Why are you voting for whoever for President?

[Spencer534]

I would say Obama should be able to blame Bush for the same length of time Bush was blaming Clinton for the fiscal issues during Bush's Administration. The last one I can find is Jul., 2008. So by that logic Obama should be able to blame Bush till July, 2016.

I didnt ask about Obama. I was pointing out your hypocrisy of laughing at Republicans who didnt call out Bush when he spent too much. When will you condemn Obama for spending too much?

I would be willing to agree with you were it not for the fact that it wasn't that long ago the federal budget was balanced. So called "fiscal conservatives" were elected and immediately cut revenues and boosted spending with debt financing. I would have no problem returning to the taxation structure in place before Bush took office.

I would have no problem with returning to that tax structure as well if spending were cut. When will Obama call for that?

Actually FDR didn't have problems with public employee unions. That is yet another piece of mythology put forth by conservatives via a parsed letter written to a federal employee union that was meeting for its annual convention.

You are correct, but he did not believe in the ability of public employee unions to collectively bargain or to strike. The same stance as the Republicans.

[Spencer534]

Biggest voting mistake I ever made. I knew going in I should have voted third party. If things don't change damn soon with the so called "Main stream" political parties I see a surge heading for the Libertarians.

It surprises me to hear you say that considering your union views. How will you balance Libertarian views with those of public sector unions?

You would have thrown away your vote if you voted third party. You have a much better chance of changing either the D or R party platform from within than electing a third party candidate.

[scfire86]

I didnt ask about Obama. I was pointing out your hypocrisy of laughing at Republicans who didnt call out Bush when he spent too much. When will you condemn Obama for spending too much?

Uhhh....yes you did. You wrote:

After how much time will things be his fault?

I will condemn for spending too much when the economy is back to what it was when Bush took office. Comparing the economy handed off to Bush versus the one handed off to Obama is laughable to the point of it being a non-sequituir. The current economic recovery plan has been shown to work. Something conservatives have yet to put forth. I'll use an EMS analogy. When the patient (the economy) has a sucking chest wound (the collapse in 2008), the paper cut on his finger (the deficit) isn't the top priority. That being said, the deficit has already been reduced to 70% of what it was when he took office. That is a good sign that things are starting to recover.

I would have no problem with returning to that tax structure as well if spending were cut. When will Obama call for that?

When the economy is back up and running well. Something conservatives seemed determined to prevent.

You are correct, but he did not believe in the ability of public employee unions to collectively bargain or to strike. The same stance as the Republicans.

Only half right. He believed public employee unions shouldn't be allowed to strike. He had no problem with them being able to collectively bargain.

[scfire86]

If things don't change damn soon with the so called "Main stream" political parties I see a surge heading for the Libertarians.

Doubtful....

[FyredUp]

It surprises me to hear you say that considering your union views. How will you balance Libertarian views with those of public sector unions?

Explain to me how disagreeing with one component of a platform makes that less palatable than disagreeing with the majority of both "Major" party's platforms? Do I believe Unions are crucial to employee pay, benefits, job security, pensions, safety and health? YES, I do. The platform does not explicitly speak of banning Unions, it leaves that open to local protocols.


You would have thrown away your vote if you voted third party. You have a much better chance of changing either the D or R party platform from within than electing a third party candidate.

That is your opinion. But suppose enough people say time for a change and "throw away their vote the same way? Then what occurs? CHANGE, that's what!

I an weary of the acceptance of the lies, deception, and dirty dealings of politics as usual. It is time for a change and i would prefer a peaceful change.

[FyredUp]

Doubtful....

Keep drinking the mainstream Kool-Aid. I am sure you will say what ever they tell you too.

[scfire86]

Keep drinking the mainstream Kool-Aid. I am sure you will say what ever they tell you too.

You must be very young. Discussion of an emerging third party has been around for at least the previous four decades. That's just in my memory.

Please keep believing in that myth. Did you know unicorns are real?

[FyredUp]

You must be very young. Sorry to disappoint you the all knowing omnipotent one but no, I am not very young, or particularly young at all. Well, unless 54 is young compared to yourself. Discussion of an emerging third party has been around for at least the previous four decades. Golly, I guess you don't count the splintering of the Republican Party into the Tea Party a form of a third party. They weren't actually mainstream Republicans and true they weren't actually a third party but they did run Tea Party candidates that the mainstream republicans didn't really support. That's just in my memory. Memories are great if all you want to do is live in the past, I prefer to live in the present and look to the future and I simply do not believe that the current bloated, corrupt, inept, misguided, virtually unresponsive to the voters main stream political parties can survive if they don't change, The country is more divided than ever and whether you choose to believe it or not Obama is NOT the man to bring us together. He is in fact widening the divide almost every day.

Please keep believing in that myth. Did you know unicorns are real? No more real than your belief that the current President is the one to lead the country out of its economic woes, out of its loss of stature around the world, and out of the divide in this country that makes it virtually impossible to fix the problems we have as a nation.

Your pomposity, arrogance, and need to fire snotty little shots, really don't cause me much concern and in fact say far more about you than they do me.

[scfire86]

Your pomposity, arrogance, and need to fire snotty little shots, really don't cause me much concern and in fact say far more about you than they do me.

Your responses don't bely this remark.

[FyredUp]

Your responses don't bely this remark.

Now that is funny. Yet another nothing response. You are becoming so predictable.

[Spencer534]

I will condemn for spending too much when the economy is back to what it was when Bush took office. Comparing the economy handed off to Bush versus the one handed off to Obama is laughable to the point of it being a non-sequituir. The current economic recovery plan has been shown to work. Something conservatives have yet to put forth. I'll use an EMS analogy. When the patient (the economy) has a sucking chest wound (the collapse in 2008), the paper cut on his finger (the deficit) isn't the top priority. That being said, the deficit has already been reduced to 70% of what it was when he took office. That is a good sign that things are starting to recover.

So, by your logic, if 50 years from now using the same policies as today, the economy is in the same place, you will continue to blame Bush.

Yes the deficit is 70% of 2008 & 2009, but that was the first stimulus more than anything else. The deficit is still 170% more than any other Bush year. Spending is not the answer to recovery, growth is. Obama has overwhelmingly stifled growth.

You state you would have no problem in returning to Clinton-era tax policy, yet when I say I could agree with that given certain spending cuts and ask why Obama hasnt called for that tax policy, you state that you cant support it until the economy is back healthy. Huh? Please elaborate. If it is good tax policy why dont you support it to help the economy?

Only half right. He believed public employee unions shouldn't be allowed to strike. He had no problem with them being able to collectively bargain.

FDR's words in a 1937 press conference when asked about government employee collective bargaining: "Government does not make contracts with any Government employee." in relation to a 1913 ruling against collective bargaining as Assistant Secretary of the Navy. In the 1937 interview he goes on to say: "That ruling, made, I think, in 1913 is just as good as it was then."

Additionally in the letter you state was "parsed" from someone else: "All Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service. It has its distinct and insurmountable limitations when applied to public personnel management. The very nature and purposes of Government make it impossible for administrative officials to represent fully or to bind the employer in mutual discussions with Government employee organizations." That letter represents not only FDR's views as he read and approved them, the letter was re-released later as the official policy of his administration.

[Spencer534]

I an weary of the acceptance of the lies, deception, and dirty dealings of politics as usual. It is time for a change and i would prefer a peaceful change.

I agree and am glad to see you leaving the Democrats. I just believe it is easier to change from within. Your example of the Tea Party is example that the ability to change a party from within is easier than running a successful third party. Tea Party candidates have been overwhelmingly more politically successful than Libertarian candidates.

[scfire86]

So, by your logic, if 50 years from now using the same policies as today, the economy is in the same place, you will continue to blame Bush.

Hypothetical. That's your logic, not mine. Besides, I'd be over 110. I doubt I'll be around to blame anyone, and if by the rare chance I am, I probably won't care.

Yes the deficit is 70% of 2008 & 2009, but that was the first stimulus more than anything else.

Wow!! That's an amazing remark given that conservatives constantly claim the Stimulus was a complete failure.

The deficit is still 170% more than any other Bush year.

WRONG!!! Bush handed off a $1.2T deficit his last year. The deficit has been trending down ever since. With future projections showing further reductions.

Spending is not the answer to recovery, growth is. Obama has overwhelmingly stifled growth.

FDR and Ronald Reagan would disagree with you. Both presidents used spending (incurring deficits) to end the recessionary economies they inherited. Your remark of stifling growth is laughable given the economy has expanded every year he's been in office by any standard measure.

You state you would have no problem in returning to Clinton-era tax policy, yet when I say I could agree with that given certain spending cuts and ask why Obama hasnt called for that tax policy, you state that you cant support it until the economy is back healthy. Huh? Please elaborate. If it is good tax policy why dont you support it to help the economy?

He has asked for returning to Clinton era tax levels during several of the debt limit negotiations. The GOP has immediately rejected them.

FDR's words in a 1937 press conference when asked about government employee collective bargaining: "Government does not make contracts with any Government employee." in relation to a 1913 ruling against collective bargaining as Assistant Secretary of the Navy. In the 1937 interview he goes on to say: "That ruling, made, I think, in 1913 is just as good as it was then."

Because the term collective bargaining implied the right to strike. Something FDR opposed. He wasn't opposed to public employees collectively bargaining for the other aspects of wages, hours, and working conditions.

Additionally in the letter you state was "parsed" from someone else: "All Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service. It has its distinct and insurmountable limitations when applied to public personnel management. The very nature and purposes of Government make it impossible for administrative officials to represent fully or to bind the employer in mutual discussions with Government employee organizations." That letter represents not only FDR's views as he read and approved them, the letter was re-released later as the official policy of his administration.

See above response as it relates to the right to strike.

The letter also states (CAPs added for emphasis):

The desire of Government employees for fair and adequate pay, reasonable hours of work, safe and suitable working conditions, development of opportunities for advancement, facilities for fair and impartial consideration and review of grievances, and other objectives of a proper employee relations policy, is basically no different from that of employees in private industry. ORGANIZATION on their part to present their views on such matters is both natural and logical, but meticulous attention should be paid to the special relationships and obligations of public servants to the public itself and to the Government.

Then FDR says in the same letter:

Particularly, I want to emphasize my conviction that militant tactics have no place in the functions of any organization of Government employees.

He then ends the letter by saying:

I congratulate the National Federation of Federal Employees the twentieth anniversary of its founding and trust that the convention will, in every way, be successful.

Read the entire letter and NOT the parsed passages that have become conservative talking points.

[scfire86]

I agree and am glad to see you leaving the Democrats. I just believe it is easier to change from within. Your example of the Tea Party is example that the ability to change a party from within is easier than running a successful third party. Tea Party candidates have been overwhelmingly more politically successful than Libertarian candidates.

I fully support the GOP running Tea Party candidates. It's only cost them control of the US Senate the last two election cycles and saw them lose seats in the House in 2012. Full speed ahead.

Given the current mindset of the Tea Party faction, I'm amazed they idolize Pres. Reagan. He raised taxes, expanded Social Security (by raising taxes), negotiated with terrorists (Iran Contra), tripled the national debt, and advocated for banning assault weapons.

But that is a topic for a different thread.

[FyredUp]

I agree and am glad to see you leaving the Democrats. I just believe it is easier to change from within. Your example of the Tea Party is example that the ability to change a party from within is easier than running a successful third party. Tea Party candidates have been overwhelmingly more politically successful than Libertarian candidates.

I'm not leaving anybody. I am not now, nor have I ever been, nor will I ever be, a registered member of any political party. I believe making a choice based on the candidates past performance, or if new to the political scene...if they actually follow through with what they said they will do.

To be brutally honest I can't stand the direction the Tea Party wants to go and I am in absolute disdain of Republican politics in my home state. The blatant bought and paid for aspect of scooter walker makes me want to puke as he blames all public employees for the states woes and sells the governor's office to the highest bidder. I am equally disgusted with the hard leftist liberal democrats and their decimation of the constitution and the fact that our Homeland (lack of any real security) Security is buying up enough ammunition and guns to kill every man, woman, and child in the US several times over. Corruption, deception, secrets, and tearing at the very fiber of freedom in this country for agendas that mean little or nothing to the average working man and woman seem to be the guiding light of BOTH parties.

I am not calling for an armed revolution or a take over by force. I still hold out hope that peaceful change through our democratic process is still possible. But the fact is we now have mainstream people becoming "Doomsday Preppers" in anticipation of that catastrophic event of social or governmental collapse. It isn't necessarily only a bunch of wacked out survivalists that believe it is coming.

So Spencer534, don't celebrate my disillusionment as a victory for the right, especially the Tea Party, just consider it as my acknowledgement that both sides don't have our best interests at heart and haven't for a very long time.

[scfire86]

You two will like this article. It perfectly describes what the GOP (not to be confused with conservatism) has become.

GOP: Scientology for Rednecks

[Spencer534]

Hypothetical. That's your logic, not mine. Besides, I'd be over 110. I doubt I'll be around to blame anyone, and if by the rare chance I am, I probably won't care.

I am in the same boat age-wise, but my point was that you stated you would not condemn the policies of today until the economy is as strong as it was before Bush. If it took 50 years for those policies to work, would you still feel the same?

Wow!! That's an amazing remark given that conservatives constantly claim the Stimulus was a complete failure.

Stimulus is needed in the short term to prevent a recession from becoming a depression. Even Hayek states such. That doesnt mean you keep stimulating.

WRONG!!! Bush handed off a $1.2T deficit his last year. The deficit has been trending down ever since. With future projections showing further reductions.

Agreed. As I stated, the current deficit is 70% of 2008, but the current deficit is 170% of the other years under Bush.

FDR and Ronald Reagan would disagree with you. Both presidents used spending (incurring deficits) to end the recessionary economies they inherited. Your remark of stifling growth is laughable given the economy has expanded every year he's been in office by any standard measure.

I stated that growth is the true measure of recovery. Why would FDR and Reagan disagree?

He has asked for returning to Clinton era tax levels during several of the debt limit negotiations. The GOP has immediately rejected them.

Not true. Not once has Obama called for the tax policy of Clinton. Clinton raised the taxes of everyone, not just the rich. Obama has never called for this. Clinton decreased Capital Gains Taxes. Obama wants to raise them.

Because the term collective bargaining implied the right to strike. Something FDR opposed. He wasn't opposed to public employees collectively bargaining for the other aspects of wages, hours, and working conditions.


See above response as it relates to the right to strike.

The letter also states (CAPs added for emphasis):



Then FDR says in the same letter:



He then ends the letter by saying:



Read the entire letter and NOT the parsed passages that have become conservative talking points.

So your contention is that because FDR said collective bargaining, he actually meant strikes and that he was for collective bargaining for wages, hours and working conditions? What historical evidence shows this?

Your analysis is completely wrong and your quotes are completely irrelevant to disproving my point. Here are the facts:
1) FDR specifically stated that he was not for collective bargaining.
2) FDR specifically stated that government employee unions should not be able to negotiate wages through collective bargaining.
3) FDR specifically stated that government employee unions should not be able to negotiate working conditions through collective bargaining.
4) In relation to #2 & #3, FDR related his own experiences as Assistant Navy Secretary to illustrate those points.
5) The document you reference specifically delineates FDR's thoughts on collective bargaining and strikes. There is no implication that he equates collective bargaining to striking. He states he is opposed to the two.
6) The historians at his own library agree with me. http://www.fdrlibrary.marist.edu/aboutfdr/unions.html

[Spencer534]

I'm not leaving anybody. I am not now, nor have I ever been, nor will I ever be, a registered member of any political party. I believe making a choice based on the candidates past performance, or if new to the political scene...if they actually follow through with what they said they will do.

To be brutally honest I can't stand the direction the Tea Party wants to go and I am in absolute disdain of Republican politics in my home state. The blatant bought and paid for aspect of scooter walker makes me want to puke as he blames all public employees for the states woes and sells the governor's office to the highest bidder. I am equally disgusted with the hard leftist liberal democrats and their decimation of the constitution and the fact that our Homeland (lack of any real security) Security is buying up enough ammunition and guns to kill every man, woman, and child in the US several times over. Corruption, deception, secrets, and tearing at the very fiber of freedom in this country for agendas that mean little or nothing to the average working man and woman seem to be the guiding light of BOTH parties.

I am not calling for an armed revolution or a take over by force. I still hold out hope that peaceful change through our democratic process is still possible. But the fact is we now have mainstream people becoming "Doomsday Preppers" in anticipation of that catastrophic event of social or governmental collapse. It isn't necessarily only a bunch of wacked out survivalists that believe it is coming.

So Spencer534, don't celebrate my disillusionment as a victory for the right, especially the Tea Party, just consider it as my acknowledgement that both sides don't have our best interests at heart and haven't for a very long time.

I certainly did not mean that you were for the Tea Party or that you were a registered Democrat. I was merely pointing to the fact that the Tea Party made changes (right or wrong) from within and that you voted Democrat and now you denounce that Democrat.

I am troubled by the views of many of my fellow Republicans, but feel that it would be easier to change from within than through a third party. I am a strict constitutionalist, fiscal libertarian, flat-taxer, social conservative on some issues(as related to my Christian religion - abortion, gay marriage, etc.), but a social libertarian on other aspects (marijuana legalization, gun laws, etc.) who thinks the Federal government should not be involved except in very few constitutionally mandated issues and that states should be the point where 99% of issues are solved.

That is not the Republican party and it is sure not the Democratic party. It is probably closest to the Libertarian party. As you pointed out, it is near impossible for a single party to encompass all of everyone's views. Why wont I vote Libertarian in national politics? My view is to vote for the party which closest meets my platform that can be elected. Libertarians cannot be elected at this time in national politics.

Based on your previous posts (gun control, abortion, gay marriage, flat tax, etc), I would say your views align more with the Libertarian Party than the Democratic or Republican Parties and I hope that you will find more of what you are looking for from them. Who knows? Perhaps they will be a viable national party 4 years from now.

[scfire86]

I am in the same boat age-wise, but my point was that you stated you would not condemn the policies of today until the economy is as strong as it was before Bush. If it took 50 years for those policies to work, would you still feel the same?

I won't deal with a hypothetical. I do believe that 50 years from now there will be other things affecting the economy than the policies enacted today.

Stimulus is needed in the short term to prevent a recession from becoming a depression. Even Hayek states such. That doesnt mean you keep stimulating.

So when should economic stimulus be ceased if recovery is not occurring? Does Hayek state that?

Agreed. As I stated, the current deficit is 70% of 2008, but the current deficit is 170% of the other years under Bush.

Not what you said. Reread your original post. I responded to it, not what you meant to say. Bush didn't have the economy in such dire straits when he became president. Plus he handed off policies that are very budget consuming. Some of which are still in place. All of them being paid for with borrowed revenue.

I stated that growth is the true measure of recovery. Why would FDR and Reagan disagree?

Both of them used significant deficit spending to promote economic growth.

Not true. Not once has Obama called for the tax policy of Clinton. Clinton raised the taxes of everyone, not just the rich. Obama has never called for this. Clinton decreased Capital Gains Taxes. Obama wants to raise them.

Okay. I support those policies.

So your contention is that because FDR said collective bargaining, he actually meant strikes and that he was for collective bargaining for wages, hours and working conditions? What historical evidence shows this?

I pointed out his words in the letter he sent to the National Federation of Federal Employees where he stated:

The desire of Government employees for fair and adequate pay, reasonable hours of work, safe and suitable working conditions, development of opportunities for advancement, facilities for fair and impartial consideration and review of grievances, and other objectives of a proper employee relations policy, is basically no different from that of employees in private industry. ORGANIZATION on their part to present their views on such matters is both natural and logical, but meticulous attention should be paid to the special relationships and obligations of public servants to the public itself and to the Government.

Your analysis is completely wrong and your quotes are completely irrelevant to disproving my point. Here are the facts:
1) FDR specifically stated that he was not for collective bargaining.
2) FDR specifically stated that government employee unions should not be able to negotiate wages through collective bargaining.
3) FDR specifically stated that government employee unions should not be able to negotiate working conditions through collective bargaining.
4) In relation to #2 & #3, FDR related his own experiences as Assistant Navy Secretary to illustrate those points.
5) The document you reference specifically delineates FDR's thoughts on collective bargaining and strikes. There is no implication that he equates collective bargaining to striking. He states he is opposed to the two.
6) The historians at his own library agree with me. http://www.fdrlibrary.marist.edu/aboutfdr/unions.html

This line from that website pretty much shoots down your claims that he was opposed to public employees being able to collectively bargain:

No statements as to FDR’s views on collective bargaining for state or municipal workers were found among his papers as Governor of New York or as President.

One can't say he was opposed to public employee collective bargaining because there are no references to him supporting it. I would submit that in his years as president he never pushed to ban or not allow that ability. Had he done so, I would agree with you, but he did not. I posted an excerpt from a letter he wrote that states he was indeed opposed to strikes by public employees. He referred to them as "militant" actions. So really, your bullet points are not accurate given the excerpt I cited from the page you posted.

[FyredUp]

You two will like this article. It perfectly describes what the GOP (not to be confused with conservatism) has become.

GOP: Scientology for Rednecks

Since I have made it abundantly clear that I am NOT a member of any political party your cutesy little post has no meaning to me whatsoever. I am just as disgusted with the dems as the repubs, hence my call for a strong 3rd party. We, as a country, will never solve the problems of today with politics as usual, no matter who is in the Whitehouse or controls the congress.

Further, I find the term redneck incredibly insulting and anyone that uses that term to describe themselves or anyone else, is either ignorant of the original meaning of the word or worse.