In the past few weeks as it became more clear that Obama was going to walk into the White House, the Republican Party has become extremely disoriented as it seeks to define the problems within the party and how to set the ship on the proper course. "Change" was the term that Obama used to ride to the Presidency, but the GOP apparently still does not understand the dire straights that the party is in, as change is not happening within the Republican establishment.
Here is the story that details how the GOP is going to be fighting against a stimulus package proposed by democrats. There are two things about this story that contradict the topics discussed in the last post which detailed six items that should be included in the strategic approach of the GOP as it moves forward.
The first is the return to politics as usual. The outright hypocrisy of the Republican Party is shameful. The Democrats are presenting a stimulus package that would distribute checks to the American taxpayer, and the GOP is going to oppose this package. The past three years have seen numerous stimulus packages from the Congress.The past two years we have seen a rebate, and this year here were two bailout packages totalling almost a trillion dollars given to select industries. Yet immediately after being dismembered in an election the Republicans all of a sudden oppose returning money to the public?
Which brings me to the second point about the story that has me is astounded disbelief!
"First of all, where does the money come from?" Sen. Jon Kyle asked on
Sunday. "Washington doesn't grow money on trees. It gets it from the
American people. And when you take it from families, when you take it from
small businesses, you're taking money right out of the area that we need --
where we need production, that creates jobs."
I don't recall them having a problem with dispensing this money the past few years, not when they were bailing out select industries that failed partially due to lack of government oversight during a time when the GOP controlled all three branches of government! At a time when democrats are preparing to raise taxes, and we know there will be massive changes to the tax codes next year, Republicans are fighting over money that shouldn't have been taken from taxpayers in the beginning. Senator Kyle is basically saying, in my read of his comments, that government can't afford to send this money to anyone because they need to keep it for their own priorities.
I think the Congress should spend far more time writing new rules and oversight for the financial sector, and less time worrying abut the money in MY pocket. Perhaps Sen. Kyle should spend more time trying to deliver the spending cuts that were promised more than 20 years ago, but never delivered. Perhaps conservative should mount an assault on the spending in Congress. Perhaps then there wouldn't be a need for tax rebates.
Posts
25 comments:
Watching the news channels this weekend it was interesting to hear conservatives discuss that bailing out GM would be wrong because that would be supporting incompentent management. That is a good way to frame the argument as it keeps the focus from discussing employees and unions. But not once was this point brought up during the discussion of the Wall Street bailout.
Not once has this been mentioned as we continoursly bail out AIG and as the majority stockholder of AIG it is a major point.
I am glad that George Will mentioned the prescription drug program and the recent agriculture bill...those were MASSIVE examples of socialism and spreading the wealth programs. The prescription drug program was the straw that broke the camels back in regards to my support of Republicans and my support of what passes for conservatism today.
While no fan of government regulation I do realize that unfettered free markets are unrealistic also because of human nature and greed and we must protect society as a whole from the actions of a few if it is believed that the few can wreck havoc on our economy as they have done.
As much as most conservatives hate to say it but the concentration of wealth leads to the concentration of power and this destroys capitalism just as much as spreading the wealth does. The Repbulicans have destroyed conservatism and continue to do so. They have used conservatism as a way to enrich themselves and their friends while true conservatives are losing their jobs and their life savings.
Run them all out of office....every last one of them. I am tired of watching my beliefs and values be used for the benefit of a few and that is why I voted for Obama....at least he stood up and did not back down from his belief in spreading the wealth...
I believe the rebate checks are nothing more than pathos money, designed to take our minds off of whatever it is Washington is doing. Permenent tax cuts are the answer, and handing out rebate checks is just more keep them fat and stupid leadership that Washington has grown accustomed to.
First about the stimulas package. The package also includes expanding the number of weeks for eligability in recieving unemployment ckecks, expanding money for food stamps and money for infrastructure to, "provide jobs."
It is well known that when it comes to infrastructure money almost all of it NEVER gets to the point of actually doing something.
Shadows of FDR's New Deal which rather than stimulating the country out of the Depression actually caused it to last much longer.
Now as far as the GOP in Congress. How can we expect these yo yo's to act differently now during the lame duck session than they did before. This is one of the reasons that they were voted out in 2006 and then again in 2008.
The answer rather than ckecks is to cut taxes allowing mnore money across the board which has been proven to stimulate the ecomony.
The bailout package was a disaster and if the GOP had really acted as conservative they would have opposed it rather than signed on. Even President Bush saw the need to almost apologize for it even as he was hitting the airways to get it passed. Saying basically he didn't like it but thought it was needed. And we see how well it has worked ! 290 billion spent and still looking for more.
The bailout package was wrong an is not working because the only real answer is free market solution in which there are many that were not even considered.
As far as GM is concerned, they should NOT be bailed out but allowed to declare bankruptcy. First they ARE NOT going to close. Entities within the private sector if they declare bankruptcy will come in to provide money to keep the company going. Money that is NOT coming from the taxpayers.
Then they could reorganize and get the managment out that has taken them down the tubes. Also the Unions need to step up and realize that they are part of the problem.
A US car has 1500.00 in embeded costs per car to cover Union dollars. Hundai and Toyota for example have only about 800.00 per car which makes GM cars non - competative financially.
If they want the company to survive it is going to take equal cuts by management AND Unions in order to make the company solvant. But government bailouts are NOT the answer.
The AIG bailout as an example only rewarded failure and to bailout GM would do the same.
As far as the GOP, it is going to take a complete reorganization from the grassroots up because that is where the conservatives are and we are still the majority in the party. It is the leadership and many who are elected that are not.
Steele a strong conservative will have his work cut out for him and the priority must be getting strong conservative candidates to run in 2010 against the Dems and the RINOS.
The Democrats have figured out that ideological purity works pretty well. That the GOP hasn't is the reason Democrats get elected.
So how do we present "ideological purity" without ostracizing those who don't understand it?
Class, a one page essay please.
robert, it is posts like these and comments like those above that make me think, ya'll will have to start a new conservative party to replace the tired old elephant on your backs. You'll need a new mascot, of course - who knows, maybe a sea creature? :)
While I agree that returning money to tax payers is a nice gesture, we still must concentrate on rebuilding the infrastructure of our economy. A few bucks is not going to save a home or buy a job. I've been concerned since NAFTA was signed about that "great big sucking sound" Perot talked about. And looks like his views have been vindicated. Our production of tangible goods for export and domestic markets has strunk to nothingness. We can't create good jobs out of thin air. The service sector isn't as viable as many thought. How many times have you called a customer service number and known you were talking to someone in another country? I'm not opposed to foreigners having work, just to jobs being exported out of our country.
Let me conclude while I can still fit this on one page (I'm trying!) I am not particularly against another stimulus package; I just want the government to stay focused on more lasting solutions.
You know, give a man a fish....
strunk?!? I really need to use spellchecker! I'm sure the bright minds here can discern that I meant to write "shrunk!"
Rocky, first of all no one will comment on your typing. After all, they tolerate me and my inability to use spellcheck.
Second, since I am a sushi fanatic we can use the California Roll as our new mascot. It has the added bonus of ticking off the libs in Cali.
Yes, give a man a fish. Here is my take on that...if you let the man fish on his won and don't take them away the minute he docks the boat, he can feed himself, his family, and probably all of his neighbors as well. I think the tax rebates are far more acceptable than a bail out, but most of the tax rebates are only loans against my tax refund which was money they took from me in the first place!
We need to stay out of the pockets of people who are productive. If we operated on a lean budget and people were left alone to keep virtually all that they produce, then there might not be a need in the first place.
Great post.
The American people are going to quickly realize that the money is coming right out of their pockets...
"So how do we present "ideological purity" without ostracizing those who don't understand it?"
Robert, presenting ideological purity has already been done by our Founders. The education process has failed in showing what the Constitution actually means and what it stand for in association with our society.
Conservative ideology above all others most closely mirrors the Constitution and that is where the education process begins.
When the Constitution is presented with its original intent and not using liberal interpretation or trying to show that the Constitution should be adapted to society or the fleeting winds of change, then understanding what this country truly stands for and what our foundational principles are will naturally follow.
While the Constitution is just as important today as it was when it was written the liberal interpretation has watered down its affect on our society because through that interpretation government has drifted away from the Founders vision and true intent of the Constitution.
Restoring that intent in the hearts of the people is the education process that is needed through an understanding of our Constituion. I'll bet that half of those who are elected have never read it and obviously most do not understand it !
Again it all boils down to an education process and informing the people that it is not up to elected officials to inform us as to what they think the Constitution means but it is our responsibility as citizens to KNOW what it means.
Ken, I don't disagree with you at all. However, we live in a world where people engage less in ideology and since most people under the age of 40 can't tell you who the first signer of the Declaration of Independence was, or what the Great Compromise was, we have major presentation issues on our principles. In fact, I bet if you polled everyone in this country, fewer than 1 of 100 would even know that the 3/5 provision was in the Continental Congress, and 80% of those would think it was some form of racism so that blacks specifically weren't counted as whole people.
Since that is all but lost, how do we actually get the conservative message across? how do we even get our own party on board the message?
well Robert I read your post on another board and i must say with all due respect, I can not agree with you LESS
Sandy, thanks for ocming by and visiting. I encourage you to do so again!
I would like to hear exactly what the subject was and ow you disagreed with me. Differences are welcome here, and our intent is to hear voices and opinions, so please drop back in and elaborate.
And help yourself to the coffeee while you are here...it is always fresh!
Where you said:
"I don't fault those that stayed home, and my ire is not directed to ward voters. I think it is time to saddle up and place the responsibility on the party. It is not conservatives that left the GOP, but the inverse."
I disagree to stay at home and not vote is the worse thing that anyone could do. It didn’t help our party and helped the other side completely, I DO blame them..
I know that it helped, but I don't think it would have mattered. A 6-7 percentage point victory is pretty substantial.
But you have hit on my point, somewhat. I am not a republican, I am a conservative who has always found that the GOP most closely remembled my thoughts and principles. That is not true today, and has not been for a number of years. I am not going to vote for someone because he is a republican, I am going to vote for the most conservative candidate in the field.
Continuing to vote for weak candidates that have no distinction from the Democrats hurts the party. NOT demanding a solid conservative and a principled manner of governance hurts the party.
I would like for you to tell me three areas where John McCain's record was different that Obama's campaign promises. I am not sure that you will find much distinction.
Conservative Convictions, on my blog you said
"An interesting conundrum, is it not? Vote for the lesser of two evils or vote your convictions"
I say, it may be a conundrum to you, but a NO BRAINER to me!
Conservative Convictions said:"I am not sure that you will find much distinction"
If you REALLY believe that then there’s no sense in me even trying to argue with you. I think you need to go back and do some more homework
I am not looking to argue, except in the classical sense. I think there is an ideological logic to not voting for either candidate. If one is truly conservative and desires conservative goverenance, how is that served by selecting a candidate that does not meet that criteria?
The more I read the comments regarding your post, the more I am believing that nothing is objective anymore,... everybody sees things in shades of gray, even those things that 30 or 40 years ago would have been clinically obvious to anybody having an IQ above 80. I'm not trying to sound arrogant or suffering from acute myopia of perspective, but it seems that we get so caught up in "nuances".... in details, in stylistic bents,...
I'm ready to go medieval here soon,...
Robert said... "I don't think it would have mattered"
TRUTH-PAIN said... "but it seems that we get so caught up in "nuances".... "Medieval"
What a crock
I can't believe what I am reading here!!!
The only comment that I see here that makes ANY sense at all it the one by DD2
Aren’t you people supposed to be Conservatives? You don’t sound anything like it.
Where is your spunk? Have you given up?
And Robert feels that there ISN’T ANY deference between McCain and Obama? Now I heard it all.
Sorry folks but I don't agree with any of you. Not when you talk this way. I think that you are very gullible.
You can put lipstick on Obama but he's still a Marxist pig.
Sorry guys, but I will never buy what you are selling.
Come on now guys, I can not believe what I am reading here on a conservative blog. Obama will solidify his power base. He's already doing it by hiring Emanuel as his hatchet man and moving Hillary into a position where she wouldn't be able to oppose him in 2012. And it won’t be long until he will be removing conservative talk radio for the air waves. And that will be a big feather in his cap as in Hillary’s. The guy came out of nowhere he was not properly vetted. I think that he was vetted as much as that guy that tried sell me a Used Car was!
It is a proven fact that he paled around with the scum of the earth . And yet you people can’t find any difference between the two? What did John McCain ever do to bring you to this conclusion? And when was Barack Obama declared a Hero to this country as John McCain a war hero was. It is insane for anyone to compare the two in that light. Along with that wife of his who can’t find anything to be proud about America for! Has she been sleeping for 90 percent of her life? Or was sitting in that RACIST church for 20 years poisoned her mind that much?
One has to wonder when Jane Fonda becomes a member of his cabinet.
In your introduction, you state they your are here to; “revitalized nation with strength and confidence. The nation needs leadership”
I ask you, where any of is this in what you are saying in this blog? Where is the conservative spine?
You are not holding Barack Obama to the same standards that you are putting John McCain down for. And why not?
TRUTH-PAIN said...
The more I read the comments regarding your post, the more I am believing that nothing is objective anymore,... everybody sees things in shades of gray, even those things that 30 or 40 years ago would have been clinically obvious to anybody having an IQ above 80. I'm not trying to sound arrogant
Well sir, I think you sound exactly like you claim you do not want to sould like. Arrogant describes it best.
We conservatives do not like to be compared to liberals. Men are from Mars and women from Venus, and liberals are from La, La land.
Barack Obama, was the most liberal senator in 2007, John McCain may not have be the perfect nominee for the conservative party, but he is NO Barack Obama.
Do you think the John McCain and Ultra Liberal Barack Obama are the same thing?
Do you think that John McCain would have appointed Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State?
Or Rahm Emanuel as White House chief of staff?
Look for Caroline Kennedy to be appointed next.
One thing that should be clear to any conservative is the Reagan addage that iff you can;t get 100% take the 75% that is offered and fight for the rest later. That is paraphrased of course.
Yes there were similarities between Obama's economic ideas and McCain's and like has been said here McCain was not the ideal candidate for conservative.
But to say that there were no differences between McCain and Obama is stretching it quite a bit. McCain never touted spreading the wealth like Obama did.
McCain never looked for a quick end in Iraq regardless of the consequences like Obama did.
The list goes on but the point is that although not a true conservative McCain is not a Socialist/Marxist like Obama.
Yes I agree that the GOP has a lot of work to do to find its tru conservative roost again a return that idelology to the party in order to win again but to say that there is no difference is taking the case way to the extreme and playing down the fact that 57 million people still saw McCain as the better choice and if the press had been honest in its reporting about Obama, I knwo that that number would have been much higher with McCain being President Elect if the real truth about Obama had been shown.
The Liberal Lie The Conservative Truth said...
"McCain never looked for a quick end in Iraq regardless of the consequences like Obama did.
Key words being "regardless of the consequences like Obama did"
Good post.
I agree with all you said.
Amnd i do not agree with what robert said either.
Post a Comment