z
<Why the labeling and rhetoric?>
You can call it that, but I see the need to refute the liberal arguments as very few others will. Do you even wonder why the major TV networks chose to televise the entire Clinton speech after shafting the Republican convention speaker? There is a news gap that dumbs down many Americans who are weak in civics to begin with. Obviously, imho, the media is very biased toward the left.
You obviously like to pontificate. I believe that is a big part of our society's problems. Many people are unable to communicate effectively. Most people don't even understand your assertions. It kind of reminds me of Slip Mahoney of the old Bowery Boys movies on Saturday mornings. He liked to use big words that his gang couldn't understand, but they went along with him anyway. I prefer the KISS principle, Keep It Simple Stupid.
<The difference between "conservatives" and "liberals"
are how they spend money. Reagan "conservatives" spent money on many weapons systems that didn't work to create jobs in the the jurisdictions of Congressman particularly those with seniority. "Liberals" spend money on on social entitlement programs that don't impact the economy and create greater dependencies upon "big brother" while failing to solve the problems that these programs are intended to resolve. Many, if not most of these programs, make matters worse. I don't advocate this type of liberalism or conservatism and find such labeling very simple minded.>
I believe the difference is that conservatives trust people to do what is right, while liberals feel the they must control people by Gov't power and regulation. The Reagan argument presented by liberals is a farce. If the cold war hadn't ended, I don't believe we would have had the prosperity we have today. Can you be more specific about weapons that didn't work? I only know of two, the Navy's A-12, and the Army's SGT York anti-air weapon system. Both of these were started well before Reagan came to office. If you can't tell already, Reagan is one of my heroes. As a veteran, I happen to believe the military was in great shape until the current administration came in and tore it down in favor of the social programs you alluded to. As far as the pork spending, the Congress was controlled by the Democrats who did authorize and appropriate money in hopes of maintaining power, for themselves, not the Reagan allies.
<The economy I described per my example trickled down
because of targeted government spending partnered with
private investment to maximize returns on that investment to grow a local economy that contributed directly to the environments in which people live. The government spending of Voo Doo economics trickled down through jobs created by dispersing many unneeded military pork spending through
districts that led to no direct noticible improvements
and many systems which didn't improve our national defense.>
I disagree again. Although the Gov't spending was targeted, the lion's share of the Federal budget goes to a few areas with a little left over for other areas. 1/6th of the budget goes to debt interest, while it continues to grow,43% over the last 7 1/2 years. 1/6th goes to the Defense budget, of which about 10% goes for non-defense items. I forget the portions for SS, Medicare, and Medicaid, but they eat a major portion and are growing the fastest.
<Many "new" economy businesses were incubated with tax relief and abatements that created jobs and empowered those people by this relief fueling job creation. Many of these businesses received funds through greater participation in markets by the expansion of retirement vehicles made more accesible to people of moderate means to encourage savings. People were encouraged to participate through tax savings...ie deductions and given flexibilty per some of these programs to amass the capital for education and
home ownership.>
You're right. Tax relief did infuse capital into the economy. When was the last time we received tax relief? During Reagan's presidency. That is why people credit Reagan with laying the groundwork for the current expansion. Only the ingenuity of American business and workers overcame the wrongheaded tax increases of Bush Sr. and Clinton, both with Democrat controlled Congresses. I only point this out because liberals conveniently seem to forget this point when they credit Clinton with the successful economy. He happened to be in the right place at the right time. Most of the people you refer to have little or nothing in savings. If you still believe that home ownership is a great investment, I disagree there also. Even though more people realize they need to invest because SS is peanuts, only about the top 20% really are prepared financially. Yes, people need to spend their money to survive, but with all the taxes and fees they pay, most have little available for savings. I realize the power of compounding interest, but if you ask most, they couldn't even explain the process. $25 a week would build a nice nest-egg, but just think how many must live for the moment instead of the future.
<This money trickled up to businesses fueling the economy providing the capital for expansion and creation of jobs.
Money trickles both ways. It would be interesting to see where jobs were created in the eighties, and it would be
also wonderful to rememder the deregulation of the savings and loan industry and how this loose money fueled the mirage of prosperity where many projects that were suppose to trickle down ultimately had to be bailed out with
more wasted tax dollars. Neil who?>
If Reagan hadn't bailed out the S&L's, many Americans would have lost everything they had ever saved. The buildup occurred over a protracted time, not just under Reagan. Look at what he inherited from Carter. Hell, I remember when I was a kid, I bought a Certificate of Deposit with a 13% interest rate. Good old Jimmy, Democrats never seem to mention him in any of their arguments. For you to assume that the S&L bailout was designed to help Neil Bush is absurd. Reagan was a man of principle, and did the right thing for the country. I know you'll respond with the Iran-Contra effort, but I can support trying to overcome Communism much easier than I can a marital affair leading to felonious behavior.
<I agree with privatization of many services like garbage collection, but many services shouldn't be privatized...especially the police.>
I agree that not all functions should be privatized, and didn't mean to imply that all should. Those non-critical services, such as running a convention center were more what I had in mind.
<Re: regulations, regulations were instigated by transgressions. This isn't a scare tactic. I agree there are some industries that are regulated too much with asinine particulars, but have you ever visited a chicken factory, or pig farm ? After every E Coli break out, I just don't think this is debate is as simple minded as all regulations are bad, and no regulations are good...
There's a balance,. Extremism on both sides seems to completely miss the point when and where and how much regulation is necessary to insure our safety. This has nothing to do with labels of liberalism. Having done a lot of nursing care work, I'm sure glad that government agencies have cited and shut down a lot of the abuse I saw where elderly patients were so neglected that they developed bed sores that went down to their bones simply becuase these patients weren't turned over. Again it's to what degree...it isn't a polarity.>
Some industries have been guilty of work that could hurt some. But the extremes you mentioned are just that. I am perfectly content eating chicken and pork produced in the USA. I happen to have faith that my fellow countrymen and women are basically good. Although there are some who abuse that trust, the regulations that are written as one size fits all causes needless expense for many businesses that are on the up and up. You cite e-coli as if it is running rampant in the US. Guess what, it's not. The media sensationalizes it as if it's breaking out all over the country every time it occurs. I think I've heard of less than 10 cases over the last decade. That may not be accurate because I haven't paid that close attention to the issue. That's another diference between liberals and conservatives, liberals know everything about everything, even if they are blowing hot air, while conservatives are willing to admit they don't know.
<As for guns and cigarettes, again I find your
reductionism and presumptions a bit simplistic.
It seems as if you read from a script which is so constricted and narrow minded so as not to be concerned
with real solutions, but to be more concerned with polemic solipsisms.>
There you go again Slip. I won't even bother pulling out the dictionary to look those two up.
<Do guns kill people or do people kill people? Is that the entire argument? Do tools fix things or do people fix things? Or do people with tools fix things? Obviously the wrong people emboldened by their access to and equipped with guns kill people. But who are these "wrong" people? Did the day trader who killed his family and fellow traders in Atlanta have a record? Was he a "criminal" before he went postal? How many former lovers, husbands, girl friends and stalkers became criminals because a gun facilitated a tragic action. Would the two boys in Colorado be so emboldened if they didn't have guns? Would these two be so sick minded if they hadn't been so desensitized by gratuitously violent video games, movies and television shows that glamorize this violence? Where were their parents? Working? Should existing guns laws be enforced? Of course. But keeping guns out of the hands of criminals isn't as easy as said and done because many people don't become criminals until they get guns and are emboldened by holding these pieces of steel in their hands.>
Talk about programmed responses, you sound like a soundbite for the anti-gun folks. It's easy to blame others when we screw up. The bottom line is that the liberal justice system has let some realize that they can get away with crime. All the trillions of dollars spent on social programs have resulted in the largest criminal population in the free world. If you hold people responsible for their actions, they won't be able to hurt those who respect each other. One percent of the population causes this much worry for the remaining 99%. Gun ownership is a fundamental right, and if the liberals succeed in taking that right away we are in real trouble. The criminals won't play by the rules as they don't already. Blame Hollywood, video games, TV is you want, but personal accountability is the answer.
<Should people have the right to protect themselves? Of course, especially women. But what happens when that gun used for protection emboldens one to do something stupid during road rage, or is accidently used on your daughter when your daughter sneaks back into your house at night after she broke her curfew.>
Again you bring up extreme cases. By the way, why should women have more of a right to protect themselves? I thought everybody was equal. Can you document how many road rage murders have been committed, I'd estimate it at less than 100 per year, which I agree is needless. And how many teens have been murdered for breaking curfew? You are really stretching there.
<How many fights escalate when people have concealed weapons? When I fought, I fought with fists. Now some one who loses it temporary may pull out a gun and shoot you over a parking space. I tutored a child for two years who used his mother's boy friend's gun to shoot himself in the head. Wasn't clear whether this was an accident or a suicide. However, an interesting statistic is the rise in suicides despite our "prosperitY". Suicides by gun fire is the favorite means amongst males. Again gun control IMO isn't a simple yes or no. There are many reasonable and moderate ways to increase responsible ownership, reduce access to specific types of guns and for specific people, while at the same time protecting one's right to defend one's self. Again, extemisism on either side and labeling seems to entirely miss the point.>
The NRA advocates gun education. That will help those who want to act within the law. Again you state incidents like they are commonplace. I don't find your argument very credible. You pull extreme examples and act like they're everday occurrences. If some soul feels suicide is the answer, someone has failed along the line. With the movement away from Christianity in our country, life has become less trivialized. If it wasn't, this partial birth abortion wouldn't even be considered. That is the extreme position as far as I'm concerned. I would be willing to bet that more lives are taken that way than by the combination of road rage, teens killed for breaking curfew, e-coli, poisoned water and the various other methods you presented, with the exception of suicide.
<So in response to your question am I jealous? I have to ask jealous of what?>
George Bush' success thus far. I hope and pray he wins.
<Have a good night.
z
(spelling not checked)>
I don't worry about your spelling. You are obviously well educated. We just disagree on some issues.
<btw.. I voted for Tom Ridge twice, and would have voted for McCain, though I disagree with him and believe a women's should have the right to choose. Everyone should say a prayer for Senator McCain tonight because of the re-occurance of his cancer.>
I disagree on the abortion issue and agree with you about McCain.
Enjoy life. knc |
