Another sign of the Tea Party movement redefining the Republican party...
Tea Party relevance revisited
- Thread starter fossten
- Start date
Truman - a conservative - shag, I must laugh...
The party of progressive liberalism--the Democratic Party--believes today, as it has always believed, that it is the duty of popular government to protect and promote the interests, not of just the privileged few, but of all the groups and individuals in our Nation.
The Democratic Party believes today, as it has always believed, that vigilance and action are needed not only to protect the people from concentrations of wealth and power, but to keep concentrated wealth and power from destroying itself, and the Nation with it.
The Democratic Party believes today, as it has always believed, that vigilance and action are needed not only to protect the people from concentrations of wealth and power, but to keep concentrated wealth and power from destroying itself, and the Nation with it.
Know anything about 'The Fair Deal'? Truman's expansion of FDRs "New Deal"... Truman thought that the federal government should guarantee economic opportunity and social stability - doesn't get much more progressive than that - He was for Universal Health Care - He created laws that went directly against business in the form of worker protection against unfair employment practices, higher minimum wage, greater unemployment compensation and housing assistance. He increased SS by leaps and bounds.
Why would you even try to say that Truman was a conservative - he tried to raise taxes and government spending - he wanted to expand government's reach into education, farming, private business.
So, how different was the 'New Left' of the 60s, compared to FDR shag - other than the war effort. It wasn't any different. The Democrat party, since FDR, has pretty much been the same. The New Left didn't redefine anything, it wasn't different than the New Deal, the Fair Deal, the Great Society. It was built on those roots - the Civil Rights movement - look again at Truman's Fair Deal - he was the one that moved against discrimination, and got it removed from the federal level. A building on, not a radical change.
The New Left is the 60s shag - and it didn't move anything further left than FDR or Wilson. The democratic party is left - there are those that are more left than others... but it hasn't deviated much since the 30s. The idea of National Healthcare has been around for a long time, just because it is in a small form finally getting enacted doesn't mean democrats are suddenly 'more left' it just means that they are finally getting a piece of legislation enacted on that they have worked on for decades.
The New Left of the 60s didn't move the party shag - I am not 'ignoring' anything shag - it was just a re-hashing of ideas that had been in the basis of the Democratic party for a long time.
Will the Tea Party force the Republicans back to some Goldwater/Reagan 'esque' roots - for a short amount of time perhaps - but the conservatives are terrible at long term planning - once again all it will take is someone like Bush II or Nixon or someone similar and the conservative train will be derailed. Clinton's roots and Carter's roots are no different than Obama's political roots. Democrats have a pretty linear line they can point to as far as legislation. Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, now health care reform. This stuff doesn't get done in one administration or two or even three.
The policies of Hoover - when did those get resurrected? How about those great reforms of Eisenhower. Goldwater's efforts were certainly the stepping stone for... Reagan's lasting legacy of saving SS is certainly something that conservatives can proudly point to. The conservatives have no long term plans, they can't seem to hold onto an ideal from one administration to another - let alone if they have to hand over the reins to the opposing party for a while - suddenly it is back to square one.
And although the right for some odd reason might want to embrace the likes of Truman and Kennedy, the right seems to overlook the fact that Kennedy and Truman pushed the left's agenda just as FDR and Clinton did. That is why the left has been far more successful over time. I guess we don't have "DINOs". Democrats stand for certain things, push for certain agendas, and don't deviate much.
It is why I can say that the Tea Party looks like a 'flash in the pan'. Even when conservatism was riding high - and it certainly was in the 80s - it didn't take long for it to totally lose sight of what it wanted, and come crashing down. Even after electing a Republican president it didn't get back on track. It might for a short time - but eventually it will fall by the wayside, and since it doesn't seem to have a long - term outlook, it always has to start at square one.
The democrats may not have been in power in the 80s, but they didn't lose sight of what their goals were, and when Clinton got into power, those items were once again presented and worked towards. He didn't get health care passed, but, once again, as it had in almost every democrat administration in the last 70+ years, it got put on the table - it got looked at, it got a public 'airing'. And now, finally in Obama's administration, once again health care was put on the podium, and finally, after decades of work, something was passed.
I guess perhaps Democrats are patient. Conservatives seem not to be. The Tea Party isn't a patient group, and this could be their undoing.
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
Yeah it takes time to tear down a Republic.
Yes shag - and if you think the tea party is the great hope for the American 'Right' - good luck with that.
Oh - I still have to laugh when you stated that Truman was conservative... that is one of the better ones I have heard in a long time...
Oh - I still have to laugh when you stated that Truman was conservative... that is one of the better ones I have heard in a long time...
Oh - I still have to laugh when you stated that Truman was conservative... that is one of the better ones I have heard in a long time...
Apparently you don't understand the context of what I was saying. I specifically mentioned "neocon" for a reason. Neoconservatives are Hawks on foreign policy and "moderate" to left leaning on domestic policy.
You think any modern liberal would have the balls to drop the bomb...twice?
Maybe you should pay attention to the specifics of what I say, instead of making generalizations and sticking your foot in your mouth.
K
Klenora
Guest
There are about 7 political parties ranging from Republican to Green that you can choose to be a part to support such toxic issues that have been touched briefly. However, there are only two parties that have federal representation. So… I agree that The Tea Party will eventually fade like the rest. After all, presidential elections last every 4 years and I expect re-elections to change the stance of certain supporters. Yet I don’t think they will be totally absorbed because of the people/money behind it. Only a few will tango around courtside to satisfy their own needs.
So my question is this:
At what point will two federally represented parties, affectionately called left and right, be drastically changed by The Tea Party to the extent of non-capitalist behavior?
So my question is this:
At what point will two federally represented parties, affectionately called left and right, be drastically changed by The Tea Party to the extent of non-capitalist behavior?
So you would take Truman as a neocon on the fact that he dropped the bomb - he did that to save lives. To check out if he was really a neocon look at how he handled the Korean War and MacArthur - and his refusal to use the bomb there... The special circumstances of WWII limited his choices - when he had a wider range of choices, he chose not to go the 'neocon' route...
Hello Klenora - It sounds like you are saying that the tea party is too much of a single issue party to really have a huge impact on the political landscape? In that case I have to agree. Smaller government might be something they tout, but when it comes to the dinner table - they are really just about one course - money. Whether it be taxes, less regulation, whatever, it ends with the greenback.
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
...she said, sneering.
The anti-capitalist mask slips again.
Tell me, fox, why you don't approve of someone being 'permitted' to enjoy the fruits of his labor.
...she said, sneering.
The anti-capitalist mask slips again.
Tell me, fox, why you don't approve of someone being 'permitted' to enjoy the fruits of his labor.
Wow - do you have me wrong foss - I enjoy the 'fruits of my labor' all the time - something everyone can in the US. I work hard - I play hard. I make decent money - I spend a lot too. I think everyone can do that in the US - opportunity is out there for all. It isn't about 'permission' - it is about drive and determination.
Rather than looking to blame the government, how about a little real reflection...
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
I'm not sure you even know what you're talking about.Wow - do you have me wrong foss - I enjoy the 'fruits of my labor' all the time - something everyone can in the US. I work hard - I play hard. I make decent money - I spend a lot too. I think everyone can do that in the US - opportunity is out there for all. It isn't about 'permission' - it is about drive and determination.
Rather than looking to blame the government, how about a little real reflection...
First of all, just because you spend money on things doesn't mean you're a capitalist. I'm sure Stalin and Lenin enjoyed a nice lifestyle, with nice shoes and nice cars. What you want is for the American people to be taxed to the max by the government so that your bleeding heart can feel better about itself for giving money the government steals to people that don't work for it.
When the government takes 7/8 of everything I produce, it ceases to be about my own drive and determination and more about the government oppressing me. When the government crushes the private sector and spends so recklessly that the financial system is on the precipice, companies lay people off. When Obama and the Democrats pursue a policy that perpetuates 83% employment, people suffer. That's what's happening now.
People suffer when there is 94% employment as well. That isn't removed by some magic employment statistic. However, if you are failing - are you more likely to put blame elsewhere - 'it is (fill in the blank here) fault, not mine'. Is that the case here - others are still successful, but I am not. I need to place blame away from me. Government seems like a good choice - especially now that it is being governed by people whose policies I don't like.
I am a pretty good capitalist foss - just because I like some government programs, doesn't preclude that fact. Buffett believes in higher taxes for the wealthy, fewer loopholes, that health care costs should be regulated and restricted, that Wall Street needs to be held accountable - I guess you would question his capitalist bloodline as well.
Being a capitalist doesn't mean that you want to get rid of government programs for the poor, old, sick. That you want to deregulate everything. That you believe that government is better at doing certain things than private business. Those aren't mutually exclusive things as you make them out to be.
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
Yeah, people tend to dislike policies that involve stealing from them.
Thanks for the red herring. We're not talking about Buffett - I couldn't care less about him. We're talking about you and your fellow travelers' desire for socialist utopia. Why do you want to punish the wealthy? What did they do wrong to deserve this? Why should they have to pay higher taxes? Do you believe in higher taxes for the middle class and small businesses? Because that's all that pay income taxes these days. The wealthy get off scot-free, thanks to the Democrats' tax policies. And government interference DOES NOT reduce healthcare costs - it INCREASES them. I'm surprised someone who uses such big words and long sentences lacks so much common sense.
What part of 'less government' do you not understand? Thanks for demonstrating that you know NOTHING about capitalism.
And foss - you continue to frame the debate around 'if you support taxes, government programs such as SS, medicare, etc. then you aren't a capitalist'.
Yes you can be - they once again aren't mutually exclusive. That is why I placed Buffett into discussion. He is obviously a very successful capitalist, but he also supports various government programs and higher taxes for the wealthy.
I no more want to live in a communist state than you do. I think that rewarding success with monetary gain is an excellent system. We innovate, create and design better and bigger and new things because of capitalism.
I would love if we could remove regulations, get rid of taxes, and just get on with our lives. But I know we can't do that. Just as communism is an unrealistic ideal, so is absolute capitalism.
Oh, you do know that your Jefferson quote is part of a letter that is often used to show how he was for a very complete separation of church and state don't you... and in the original - god is in lower case...
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
False straw man. Would you like to try again? I'm not interested in repeating myself just to satisfy your burning desire to give me busywork, so if you're too obtuse to understand what I'm saying, tough crap. I've made a strong case that you're not a capitalist.
It's just a red herring on your part.
Where did I say communist? Straw man.
Assertion without evidence, just empty platitudes devoid of real substance. Plus, you're being dishonest. I know you're unwilling to cut spending. You want more spending for entitlements. You've made that crystal clear with your impassioned appeals to emotion regarding the sick and poor. Of course, the money as we all know doesn't go to the sick and poor these days, but to UNIONS and PORK projects designed to get votes.
Off topic by the person who used to quote me out of context in her sig...
..she's a "State Capitalist."
Like the Chinese. And the European fascists before (don't use that "Naz" word or you'll make foxpaws cry.)
Remember her defense of the auto bailouts and TARP.
You can own it (for now) but you have to do what the government tells you to do with it. If you make a profit, that's great. You can keep it, but first you have to give most of it to the government in the form of taxes and fees.
It's more progressive bull. And foxpaws is a self-identified progressive. And since we know she's pretty well read, we know that she also actually knows what that term means, she doesn't just like the way it sounds.
But in classic 'progressive,' and typical of something foxpaws would do, they simply change the name of something to make it more palatable for the general public. Even better when the new words meaning is almost the exact opposite of what it used to mean.
Like the Chinese. And the European fascists before (don't use that "Naz" word or you'll make foxpaws cry.)
Remember her defense of the auto bailouts and TARP.
You can own it (for now) but you have to do what the government tells you to do with it. If you make a profit, that's great. You can keep it, but first you have to give most of it to the government in the form of taxes and fees.
It's more progressive bull. And foxpaws is a self-identified progressive. And since we know she's pretty well read, we know that she also actually knows what that term means, she doesn't just like the way it sounds.
But in classic 'progressive,' and typical of something foxpaws would do, they simply change the name of something to make it more palatable for the general public. Even better when the new words meaning is almost the exact opposite of what it used to mean.
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
Another term for that is 'messaging,' or as I like to put it, "LYING."
The ends justify the means....
People like her just know what's best for us little people.
K
Klenora
Guest
I like a good debate, but it's obvious that these threads are intentionally targeting specific people. I'd like to request that they be closed before the name-calling begins..... again.
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
"Shut up," she explained.
You seem to have a central theme to your posts as well.
I suggest you come forth with an opinion or a position rather than just run around like an internet mallcop.
They can devolve into that, but there are a lot of other factors in play as well that would be good to familiarize yourself with.