THE 545 PEOPLE RESPONSIBLE FOR AMERICAS WOES

Home :: Search :: Memberlist :: Privacy Policy :: Donate!

THE 545 PEOPLE RESPONSIBLE FOR AMERICAS WOES

Home // Liberals Versus Conservatives

Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 Next

Toxic
Forum Elder

Joined: 25 Dec 2007
Posts: 1568

Posted: Wed Mar 05, 2008 10:16 pm Post subject:

TrespassersW wrote:

Toxic wrote:

What "real change" had the GOP made in the 12 years it had in power?

I wonder whether you just don't know or you just want to pretend not to because it suits you to do so. Question

He keeps talking about real change from the GOP, so I want to know what he thinks they've done. I know there hasn't been any.

TrespassersW
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 27 Mar 2007
Posts: 990
Location: North Carolina, USA

Posted: Wed Mar 05, 2008 11:25 pm Post subject:

Toxic wrote:

TrespassersW wrote:

Toxic wrote:

What "real change" had the GOP made in the 12 years it had in power?

I wonder whether you just don't know or you just want to pretend not to because it suits you to do so. Question

He keeps talking about real change from the GOP, so I want to know what he thinks they've done. I know there hasn't been any.

I'll leave it at that, since anything I might add will likely just lead to you parsing the word "real."

Toxic
Forum Elder

Joined: 25 Dec 2007
Posts: 1568

Posted: Thu Mar 06, 2008 1:34 am Post subject:

TrespassersW wrote:

Toxic wrote:

TrespassersW wrote:

Toxic wrote:

What "real change" had the GOP made in the 12 years it had in power?

I wonder whether you just don't know or you just want to pretend not to because it suits you to do so. Question

He keeps talking about real change from the GOP, so I want to know what he thinks they've done. I know there hasn't been any.

I'll leave it at that, since anything I might add will likely just lead to you parsing the word "real."

Alright, God. I was hoping you'd bless us with your all-knowing information, but I suppose we'll have to wait until later.

cornopean
Forum Elder

Joined: 20 Dec 2006
Posts: 3576

Posted: Thu Mar 06, 2008 1:58 am Post subject:

Toxic wrote:

TrespassersW wrote:

Toxic wrote:

What "real change" had the GOP made in the 12 years it had in power?

I wonder whether you just don't know or you just want to pretend not to because it suits you to do so. Question

He keeps talking about real change from the GOP, so I want to know what he thinks they've done. I know there hasn't been any.

the GOP has made some awful blunders. but most of their blunders have been when they caved in or compromised with the democrats. like when they passed the prescription drug plan....which the democrats didn't think was big enough. ha! they also nixed the drilling in ANWR...another democratic issue. but the GOP has suggested several laws that have no chance of passing b/c the democrats would die before they would allow them.

Laws like real tax reform. The FairTax, flat tax, and VAT tax. lowering or eliminating the corporate income tax is something that comes from the pubs NEVER the democrats.

basically reducing the size of govt is the general guiding principle of the pubs domestic policy.
the opposite is the general guiding principle of the democrats.

so both sides want change.....just change in two very different directions.

whither? Hong Kong, Ireland, and Iceland? Or western Europe?

exton
Forum Elder

Joined: 13 Dec 2006
Posts: 4218

Posted: Thu Mar 06, 2008 2:05 am Post subject:

cornopean wrote:

basically reducing the size of govt is the general guiding principle of the pubs domestic policy.

Aren't they the ones that want (and implemented) increased powers for the executive? And aren't they the ones were in control of congress when it was driving us back into deficit? Isn't GWB the one that proposed a 3 trillion dollar budget?

I mean, it's one thing to argue the virtues of small government, but i really don't think there's a case to be made for calling the republicans the party of small government.

cornopean
Forum Elder

Joined: 20 Dec 2006
Posts: 3576

Posted: Thu Mar 06, 2008 2:16 am Post subject:

exton wrote:

Aren't they the ones that want (and implemented) increased powers for the executive?

I am not aware that it is anything more than normal.

Quote:

And aren't they the ones were in control of congress when it was driving us back into deficit?

Yes. this means little. being in control does not mean they can pass whatever laws they choose.

Quote:

Isn't GWB the one that proposed a 3 trillion dollar budget?

yes he did and Bush hardly qualifies as a conservative. but to be fair here....if the president proposed a budget that eliminated major govt programs...how far do you suppose that would go?

Quote:

I mean, it's one thing to argue the virtues of small government, but i really don't think there's a case to be made for calling the republicans the party of small government.

ok...how about this. The pubs are the party of smallER govt. ??

Toxic
Forum Elder

Joined: 25 Dec 2007
Posts: 1568

Posted: Thu Mar 06, 2008 2:41 am Post subject:

cornopean wrote:

I am not aware that it is anything more than normal.

o.0

Signing statements alone are all I have to say.

Quote:

Yes. this means little. being in control does not mean they can pass whatever laws they choose.

They can choose to not pass anything, thus reducing government action and sometimes even size plenty. They did nothing to reduce government and they did nothing to even constrain government.

Quote:

yes he did and Bush hardly qualifies as a conservative. but to be fair here....if the president proposed a budget that eliminated major govt programs...how far do you suppose that would go?

I would think that a government dominated by supposedly small-government conservatives would have plenty of room to do it. Do I think they'd be re-elected? No.

Quote:

ok...how about this. The pubs are the party of smallER govt. ??

No. They haven't even shown that.

exton
Forum Elder

Joined: 13 Dec 2006
Posts: 4218

Posted: Thu Mar 06, 2008 2:45 am Post subject:

cornopean wrote:

exton wrote:

Aren't they the ones that want (and implemented) increased powers for the executive?

I am not aware that it is anything more than normal.

I don't disagree that relative "big government" is the modern norm, or that (at the time) expansion of executive power was supported..or, at least, permitted...across party lines. That doesn't make the republicans any less of a "big government" party nor does it make expansion of executive power any less of a "big government" move.

Quote:

And aren't they the ones were in control of congress when it was driving us back into deficit?

Yes. this means little. being in control does not mean they can pass whatever laws they choose.

No, but it does mean that they can refuse to pass whatever laws they choose.

Quote:

Isn't GWB the one that proposed a 3 trillion dollar budget?

yes he did and Bush hardly qualifies as a conservative. but to be fair here....if the president proposed a budget that eliminated major govt programs...how far do you suppose that would go?

Not too far, possibly. But that's a poor argument for not trying.

The fact is, the republican-elected president a "big government" guy.

Quote:

ok...how about this. The pubs are the party of smallER govt. ??

If you look at the minutiae of the matter, one partly likely wants to expand government slightly less than the other.

But i think we're at or near the point where the difference is so small that it's not worth remarking upon, in terms of claiming that one represents small(er) government.

And, of course, talking of democrats or republicans generally "expanding" or "contracting" government is a vast oversimplification of the matter. This is, again, because relative "big government" is the modern norm.

fellfire
Forum Elder

Joined: 13 Apr 2007
Posts: 2021
Location: Washington DC

Posted: Thu Mar 06, 2008 4:08 pm Post subject:

exton wrote:

Quote:

And aren't they the ones were in control of congress when it was driving us back into deficit?

Yes. this means little. being in control does not mean they can pass whatever laws they choose.

No, but it does mean that they can refuse to pass whatever laws they choose.

Quote:

Isn't GWB the one that proposed a 3 trillion dollar budget?

yes he did and Bush hardly qualifies as a conservative. but to be fair here....if the president proposed a budget that eliminated major govt programs...how far do you suppose that would go?

Not too far, possibly. But that's a poor argument for not trying.

The fact is, the republican-elected president a "big government" guy.

But Corny has been asserting that our problems over the time are due to the democrats and that is my oppisition to his assertion. Corny stated that it was the 'pubs that pulled the economy through 911 and katrina, but it was the 'dems that put us in our current economic woes.

Yet, it has only been a year that the dems have been in control of Congress. During the previous seven years the Republicans could have passed any law they wanted. They even threatened the "nuclear strategy" in the Senate (I bet the entire 'pub party is glad that someone shut Lott up when he wanted to go for that).

My point is that the 'pubs had years of firm control over the Power and the Purse and they did pass any legislation they wanted. They just didn't want smaller government; that puts Corny's assertion to the lie.

TrespassersW
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 27 Mar 2007
Posts: 990
Location: North Carolina, USA

Posted: Thu Mar 06, 2008 4:37 pm Post subject:

Toxic wrote:

He keeps talking about real change from the GOP, so I want to know what he thinks they've done. I know there hasn't been any.

Okay, I'll play.

Welfare Reform.

Now, you have a couple of choices...

You can acknowledge that welfare reform is something republicans accomplished, despite repeated veto attempts by Clinton and over the votes of Democrats.

You can claim that it wasn't "real change."

You can pretend the Dems did it.

You can pretend it never happened.

Your move.

Toxic
Forum Elder

Joined: 25 Dec 2007
Posts: 1568

Posted: Thu Mar 06, 2008 5:19 pm Post subject:

TrespassersW wrote:

Toxic wrote:

He keeps talking about real change from the GOP, so I want to know what he thinks they've done. I know there hasn't been any.

False dichotomy. I don't consider that real change. I am playing semantics, but when he mentions "real change", I assume he means something that makes a big difference, which that did not.

What huge reduction in government did they make after 12 years in power? This shouldn't be something you have to "play". It should be a big list of things, considering just how awesomely "small government" Republicans are supposed to be. Smile

TrespassersW
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 27 Mar 2007
Posts: 990
Location: North Carolina, USA

Posted: Thu Mar 06, 2008 6:17 pm Post subject:

Welfare reform was not "real change?" Seriously? Perhaps you're unaware of the results of welfare reform. (Or perhaps you don't care.)

If your point is that Republicans haven't done enough to fight for the kinds of change they tend to run on, I'll agree wholeheartedly. But to claim to "know" that they've achieved "nothing;" well, that's just not factually accurate.

cornopean
Forum Elder

Joined: 20 Dec 2006
Posts: 3576

Posted: Thu Mar 06, 2008 11:44 pm Post subject:

TrespassersW wrote:

Welfare Reform.

excellent example. the effects of this were dramatic. now contrast this with the dems who wanted SCHIP which would put millions more people on the govt dole.