Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 60 (9209 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: Skylink
Post Volume: Total: 919,495 Year: 6,752/9,624 Month: 92/238 Week: 9/83 Day: 9/24 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Should we let Bill Frist & Co. change the rules of the senate ?
nator
Member (Idle past 2424 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 106 of 256 (211410)
05-26-2005 8:38 AM
Reply to: Message 96 by Monk
05-26-2005 12:18 AM


Re: Republican compromise
quote:
Do you want to know the difference?
Dobson is a preacher. Ok? Do you understand that?
He can discuss his views with Bill Frist or anyone else in government who chooses to listen to him. It seems that every time there is meeting with Dobson or any religous leader and a politician, it is publicized as proof of the formation of the "new fundamentalist theocracy" emerging in the US. That's ridiculous. There is no conspiracy when preachers meets with members of the government.
And who else are they meeting with? Are they also meeting with the president of NOW or Planned Parenthood or the National Science Foundation, or the ACLU, or the Sierra Club, or the Garment Workers of America union?
It's important to note what organizations are NOT getting a hearing in the current administration, monk.
Is is clear that Frist, Hastert, Bush, and others are voting the way Dobson and other conservative Christians would like them to.
All we have to do is look at how they vote.
quote:
Dobson has a right to put his view forward and to express his opposition to those issues that he finds objectionable. You would claim it as your right to do the same.
Sure. What other views are being heard in Washington right now, judging by the actions and statements of the leadership?
quote:
He also has a right to express his opinions and his faith to his elected official as any citizen can.
BUT HE CAN ONLY EXPRESS AN OPINION. Got it?
Are you kidding me?
Dobson has incredible power in Washington because he, Robertson, Falwell, and others can influence one of the most important voting blocks in America; evangelical conservative Christians.
The Republicans in power today are there in large part because Evangelical conservative Christians put them there, and the threat of taking away the votes is real.
quote:
Now look at Ted Kennedy. Ted has all of the freedoms of expression that Dobson does, he can put forward his agenda for a liberal society much to the angst of conservatives and he can be just as vociferous in defending his ideology as Dobson.
But Ted has the power to vote in Congress, Dobson doesn't.
Yes, but are you seriously saying that Dobson, Falwell, Robertson, and other radical conservative Christians do NOT have huge influence in Washington among those with the most power?
quote:
Kennedy has been a senator for years, chairman of commitees, inside the beltway . He wields much more power in the government than Dobson ever could.
I disagree.
Dobson can deliver large amounts of votes. That makes him extremely powerful.
He's a lobbyist.
But anyway, you still haven't indicated exactly how Kennedy's views would make his choice for a SCOTUS justice a poor one.
Can you please explain?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by Monk, posted 05-26-2005 12:18 AM Monk has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by Monk, posted 05-26-2005 5:28 PM nator has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2424 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 107 of 256 (211412)
05-26-2005 8:46 AM
Reply to: Message 103 by Tal
05-26-2005 8:00 AM


Re: Republican compromise
quote:
60 minutes....would that be Dan Rather and cBS?
So, are you saying that a source of information that inflates or mistrpresents of lies about anything, even once, should be completely mistrusted forever after?
Well then, I guess you should never believe a single thing that Bush says ever agin, right?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by Tal, posted 05-26-2005 8:00 AM Tal has not replied

Silent H
Member (Idle past 6074 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 108 of 256 (211471)
05-26-2005 11:58 AM
Reply to: Message 102 by Alexander
05-26-2005 6:44 AM


Re: Republican compromise
But, after this veto, the political power of the fundamentalists will decline. Look at the coalition backing this bill in the house! They have a jew, a christian, a catholic, a liberal, a conservative, etc. A veto would be spitting in the face of plural society, and will do the republicans more harm than good, IMO.
I agree that this will be a split and I hope it will result in a decline for the fundamentalists. For anyone keeping score this is another prediction of mine coming true.
I was not disheartened by the 2004 election and stated here at EvC that it was an obvious coalition between all stripes of Republicans which would necessarily mean the next four years will be those stripes vying for internal power.
There would have to be splits, and this is one of the first big ones... keep 'em coming because it only makes me smile.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by Alexander, posted 05-26-2005 6:44 AM Alexander has not replied

Silent H
Member (Idle past 6074 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 109 of 256 (211475)
05-26-2005 12:10 PM
Reply to: Message 103 by Tal
05-26-2005 8:00 AM


Re: Republican compromise
60 minutes....would that be Dan Rather and cBS?
I'm sorry, what is your attempted insinuation:
1) Jerry Falwell and other evangelists were allied with CBS, trying to smear Bush and Co because they knew if people found out what control they had it'd piss people off?
or
2) CBS altered the footage somehow syncing all the lies they were planting to his mouth's movements, and when it aired the evangelists decided to back the episode because they were blackmailed or something, instead of suing?
Remember I said they "openly discussed". This was not some announcer saying things with random shots of evangelists. This was a series of direct interviews with evangelists stating their positions (Falwell being the lead one) with others backing the statements.
Also in my post I suggested there were other pieces including segments run by the 700 Club itself, where Pat Robertson discussed his meetings with the White House to guide policy. I guess you don't remember it, but he actually started making the president sound like an idiot for not following Robertson's advice completely (because he wasn't understanding everything). This lead to a spat between Robertson and other evangelist leaders in teh runup to the 2004 elections, because they felt he was hurting Bush.
Unless you're going to tell me the 700 club is a liberal media outlet spreading lies, it's time to accept the truth.
I've never seen someone so gullible toward propaganda and so skeptical toward the truth.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by Tal, posted 05-26-2005 8:00 AM Tal has not replied

Monk
Member (Idle past 4179 days)
Posts: 782
From: Kansas, USA
Joined: 02-25-2005


Message 110 of 256 (211478)
05-26-2005 12:24 PM
Reply to: Message 98 by zyncod
05-26-2005 1:21 AM


Re: Corporate influence
I agree with everything in your post, but I'm curious. Why do you believe the third parties in Britain have a greater influence on the two main parties there compared to third party influence here? Maybe our British members can contribute to the discussion. I know I'm off topic

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by zyncod, posted 05-26-2005 1:21 AM zyncod has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by arachnophilia, posted 05-26-2005 2:59 PM Monk has not replied

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1599 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 111 of 256 (211531)
05-26-2005 2:59 PM
Reply to: Message 110 by Monk
05-26-2005 12:24 PM


Re: Corporate influence
Why do you believe the third parties in Britain have a greater influence on the two main parties there compared to third party influence here?
one word: plurality.
here, we have two major parties. pretty much everyone votes for one of the two, so the people who vote for someone else serve to split the vote on one side (usually liberal), and make the other side win.
in england, they have several parties, which are much closer in size. you vote for the party you like, from a wider range of choices. parties with similar views will form little alliances in order to win. this allows "third" parties to get bigger, and actually get into parliment and get a say, when they ally themselves with larger parties to push them over the number they need to win.
basically, the analogy is like this. suppose you have a dozen students who want to go on a spring break. 4 want to go to alaska, 3 want to go to cancun, 3 to daytona beach, and 2 to south padre island. under our system, they'd go to alaska, and 8 students would be unhappy. they wanted to go to somewhere hot. under the plurality system, the 8 hot-placers would win, and then have to decide which place they were going. in other words, it more adequately fits what the people want.
there's also not as much "lesser of two evils" going on.
This message has been edited by arachnophilia, 05-26-2005 03:00 PM

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by Monk, posted 05-26-2005 12:24 PM Monk has not replied

Monk
Member (Idle past 4179 days)
Posts: 782
From: Kansas, USA
Joined: 02-25-2005


Message 112 of 256 (211544)
05-26-2005 4:18 PM
Reply to: Message 99 by Silent H
05-26-2005 5:23 AM


Holmes writes:
I'm not sure if this is necessarily true. Most corporations are happy to get gov't assistance, even if it is gov't subsidized loans or tax shelters rather than total freebie money handouts.
Sure, everyone wants to get a benefit if it can be had but I don’t believe that most corporations do so at the expense of their employees. I would also say that most corporations get by without gov’t subsidies and freebie handouts.
Holmes writes:
Most Republicans are quick to undercut any sort of assistance like these to individuals, yet are in full support of them for corporations on the flimsy excuse that corporations make jobs. In reality it is a functioning and healthy (financial health as well) populace which gives the corporations jobs to fill, and in any case it is the individual citizen that begins a corporation.
Thus Republicans, for some reason, give an edge and empowerment to existing corporations, while undercutting new growth (which is what a free market should involve) as well as financial health of citizens NOT being aided by corporations.
I disagree. Your argument rests on age old, generalized, stereotypical descriptions of Republicans. Your term most actually refers to the extreme fringe group within the party. Your characterizations may be correct for that group but they are the minority.
Most Republicans do NOT want to undercut assistance to individuals and are NOT always in full support of corporations. Most do NOT oppose new growth and ARE concerned about citizens not aided by corps.
Why do I believe this? Why is my definition of most different than yours? Because demographic studies say so. These studies show a distinct comparative difference between various voting blocs within the major political parties.
This is true for both Democrats and Republicans. The PEW Research Center is a non partisan group that surveys the political landscape and defines political factions within each major party. Here is how they break down the electorate:
For Republicans, the following groups represent 29% of the public:
Enterprisers: 9% Staunch conservative, highly patriotic, strong pro-business, opposes social welfare, assertive foreign policy, less religious than other GOP groups.

Social Conservatives: 11%
Conservative, highly religious, critical of business, supports gov’t regulation to protect public good, supports environmental issues.

Pro-Government Conservatives: 9%
Broadly religious, Favors government support for social programs, government support for business regulation, favors generous assistance to the poor.
For Democrats, the following groups represent 41% of the public:

Liberals: 17%
Opposes assertive foreign policy, strong support for environment, strong supporter of government assistance to the poor, highly secular, anti-business

Conservative Democrats: 14%
Staunchly religious, moderate foreign policy, strong sense of personal empowerment, pro-business

Disadvantaged Democrats: 10%
Mostly minority voters, poorly educated, high distrust of both business and government.
Swing Voters, the following groups represent 30% of the public:

Upbeats: 11%
Relatively moderate, positive view of their financial situation, government performance, business, and the state of the nation in general. Affluent and well educated.

Disaffected: 9%
Deeply cynical about government, unsatisfied with their financial situation, do not usually vote, less affluent and educated than Upbeats.

Bystanders: 10%
Stays on the political sidelines, mostly young, rarely votes, indifferent to politics on either side.
So the group you are referring to, Enterprisers, is the closest match to your conception of Republicans yet this group consist of only 9% of the general public.
The remaining 20% of Republicans have a very different value base than the narrow group you refer to. Indeed, a significant portion of swing voters representing 30% of the public voted for Bush in 2004.
This was a primary reason for his victory, yet I would not classify that group as having the characteristics you describe.
You speak of the trend and give that as the reason why Democrats view Republicans with disdain and why they adhere to the stereotypes you describe. But these Democrats should take a closer look at exactly what type of people they are speaking of and the values that these people hold.
Once that is done, it can be seen that the majority of voters that elected Bush are significantly different than your so called Republicans.
Pew goes on to describe this value gap within the Republican party:
quote:
The value gaps for the GOP are, perhaps surprisingly, greatest with respect to the role of government. The Republicans' bigger tent now includes more lower-income voters than it once did, and many of these voters favor an activist government to help working class people.
Government regulation to protect the environment is an issue with particular potential to divide Republicans. On this issue, wide divisions exist both within the GOP and among right-of-center voters more generally.
So when you make statements like:
quote:
I watch conservatives, and especially the Republicans, betray everything they have stated they hold dear, that America has stood for, and act out in the way they claim Democrats do... when actually Democrats don't.
It simply doesn’t carry any weight. You are basing your assertions upon faulty, obsolete stereotypes.
This seems to be a lengthy post based initially on your use of the word "most" to describe Republicans. It may on the surface seem to be just a somewhat random choice of words on your part, but I believe it goes to the root of much of the hysteria I've seen exhibited by Democrats against Republicans.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by Silent H, posted 05-26-2005 5:23 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by EZscience, posted 05-26-2005 5:49 PM Monk has not replied
 Message 119 by Silent H, posted 05-26-2005 6:01 PM Monk has not replied

Monk
Member (Idle past 4179 days)
Posts: 782
From: Kansas, USA
Joined: 02-25-2005


Message 113 of 256 (211549)
05-26-2005 4:27 PM
Reply to: Message 100 by Silent H
05-26-2005 5:29 AM


Holmes writes:
What I love is how Bush and Co make appeals to small corps in order to give humongous tax breaks and other goodies to the larger corps which will decimate them. He has not been a friend of business, he has been a friend of big business.
I hear this quite often, that Bush is only concerned with breaks and giveways for big business, but it just isn’t so. He has done a number of things to help small businesses and these policies are more than lip service.
Bush is undeniably a friend to big business but not to the exclusion of, or in opposition to, small business. Since the recent rash of corporate scandals, Bush has put forward a number of reforms to protect workers caught in these big business scandals.
He has pushed pension reforms through Congress to protect workers retirement funds and has put forward initiatives that were adopted by the SEC regarding corporate information accuracy, management accountability and auditor independence.
But the main point I wanted to make is that there have been tangible benefits for small businesses under Bush:
  • The 2004 Jobs and Growth package reduced the marginal income tax rates across the board. These reductions had a direct benefit on more than 90% of small businesses that pay taxes at the individual income tax rate, not the corporate tax rate.
  • The package raised the amounts small businesses can expense for new capital investments from $25,000 to $100,000 thus reducing their costs of purchased machinery and other equipment.
  • The phase out of the Federal death tax will ensure that family business owners are able to leave their businesses to their families or key employees
  • There is the Association Health Plan (AHP) which allows small businesses to band together and negotiate on behalf of their employees and families greater access to affordable health insurance.
  • 97% of all exporters are small and medium sized companies representing 12 million jobs. There are several pending free trade agreements with 11 countries and expected negotiations with another 10 that will have a significant positive impact on these small businesses.
  • Bush has developed a strategy to reverse the trend toward the bundling of government contracts, a practice that denied small businesses the opportunity to win billions of procurement dollars.
  • Government contracts to small firms that are socially and economically disadvantaged increased in 2004 by 80%, from 249,000 to 449,000.
  • Small businesses won more than 23% of all contract dollars in 2004, reaching a historical high and exceeding the statutory goal for the first time by any Administration.
  • The Business Matchmaking Initiative, launched in 2004, advances the goal of giving small businesses a fair chance to bid on Federal contracts by connecting businesses directly with Federal, state, and local government agencies.
  • Between 2001 and 2003, the Bush Administration has increased the number of loans to small businesses by more than 50%, a 50-year record. This record level was surpassed in 2004.
  • Bush has urged Congress to amend the Fair Labor Standards Act to provide private-sector workers the same voluntary, flexible scheduling options that government employees already enjoy, including Comp-Time and Flex-Time.
These are a few of the programs that I am aware of and there are probably more. One could argue whether these programs are sufficient or whether we can afford to pay for them, but to say that Bush is not friendly to small business simply doesn’t wash.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by Silent H, posted 05-26-2005 5:29 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 120 by Silent H, posted 05-26-2005 6:28 PM Monk has not replied

Monk
Member (Idle past 4179 days)
Posts: 782
From: Kansas, USA
Joined: 02-25-2005


Message 114 of 256 (211556)
05-26-2005 4:50 PM
Reply to: Message 105 by berberry
05-26-2005 8:25 AM


Re: Corporate influence
berberry writes:
The republicans are under the almost complete control of their dominant and most radical wing: the religious wingnuts. It's because those wingnuts have deluded themselves into believing they have a mandate directly from an angry god that I'm scared to death of them, and I'm astounded that so many other people seem to be so torpid.
I disagree. This is more liberal hysteria. Read Message 112

This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by berberry, posted 05-26-2005 8:25 AM berberry has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 118 by berberry, posted 05-26-2005 5:58 PM Monk has not replied

Monk
Member (Idle past 4179 days)
Posts: 782
From: Kansas, USA
Joined: 02-25-2005


Message 115 of 256 (211567)
05-26-2005 5:28 PM
Reply to: Message 106 by nator
05-26-2005 8:38 AM


Re: Republican compromise
Schraf writes:
It's important to note what organizations are NOT getting a hearing in the current administration, monk.
That’s ridiculous. Do you have proof that these organizations are NOT getting a hearing? How are they being shut out? When have they tried to meet with politicians and been turned away? Show me.
Schraf writes:
Is is clear that Frist, Hastert, Bush, and others are voting the way Dobson and other conservative Christians would like them to.
It’s not clear at all. You’re spewing dogma.
Schraf writes:
Dobson has incredible power in Washington because he, Robertson, Falwell, and others can influence one of the most important voting blocks in America; evangelical conservative Christians. The Republicans in power today are there in large part because Evangelical conservative Christians put them there, and the threat of taking away the votes is real.
Stereotypical tripe. Your ranting is becoming predictable. The Republicans are in power today because Bush won the swing vote. And by definition, the swing vote can go either way.
Schraf writes:
Yes, but are you seriously saying that Dobson, Falwell, Robertson, and other radical conservative Christians do NOT have huge influence in Washington among those with the most power?
That’s right, that is exactly what I am saying. They DON’T have as much influence as you seem to think. You believe that these preachers are standing behind the scenes and if the Republicans don’t do their bidding, they will pull away all of their constituent votes. Is that it? They are blackmailing Republicans with votes? That’s pure crap.
How exactly does that work? If Dobson disagrees with the Republicans, does he go back to the pulpit and lecture his mindless drone assembly to not support Republican policies? Absurd.
The problem with elitist such as yourself is that you think nobody can think for themselves and assess the situation on their own. In your worldview, people like Dobson have to tell their congregation what issues to support, how to vote and when not to vote.
Your hysteria reaches new heights everyday.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by nator, posted 05-26-2005 8:38 AM nator has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 117 by EZscience, posted 05-26-2005 5:55 PM Monk has not replied

EZscience
Member (Idle past 5409 days)
Posts: 961
From: A wheatfield in Kansas
Joined: 04-14-2005


Message 116 of 256 (211572)
05-26-2005 5:49 PM
Reply to: Message 112 by Monk
05-26-2005 4:18 PM


The 'Inner Circle' fits the sterotype like a glove
Monk writes:
You are basing your assertions upon faulty, obsolete stereotypes.
You can break down voting blocks into an infinite number of arbitrary categories any way you want, but the sterotype still seems to fit very well the actions and policies of the Republicans *actually wielding power*.
They have constructed an inner circle of presidential advisors seemingly comprised of these 9% 'staunch conservatives' in your first category.
They are pandering to the religious right and trying to blur the line separating church and state with their 'faith-based initiatives'.
They have pushed aggressive polices of foreign intervention and unprovoked war that appeal more to the extreme right than to anyone else.
They have demonstrated disdain for international diplomacy (they are only seemingly learning about national diplomacy in the last few days) and disregard for the opinions and positions of most of our (formerly) closest allies in foreign policy.
They have advanced legislation to diminish the rights of minority groups, and the rights of all citizens to protection from undue invasion of privacy by 'security forces'.
They are trying to handcuff the advancement of medical science by cutting off public funding for stem cell research (assuming Bush vetoes the current bill, as he says he will).
They have passed tax cuts that disproportionately benefit the wealthy when the wealthy don't need them.
They have created a huge pipeline that directly channels public money into the pockets of the pharmaceutical companies with their bogus Medicare drug benefit (= benefit to pharmaceutical companies, not medicare recipients) while at the same time eliminating the ability of the Medicare administration to use its huge purchasing power to bargain for better drug prices.
So please excuse us 'liberals' if we perceive that the 9% Republican 'stereotype' is running the show.
Added in edit. PS: I should probably apologize for publicly calling your president a 'pea-brain' down thread, but I still have no respect for his intellectual abilities or public persona.
This message has been edited by EZscience, 05-26-2005 05:02 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by Monk, posted 05-26-2005 4:18 PM Monk has not replied

EZscience
Member (Idle past 5409 days)
Posts: 961
From: A wheatfield in Kansas
Joined: 04-14-2005


Message 117 of 256 (211573)
05-26-2005 5:55 PM
Reply to: Message 115 by Monk
05-26-2005 5:28 PM


Re: Republican compromise
Monk writes:
The problem with elitist such as yourself is that you think nobody can think for themselves and assess the situation on their own.
Well there seems to be a lot of evidence accumulating to support that contention. If they do think for themselves, many people don't seem to do a very good job of it, or all the ludicrous, character-assassinating political commercials wouldn't have had the impact they did in the swing states. I watched them and found it difficult to believe anyone would be suckered by them, but a lot of people apparently were. But then, I guess ignorance is cheaper to buy than intelligence.
(for spelling)
This message has been edited by EZscience, 05-26-2005 04:57 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by Monk, posted 05-26-2005 5:28 PM Monk has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 127 by paisano, posted 05-27-2005 12:37 PM EZscience has replied

berberry
Inactive Member


Message 118 of 256 (211574)
05-26-2005 5:58 PM
Reply to: Message 114 by Monk
05-26-2005 4:50 PM


Re: Corporate influence
You don't agree because you refuse to see. I don't care what the demographic studies say, the republican party is under the control of the religious wingnuts. I agree that they don't represent the majority of republicans, but until the majority starts speaking up and refuting the wingnuts then the wingnuts may as well be 100% of the party.

Keep America Safe AND Free!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by Monk, posted 05-26-2005 4:50 PM Monk has not replied

Silent H
Member (Idle past 6074 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 119 of 256 (211578)
05-26-2005 6:01 PM
Reply to: Message 112 by Monk
05-26-2005 4:18 PM


Once that is done, it can be seen that the majority of voters that elected Bush are significantly different than your so called Republicans.
Uhmmmm, while I don't totally buy into the pew breakdown, I will take it as true for sake of argument, and in any case even if it were not true I'd have agreed with your statement above.
I suppose I should have been more clear, I was discussing more the republican and conservative leadership. I'm hardpressed to understand how you could say the following about the Republican reps in our Federal gov't...
Most Republicans do NOT want to undercut assistance to individuals and are NOT always in full support of corporations. Most do NOT oppose new growth and ARE concerned about citizens not aided by corps.
If they didn't want to then they wouldn't have voted pretty much as a block against assistance to individuals. What have Reps voted on lately (and I'll give you the last ten years) which is in support of assisting individuals.
If you remember right they led the fight to destroy any chance at socialized medical care, helped empower HMOs (which is corporate socialized medicine), gutted welfare and social security, and have been recently trying to siphon more money away from helping individuals and into helping faith-based organizations.
But you are right that in the 2004 election many people that do not agree with hard right elements went right ahead and voted for them just to protect the party as a whole.
That is in part what I was referring to when I said...
I watch conservatives, and especially the Republicans, betray everything they have stated they hold dear, that America has stood for, and act out in the way they claim Democrats do... when actually Democrats don't.
I remember what Bush ran on in 2000. I actually liked him better than Gore and certainly did not vote for Gore. He was running on a conservative platform. During his term he has betrayed almost every single promise and the main points of traditional conservative values. In 2004 his platform was almost diametrically opposed to his 2000 platform and looked more Democratic than anything I have ever seen (when one discusses sterotypical negative "democrat" ideas). Heck, the Reps even had a Dem as a speaker at their convention!
Whoever voted for Bush in 2000, should not have voted for him in 2004, if they were consistent to their principles. Instead it was a rush to save the party. The exact thing that Reps accuse Dems of all the time... and is not true.
It may on the surface seem to be just a somewhat random choice of words on your part, but I believe it goes to the root of much of the hysteria I've seen exhibited by Democrats against Republicans.
I'm not a Democrat. In fact I'm closer to a Republican than a Democrat. Maybe that's why I take their current departure from true conservative values and a total disregard for quality and principle pretty hard.
See that's the mistake most Bush apologists make. Just because one is critical of THIS administration, does not make one a Democrat or a bleeding heart liberal.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by Monk, posted 05-26-2005 4:18 PM Monk has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 121 by gnojek, posted 05-26-2005 6:36 PM Silent H has not replied

Silent H
Member (Idle past 6074 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 120 of 256 (211580)
05-26-2005 6:28 PM
Reply to: Message 113 by Monk
05-26-2005 4:27 PM


He has pushed pension reforms through Congress to protect workers retirement funds and has put forward initiatives that were adopted by the SEC regarding corporate information accuracy, management accountability and auditor independence.
These sound interesting. By the way, every once in a while I do like things Bush does. My main problem is that most of the things he does are idiotic and harmful over the long term.
He is not a smart man. He is also in bed with big business and has little idea what life is like for the working person, or the small business person, and so how to help them. He does more harm than good.
I want to ask you if you have owned or created a small business yourself. You can lie of course and I wouldn't know. But some of the things you pointed to seem to show a lack of understanding of what the policy means, or what it really means for small businesses. I know he has pitched the things you listed as helping small businesses, but some are pure shams.
The phase out of the Federal death tax will ensure that family business owners are able to leave their businesses to their families or key employees
There is the Association Health Plan (AHP) which allows small businesses to band together and negotiate on behalf of their employees and families greater access to affordable health insurance.
Those two are of no help to actual small businesses. Please explain how the "death tax" will help... I mean really.
97% of all exporters are small and medium sized companies representing 12 million jobs. There are several pending free trade agreements with 11 countries and expected negotiations with another 10 that will have a significant positive impact on these small businesses.
Bush has developed a strategy to reverse the trend toward the bundling of government contracts, a practice that denied small businesses the opportunity to win billions of procurement dollars.
Those were glittering generalities and not policies. And while ending bundling could help small businesses it doesn't have to. What's really a laugh is that you can quote this when Halliburton is publicly known to have been given nobid contracts. There have been many complaints about other Iraq related contracts as well. Cronyism is running high there boss.
Oh yeah, and did you see their energy policy ideas? Deregulation to empower corporations?
Government contracts to small firms that are socially and economically disadvantaged increased in 2004 by 80%, from 249,000 to 449,000.
Small businesses won more than 23% of all contract dollars in 2004, reaching a historical high and exceeding the statutory goal for the first time by any Administration.
The Business Matchmaking Initiative, launched in 2004, advances the goal of giving small businesses a fair chance to bid on Federal contracts by connecting businesses directly with Federal, state, and local government agencies.
This does not mean anything either. First of all I am critical of gov't contracting in the first place. I have had first hand experience as a gov't worker working with contractors and then as a contractor working for the gov't. It is a waste and minority contract mandates can especially be a way to exclude lower bidders as well as lose talent.
The fact that Bush managed to hire more small businesses as contractors while GROWING THE GOVERNMENT should hardly be a selling point that he is working for conservative values or that he is a friend of small businesses.
Between 2001 and 2003, the Bush Administration has increased the number of loans to small businesses by more than 50%, a 50-year record. This record level was surpassed in 2004.
Bush has urged Congress to amend the Fair Labor Standards Act to provide private-sector workers the same voluntary, flexible scheduling options that government employees already enjoy, including Comp-Time and Flex-Time.
What do you mean he has increased the number of loans to small businesses? And that last point is a joke. What does it have to do with businesses... it has to do with workers. And that was really a stab in the back for both as he was for removing overtime, which some prefer to comp and flex time.
but to say that Bush is not friendly to small business simply doesn’t wash.
Yes it does, if you have owned your own business, particularly through these times, and understand that just about everything you listed was meaningless propaganda. They sure sounded great though.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by Monk, posted 05-26-2005 4:27 PM Monk has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024