The New York Times just published an article explaining how congressional Democrats are going to pass a bill extending the N.S.A. wiretapping program. Now this is certainly an oddity. The same democrats who cheered that they had “killed the patriot act” and who have claimed bush is “shreading” the constitution by turning the U.S. into a police state are now authorizing the continuation of the very program they equate with totalitarianism.
Based on such an odd move, I can think of only one explanation. It seems this fear-mongering about Bush’s police state is nothing more than a political ploy. They know the program is within constitutional limits, but are trying to scare their base into believing Bush is going to listen in on their phone conversations. They know how effective the wiretapping program is at preventing terrorists activities and know that the consequences of future terrorist activity could be placed squarely on them should they stonewall the bill.
I suppose the Democratic leadership could be so ineffective that they can’t stop anything the Bush administration wants passed–even though they are the majority party in a lame duck presidency, but I’d hate to be accused of thinking that badly of them.
Did you really expect anything else? This is coming from the same Democrat force that promised to bring our boys home from Iraq if only they were made the majority in the last election…so far as I know, there are actually more soldiers in Iraq than when they took over.
They make Republicans out to be fear-mongers, but they won the election the very same way. I’m not surprised, I just wish the voting populace would actually pay attention to what their elected officials promise and then compare that with what they actually do.
I just wish the voting populace would actually pay attention to what their elected officials promise and then compare that with what they actually do.
I voted for Bush, I don’t think he is doing what he said he was going to do…but what do you expect from self seeking, self interested greedy, lying politicians, democrat or republican. If we were to focus strictly on the issues rather than partisan rhetoric, I think we could get somewhere….it’s always a bad idea to think to strongly in one general direction, I don’t believe in blind adherence to any group, ESPECIALLY
not a political group.
I agree. I’m not a fan of Bush either. He campaigned primarily on social security reform, spending reductions and national security. Only one of those has he really made much of an effort on. To this point, there is absolutely no movement on any kind of social security overhaul and he vetoed only one spending bill, which happened only a few months ago.
I stick to my ideals. It just so happens that one party tends to support those same ideals more frequently than the other party.
I stick to my ideals. It just so happens that one party tends to support those same ideals more frequently than the other party.
-And what “ideals” are those?
1. Personal responsibility;
2. That teaching a man to fish is better than feeding him everyday for the rest of his life;
3. That there are absolute rights and wrongs;
4. That good government is aided by a populace who embraces good morals (those morals coming from Jesus);
5. That charity is function of man, not government;
Those are a few broad ideals, each encompassing their own subsets of ideals. Of course, not every person, nor any party as a whole, can fulfill my every desire. But one party certainly tends to fulfill more than the other.
people are people, doesn’t matter what party they belong to, some just hide their sins better than others…
I agree totally with the first three…
So tell me why morals are a function of the government and charity is not?
And before Joel and Martyn jump in with their assumptions, trying to superimpose ideas onto me like I’m some kind of poster child for Democrats, I’m asking a sincere question, non-rhetorical.
Well, I didn’t really say that morality was a function of government. I said good government is aided by a populace who embraces good morals. So it is the populace (i.e., the people) who must embrace good morals. I don’t believe that morality, per se, can be legislated by governments. But I do think that when people act morally, and government is run by those same people, the government will act morally.
As a matter of fact, the American people are the most generous people in the world. They give more money to charitable organizations than the people of any other country – and I’m not even talking raw dollars, but per capita contributions. I can’t say I’ve raised $80,000 to build schools, but we have bought livestock for families in Africa, we have paid to have a well dug, we have purchased medical supplies for them – all with our own money and voluntarily. We did this because we believe it to be the right thing to do. But I cannot force my neighbor to give his money to those things…unless, that is, I am the government. As the government I take from you to give to another. This might seem like charity, but charity is not done out of compulsion, but the government has no choice but to act out of compulsion, it is its only means.
I believe that if the government collected less tax (i.e., let you keep your money) the charitable contributions of Americans would increase even more.
And, just to make the point, the Bush administration has given more money to African countries to help with economic development, to fight disease, and fight the spread of AIDS than any other administration before him.
Hmmm, your response has given me some food for thought, I’m not saying I completely agree with you, but I don’t completely disagree with you either. I don’t believe in handouts, but in creating opportunities for people to be industrious and productive, and to get a quality education. Again, it’s not so much about charity and handouts, but about a just economy.
Do any of you feel that our government makes economic decisions that hold people in poverty while favoring the unmitigated growth of wealth for a particular favored class? (thats a simplistic question, I know, but again, non-rhetorical).
Also, Luke, cool on your charitable work. I wrote some grants and proposals and did some fund raising activities.
If Americans give more money than any other country it is because we are one of the top ten richest countries in the world, I read somewhere that Americans spend more on dog food than on humanitarian work, but I could be wrong about that. Do you have a source for your data, a link maybe? I’d like to have a look at it for my own personal info.
Here’s one from USA Today – LINK
Here’s another from Intuit, the accounting software company – LINK
Do any of you feel that our government makes economic decisions that hold people in poverty while favoring the unmitigated growth of wealth for a particular favored class?
um… is higher taxes for the rich “favoring”? Just because the rich are getting richer doesn’t mean that it happens because the GOVERNMENT “favors” them. It is a non-governmental phenomena.
I’ll say it again, I think policies that cause people to become accustomed to being dependent on the government for any and all needs DISFAVORS the poor. So I agree that governmetn policies can affect wealth… but I see it from an inverted perspective.
Joel, your answer to my question is full of contradictions.
“Just because the rich are getting richer doesn’t mean that it happens because the GOVERNMENT “favors” them.” ????????????????????????
This is ONE of the most naive and backwards things you have written thus far Joel…
You think rich folks aren’t dependent on the government for their needs Joel? Explain lobbyists, Joel….explain where all that “Chinese money” is coming from that is going to Hillary Clinton? Come on you know better.
Are you really so naive?
Rich people are MORE dependant on the government than the DISADVANTAGED will ever be. Get real.
First, let me say that I am glad I can make your day better just by the very fact of this blog’s existence. I think it’s a sign of a healthy friendship when we can listen to a scathing remark and yet still be friends. So, in that sense, I’m kinda glad to have your remarks.
First, if your basic premise is that a government that protects property rights benefits people with more money more than it benefits people or businesses with LESS money… then I fully agree. Why is this a problem? If you want equality, move to N. Korea. However, if your basic premise is that the “corporations” or “big money” or “the rich” are in the pockets of the congressman of your choice… and furthermore that financial benefits come from those connections… well, I think that is an arbitrary judgment that depends on your perspective.
I would be happy to entertain a few EXAMPLES of how government favors the rich and then discuss those… but so far you have provide none.
———————————————–
On the topic of welfare…
All YOU have cited is an example of a POLITICIAN taking illegal campaign contributions. Which has no overall relevance to the “rich” as a class. You’ll need to do better than that.
Secondly, I would point out that I have DATA that suggests that welfare perpetuates. poverty. Before you get all up on your high horse again… I suggest you provide data to the contrary.
“One study comparing these two groups, co-authored by Dr. June O’Neill, the former Director of the Congressional Budget Office, found that the women who received AFDC as children:
Were almost twice as likely to become high school dropouts;
Spent some 200 percent more time on welfare as adults; and
Were some 50 percent more likely to have a child out of wedlock.
Some would argue that these negative effects are the result of poverty, not earlier welfare dependence. But the comparison is between women who had identical levels of family income in childhood. Thus, the negative behavioral effects cannot be explained by poverty, but are the direct result of welfare dependence.
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Welfare/Test090999.cfm
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0DKI/is_2_2000/ai_64148090/print
“Before you get all up on your high horse again…”
I’m afraid of horses dude, no kidding…scary beasts.