMOCK.

If government is to become the ultimate charity, shouldnt Romney get just as much credit for his contributions to charity as taxes. Media likes to gloss over how generous he is but pat Obama and Biden on the back for how generous they are with other people's money.

 

[Bogtrotter07]

"brass balls" Bill Clinton won election with 43% and 49% of the vote in 92 and 96. The glory boy of the DNC never broke 50%! Yet we are left in awe of his awesomeness any time he speaks. If I had more spare time I would YouTube his speach because I have a hard time believing he is 100% behind Obama. Any time I have seen him talk he sounds frustrated that Hillary isn't on the ballot.

Plus, if he actually measured meaningful defense of Barack Obama I would really like to know what it is. I'll go on a limb and guess it starts with blaming Bush and ends with transforming to a "green" economy.

Here is a summary: The Republicans left this country in the worst mess save the great depression, somthing me(Clinton), nor anyone else who has ever held the office could ever clean up in four years, and they want you to fire Obama, because he isn't making progress fast enough, so that you can put the Republicans back in charge.

He also made reference to the Republican obstructionist congress, and a few hypocritical qotes and statements, but that was just decorations on the frosting. Look it up. It was devistating and well received. Aimed at independents, Clinton's specialty.

RDU, I have an objection replying to your other posts, as I find them less than tasteful, and disingenuous. I have made a decision. I will not promote behavior on this site that I will not tolerate face-to-face, or in my home.

 

[irish1958]

Oh by the way...thought this was interesting...

PREDETERMINED: Photo proves DNC teleprompter loaded to affirm 2/3rds vote regardless outcome » The Right Scoop -

How exactly were they able to discern this and get it to the teleprompter so quickly?

Exactly the same thing happened at the republican convention. Anyone who believes this type of convention nonsense isn't the usual practice is naive.
I really don't understand the fixation on the "founding fathers." Are we forever doomed to follow their mores, prejudices, and convictions? Men who accepted (and OWNED) slavery? Who counted "blacks" as three-fifths of a person? I could go on and on. I will take our modern problems, warts and all, over that mess.
Besides, the founding fathers accepted the idea of society's evolution by endorsing the phrase "more perfect" in the Declaration of Independance, implying that this was not perfect and was an ongoing struggle. Later, they wrote into the Constitution procedures to change and amend it, again implying that they did not feel that it was a perfect and unchanging document. The Northern states actually refused to accept it unless it was amended to include the Bill of Rights.

 

[Rhode Irish]

You guys are hilarious. Don't have anywhere near enough time to respond to everything posted since my last post right now, but suffice to say there is no shortage of nonsense.

 

[RDU Irish]

Hey - The DNC put her on the podium, not me.

Dems never passed a budget since being in power, how is that responsible? What have they cut spending on? What did they do to address the fiscal cliff (I'll refrain from reposting the numbers on this since facts get in the way of arguing).

Clinton passed a doozy of an economy over to Bush. Tech bubble anyone? So maybe he knows more about passing a turd on to the next guy than anyone.

WWBCD with an obstructionist congress? I dunno, maybe grab a few of their good ideas and make it your own. Hard for them not to pass legislation they have on their "contract with America" when the President is pushing hard for it. But then using the bully pulpit for something other than beer summits, Sandra Fluck or Treyvon Martin comments is beyond the comprehension of the ametuer in chief.

 

[RDU Irish]

Did Clinton also mention Obama's promise that passing the Stimulus would keep unemployment below 8%? How did that one work out? Or did Bush make him say it?

 

[Bogtrotter07]

Where do you get this from? Never mind. I don't want to know, or protract this.

 

[autry_denson]

Did Clinton also mention Obama's promise that passing the Stimulus would keep unemployment below 8%? How did that one work out? Or did Bush make him say it?

initial projections on unemployment from the best economists in the country were wrong, you're absolutely correct. I forget the actual estimates on jobs but the stimulus probably lowered unemployment by a few percentage points.

you know what it also did? 1) invested in the science of health and energy in an unprecedented way (want to see federal $ in action, by the way? check out the front page NYT story on the ENCODE project - everyone who has said gov't can't do anything well in this thread, please read the whole thing); 2) ensured that public schools didn't deteriorate, class sizes didn't skyrocket upward, and that states would adopt the most innovative evidence-based reforms in order to receive federal funding; 3) kept thousands of police officers on the street at a time when cities across the country were in danger of collapsing; 4) funded the most innovative homeless *prevention* program ever to be implemented, which is why you don't see thousands of families on the street right now (more cost efficient than any other type of homeless assistance, it served over 800,000 people by last year); 5) invested in green technology, which is risky (see Solyndra) yet absolutely essential to the future of the economy (see the hundreds of other loans that, unlike Solyndra, have set up our nation for a sustainable economic future); 6) rebuilt the nation's infrastructure and planted the seeds for the next wave of environmentally sound transportation systems - again, risky stuff, but there is an enormous upside that goes along with the risk of inefficiencies.

And it did all of this with less fraud than any other public (and probably private) large-scale distribution of funds in our nation's history. It wasn't a perfect piece of legislation, and it did not solve the problem of joblessness, but it was probably one of the best examples in our nation's history of good government at work.

 

[BobD]

The Republicans don't seem to understand that their problem isn't Obama and the Democratic party. THEY are their own worst enemy. They're so divided as a party they can't decide where to stand on anything. The internal power struggle inside their party has paralized them, thats whats killing them and hurtng our country in the process.

 

[connor_in]

You guys are hilarious. Don't have anywhere near enough time to respond to everything posted since my last post right now, but suffice to say there is no shortage of nonsense.

Sorry RI...gotta do this...

Isn't this called a Biden? (Paraphrasing) I'd tell ya how we are better off now than we were four years ago, but its too hot right now.

 

[Ndaccountant]

initial projections on unemployment from the best economists in the country were wrong, you're absolutely correct. I forget the actual estimates on jobs but the stimulus probably lowered unemployment by a few percentage points.

you know what it also did? 1) invested in the science of health and energy in an unprecedented way (want to see federal $ in action, by the way? check out the front page NYT story on the ENCODE project - everyone who has said gov't can't do anything well in this thread, please read the whole thing); 2) ensured that public schools didn't deteriorate, class sizes didn't skyrocket upward, and that states would adopt the most innovative evidence-based reforms in order to receive federal funding; 3) kept thousands of police officers on the street at a time when cities across the country were in danger of collapsing; 4) funded the most innovative homeless *prevention* program ever to be implemented, which is why you don't see thousands of families on the street right now (more cost efficient than any other type of homeless assistance, it served over 800,000 people by last year); 5) invested in green technology, which is risky (see Solyndra) yet absolutely essential to the future of the economy (see the hundreds of other loans that, unlike Solyndra, have set up our nation for a sustainable economic future); 6) rebuilt the nation's infrastructure and planted the seeds for the next wave of environmentally sound transportation systems - again, risky stuff, but there is an enormous upside that goes along with the risk of inefficiencies.

And it did all of this with less fraud than any other public (and probably private) large-scale distribution of funds in our nation's history. It wasn't a perfect piece of legislation, and it did not solve the problem of joblessness, but it was probably one of the best examples in our nation's history of good government at work.

But where did the nearly $1t come from? Who pays for it? What is the long term cost of doing that?

The whole problem with the stimulus is that for every good thing people point out, there are serious question marks as to whether or not we are better off for it in the future. There is no way to know for sure what will happen down the road, but our government debt load is unstainable and the good you listed out above may come at a cost 10 years from now when we have to shrink gov't spending or seriously raise taxes, both of which have a negative impact on the economy as a whole.

The stimulus would have been good if it kicked off a large wave of growth for many years where the increased growth could pay for the program. Well, we haven't seen the large growth and our debt is climbing.

 

[phgreek]

Do you read the quotes you include? Jefferson was not even considered a Christian by his peers, in practice or belief.

Jefferson and Adams distinguished between aquiring wealth through labor and acumulation of capital. Both were for the former, and you show me where they were not against the later.

Adams was a landholder. But he was nearly wiped out through the revolution. His legal career, in which he was quite successful, was one long act of charity. So was his government service. Though they had property and farmed, he was far from the wealthy capatilst he is oft portrayed. And he would tell you, what the Adams' had, they owed to Abigail, one of the greatest minds (recorded) of the time.

Jefferson was considered wealthy, but was nearly broke at the time of his death. There are plenty of indicaters that decry his inclination to support today's tea party, as moderns want to promote. And to the man, in his time, just read of his involvement with his slave-children, and how he treated his slaves at his demise. This shows the evolutionary nature of his persona, not the inflexible unchanging character stamped in the role of "Founding Father" by today's far right. He made a "revolutionary" change in his preception of the accepted institution of slavery within his own lifetime, and came to conclusions not supported by the convention of his times. He was a free and innovative thinker; not a conservative bastion, by any means.

Among the wealthist of people at the time of the Revolution was Martha Washington. Yes I said Martha. The view we have today is often an amazing caricature of these people.

Back to the founding fathers: They had a number of shortcomings, that everyone wants to overlook. This speaks to their humanity. They are among the greatest men of all time, but they still had their flaws, flaws that preclude them only from being the be all and end all. Only Abigail Adams saw the folly of (not) dealing with slavery the way the founding fathers did. And she rightly predicted that it would end in civil war.

This links her more successfully with at least one modern successful politition, actually the most popular, most highly approved living politician.

Last night, in what may be the final deathblow to the modern "trickle down economic theory" Bill Clinton identified its shortcoming. First he showed that job growth was slower under Republicans and then he explained why, when he showed how certain programs that encourage all people to join the economic middle, and contribute, make business sense, promote economic gain, and is the morally correct thing to do. Watch the speech again. There is no disconect between doing the morally right thing and doing good business. Feeding a poor child, providing educational experience, providing jobs, all pay everybody, from the wealthiest to the poorest. And it is the right thing to do.

Anyone idealized founding father to youngest affected child, cannot argue with this rhetoric; it is logical and provable; backed by the history of our country.

Sorry Bogs...pressed for time...telecon on mute right now, and my accountant screaming for data...so I'll try and compress your concerns such that I can answer quickly...


I don't agree that they proscribe making a determination between any property at all with any purpose of government in mind.

After that it sounds like you are saying that people change, and that charicatures of them are not accurate in an attempt to convince me these guys would have changed their views over time. They are human, they are fallable, and they self-evaluate like all good men....but nowhere did I see Jefferson saying "maybe I was too harsh on Charity and government"...he saw that as a non-starter issue dude, and foundational...Adams Saw God and religion as critical to formation and success of the government. I'm not with you at all in thinking these are issues they'd change.

I like Bill Clinton...he is a great delivery guy...no question...but to ascribe irrefutable logic staus to what he said...THATS probably not a good idea.

You are still my favorite passionate dude on here...we disagree...but good hell its politics...the idea is to have these discussions more like Ronny Raygun did...and to some degree Clinton too...but ya gotta understand, even as dismal as I think it seems if Obama wins again...there is nothing that can't be undone...andif it endangers the immediate health of the republic I expect you'd be there to fix it too, regardless of party. So I don't dispair, snivel, and get all pissy and PMSy about it...we fire zingers, laugh a little, and move our respective causes forward...by us being engaged, we are ALL in the vision of the fore fathers (is that not PC now or something...what do we call those guys so as not to invoke imagery that riles your side .

 

[autry_denson]

But where did the nearly $1t come from? Who pays for it? What is the long term cost of doing that?

The whole problem with the stimulus is that for every good thing people point out, there are serious question marks as to whether or not we are better off for it in the future. There is no way to know for sure what will happen down the road, but our government debt load is unstainable and the good you listed out above may come at a cost 10 years from now when we have to shrink gov't spending or seriously raise taxes, both of which have a negative impact on the economy as a whole.

The stimulus would have been good if it kicked off a large wave of growth for many years where the increased growth could pay for the program. Well, we haven't seen the large growth and our debt is climbing.

we should be aware of the nation's debt but you also have to be aware of what created and creates our debt. the stimulus was expensive, but not nearly as expensive as the two largest tax cuts in our nation's history under GWB or the two wars we have fought over the last decade.

all of these graphs made for public consumption are simplified, this one included - but what it does well is capture the relative portion of the debt attributable to different sources:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/files/2012/08/Debt-graph-CBPP.jpeg

if you think those wars were vital to our nation's future then maybe those funds were worth it. if you think that tax cuts are vital to our nation's future then maybe those two enormous tax cuts were worth it. if you think the investments made in the stimulus were important to our nation's future than that funding might be worth it.

i won't debate the merits of each contributor to the debt, we all have our own opinions. i'll just say that you can't attack the stimulus for increasing the debt without considering the relative merits of spending federal dollars on investments like those made in the recovery act, versus giving the nation an enormous set of tax cuts, versus fighting two very long wars.

 

[Ndaccountant]

we should be aware of the nation's debt but you also have to be aware of what created and creates our debt. the stimulus was expensive, but not nearly as expensive as the two largest tax cuts in our nation's history under GWB or the two wars we have fought over the last decade.

all of these graphs made for public consumption are simplified, this one included - but what it does well is capture the relative portion of the debt attributable to different sources:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/files/2012/08/Debt-graph-CBPP.jpeg

if you think those wars were vital to our nation's future then maybe those funds were worth it. if you think that tax cuts are vital to our nation's future then maybe those two enormous tax cuts were worth it. if you think the investments made in the stimulus were important to our nation's future than that funding might be worth it.

i won't debate the merits of each contributor to the debt, we all have our own opinions. i'll just say that you can't attack the stimulus for increasing the debt without considering the relative merits of spending federal dollars on investments like those made in the recovery act, versus giving the nation an enormous set of tax cuts, versus fighting two very long wars.

The issue with the debt is that we are where we are and it really doesn't matter how we got here, just that we fix it. All I was saying is that there are serious question marks with the stimulus and it may have provided some temporary relief, but that could come at a larger cost later.

Want to know what I think will happen? Inflation. We will inflate our way out of it and that is a shame because for the teachers, civil servents and blue collar workers, they typically do not have the ability to have their wages rise with high inflation nor do they typically have the knowledge and asset base to protect their wealth.

 

[connor_in]

How can people actually not care about this?

The principal of anyone pushing their own agenda and totally disregarding what their delegates/voters/people want repulses me. I guess "the people's vote" only counts when it serves the thugs running the show!

They think that it is not a story because "it was simply an oversight", "there was no discord among the delegates", "it obviously passed by a 2/3 margin", "there is no division in the D party unlike the R party".

The last part is my favorite...there were no delegates for the convicted felon who earned them or any of the others here at the convention "because they did not complete their paperwork." The fact that they existed and that you can go to any leftward forum (HuffPo, DailyKos, DemocraticUnderground, et al) and find those D's that attack Obama from the left and even a few from the right shows that their narrative of "we (the D's) are unified" is complete and utter nonsense. In 2008 they were unified, but more I really think it was about anti-Bush and due to economic conditions "we want to go another way", but went slightly more for the more eloquent speaker and not another Clinton (again the "we want to go another way").

 

[Irish Houstonian]

They think that it is not a story because "it was simply an oversight", "there was no discord among the delegates", "it obviously passed by a 2/3 margin", "there is no division in the D party unlike the R party".

...

The division on Israel by the Left has been palpable for decades. Denying that is just delusional. The pragmatics know that support is necessary for the Jewish vote, and the idealistic hard-cores see Israel as an occupying force worthy of nothing. The two strategies couldn't be more diametrically opposed.

 

[autry_denson]

The issue with the debt is that we are where we are and it really doesn't matter how we got here, just that we fix it. All I was saying is that there are serious question marks with the stimulus and it may have provided some temporary relief, but that could come at a larger cost later.

Want to know what I think will happen? Inflation. We will inflate our way out of it and that is a shame because for the teachers, civil servents and blue collar workers, they typically do not have the ability to have their wages rise with high inflation nor do they typically have the knowledge and asset base to protect their wealth.

your own argument makes clear that it matters quite a bit how we got here. you're arguing against the recovery act b/c it increased the debt, but you're not arguing against the tax cuts. both of those are major contributors to the debt, the tax cuts being the much larger contributor and one that extends on into the future. if you think reducing the debt is a major priority then we need to debate the relative merits of different sources of the debt to determine how to reduce it. saying that the debt is a major problem does not translate naturally to: "so major social investments are a mistake." instead, it translates to a series of questions about what types of spending do you think are beneficial and what types are not? how important are tax cuts relative to the debt?

 

[Bogtrotter07]

Sorry Bogs...pressed for time...telecon on mute right now, and my accountant screaming for data...so I'll try and compress your concerns such that I can answer quickly...


I don't agree that they proscribe making a determination between any property at all with any purpose of government in mind.

After that it sounds like you are saying that people change, and that charicatures of them are not accurate in an attempt to convince me these guys would have changed their views over time. They are human, they are fallable, and they self-evaluate like all good men....but nowhere did I see Jefferson saying "maybe I was too harsh on Charity and government"...he saw that as a non-starter issue dude, and foundational...Adams Saw God and religion as critical to formation and success of the government. I'm not with you at all in thinking these are issues they'd change.

I like Bill Clinton...he is a great delivery guy...no question...but to ascribe irrefutable logic staus to what he said...THATS probably not a good idea.

You are still my favorite passionate dude on here...we disagree...but good hell its politics...the idea is to have these discussions more like Ronny Raygun did...and to some degree Clinton too...but ya gotta understand, even as dismal as I think it seems if Obama wins again...there is nothing that can't be undone...andif it endangers the immediate health of the republic I expect you'd be there to fix it too, regardless of party. So I don't dispair, snivel, and get all pissy and PMSy about it...we fire zingers, laugh a little, and move our respective causes forward...by us being engaged, we are ALL in the vision of the fore fathers (is that not PC now or something...what do we call those guys so as not to invoke imagery that riles your side .

First of all, what you and I do is what Clinton strongly avocated last night. It is what his foundation does. He says we don't ask what party you are, we all just get togther and go out and save some lives, (to paraphrase.) One of the biggest criticisms he leveled was at the right of the Republican Party, because they will not do what we do, talk and get along even though are politics differ. We are the solution, you and me, and everyone else that doesn't limit our imagination to talking points, conversations to those we agree with, and maintain our civility and friendship over minor differences. (When we are both dead and gone, how big will these differences be?)

Here is one for you. The founding fathers supported slavery, those southern or those northern, to the tune of a slave equaling 3/5ths of a white person; that was consistent with the moral outlook of the day. What would they say if they were formulating our nation with today's moral outlook? One that sees slavery as mankinds greatest sin?

And yes the founding fathers changed. For most of his life John Adams was a prick in his personal life. He did change.

The view we get of these men is through the broad brush canvas of their invention, which is an amalgamation, more than a diary. Modern legal aid owes it's favor to John Adams, more than any other historical figure, something never talked about when his red meat comments are brought up.

Finally, To follow a change in morals which would have greatly affected these men's attitude, there has been a change in technology. It is conflation to point to these archaic views as in any way meaningful in our modern world. These people were born in an age where the Brittish still beheaded their fallen foes, and hung them from a pike in a prominent spot in the city. In their day, with communications taking weeks, and wagon trains at the mercy of the elements, it was nearly impossible for the kind of charitable works that can be done today, to be even envisioned. What was done after Katrina, the 2004 tsunami, the Japanese tsunami, by the Gates foundation, by the Bushes and Clinton, could not have been done then, nor could they be done today without the underwriting of the United States government.

To those of you who say it is a governments primary purpose to defend its citizens from attack through waging war, I agree; I also belive it is our governments highest purpose to save our citizens from poverty, violence, and starvaition, through waging peace!

I also believe it is our duty to do this throughout the world, because we can. Because what is good for the world is good for us. Not form giveaways, or backing despots, but providing economically sound assistance.

 

[Rhode Irish]

They think that it is not a story because "it was simply an oversight", "there was no discord among the delegates", "it obviously passed by a 2/3 margin", "there is no division in the D party unlike the R party".

It is not a story because nobody cares about a party platform. It is a meaningless ritual, the same as counting the delegates.

This election is about enormous issues. Getting bogged down in the minutia of a party platform, nevermind the mundane process of creating it, is a waste of time.

 

[Ndaccountant]

your own argument makes clear that it matters quite a bit how we got here. you're arguing against the recovery act b/c it increased the debt, but you're not arguing against the tax cuts. both of those are major contributors to the debt, the tax cuts being the much larger contributor and one that extends on into the future. if you think reducing the debt is a major priority then we need to debate the relative merits of different sources of the debt to determine how to reduce it. saying that the debt is a major problem does not translate naturally to: "so major social investments are a mistake." instead, it translates to a series of questions about what types of spending do you think are beneficial and what types are not? how important are tax cuts relative to the debt?

My first comment was on stimulus and was trying to point out that by not inducing rapid growth, it may have not been worth it.

As far as tax cuts are concerned, I think I have made my stance known throughout the thread that tax rates per se are not the problem, rather the ability of those to plan their finances to avoid taxes (which I personally have no problem with people doing, I do it myself). We have a major tax issue in this country, but I believe the arguments that both the republicans and democrats make are intellectually dishonest.

 

[Bogtrotter07]

Ask the 2.5 to 3.0 million people that were on the bubble and kept their jobs whether it was worth it. It also made the car bailout go, which is about another 2.0 million.

That the tax rates are precieved as esotaric, is exactly what those who don't want to pay their fair share count upon.

 

[connor_in]

It is not a story because nobody cares about a party platform. It is a meaningless ritual, the same as counting the delegates.

This election is about enormous issues. Getting bogged down in the minutia of a party platform, nevermind the mundane process of creating it, is a waste of time.

Thank you...I have been waiting for this response. YES, dear Lord yes, I completely agree with this. For years, the second that a candidate got out of the convention, the platform was ignored. I have wondered for years why they even go thru the exercise anymore.

However, it seems that the party platform at the RNC this year was of great concern to a number of D's as well as the media (also one Senate candidate's from MO view that was nearly unanimously condemned by any R of note). The ideas in the platform were condemned as extreme and the exact same as the denounced candidate refernced and were brought up again and again and again. As you admit and I agree this is an item of little importance, BUT to be fair (which seems to be THE word of the current D party) it then needs to be overly discussed, overly analyzed, and everyone associated with the DNC needs to be tarred with it...just like their brethren in politics at the RNC were.

PS: Please note...I know I am being somewhat facetious above, but just want to express my frustration and "fairness" at the whole political situation of late. I used to LOVE politics as it was as big of a game as any sporting event. You used to have a good natured rivalry but worked together a majority of the time. Over the course of my life (in my 40's) I have seen things just deteriorate to the ugliest divisions that we have today. Both sides are to blame as both sides try to fan the flames to get the maximum effect for their side. I also know that politics have always had their ugly side...pre-US, during the creation of the US, and pre-"modern" political times. Actually if you look at some of the things said in history, you might even think we are actually still pretty civil in comparison.

 

[Ndaccountant]

Ask the 2.5 to 3.0 million people that were on the bubble and kept their jobs whether it was worth it. It also made the car bailout go, which is about another 2.0 million.

That the tax rates are precieved as esotaric, is exactly what those who don't want to pay their fair share count upon.

The point I am making is to look beyond that. Are the 2.5m that kept their job just delaying the inevitable? I don't know, but the it sure looks like there is going to be a major funding crisis in the future (or the personal wealth of millions will be drained by high amounts of inflation). Is the allocation of capital needed to finance the stimulus keeping millions of 20 somethings from getting a decent job? Maybe.

As far as taxes go, nobody wants to pay them. I have never come across one person who pays more than what the IRS deems they owe. I have yet to meet one person that looks at their tax bill and thinks their fair share is more and writes a check for the difference. Nobody wants to pay taxes. If they did, we probably would still be apart of England today.

 

[Irish Houstonian]

If you're blaming current deficits on old tax-cuts then you should throw in Kennedy too.

Both as a percentage of national income and as a percentage of the federal budget, no single tax cut has ever cut more than the Revenue Act of 1964.