The Democrats began losing the union/blue collar vote becuase of social issues and their support was fake. And it's still happening although Obama and Oprah are trying to turn a pig's ear into a silk purse.
On Oct 10, 6:32�pm, Cold Water <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > All That Darned Conservatism > By Randall Hoven > > Did you realize that we conservatives got all we wanted and that's what > screwed up just about everything, from hurricanes and Iraq to the global > financial meltdown? �That's a rapidly-developing propaganda theme being > disseminated in the Big Media. Case in point: Thomas Frank (What's the Matter > with Kansas?) in the Wall Street Journal. > > � "Over many years of ascendancy, conservative Republicans have filled > government agencies with conservative Republicans and proceeded to enact the > conservative Republican policy wish list -- tax cuts, deregulation, > privatization, outsourcing federal work, and so on. > > � "And as a consequence of these policies our conservative Republican > government has bungled most of the big tasks that have fallen to it. The > rescue and recovery of the Gulf Coast was a disaster. The reconstruction of > Iraq was a disaster. The regulatory agencies became so dumb they didn't even > see the disasters they were set up to prevent. And each disaster was > attributable to the conservative philosophy of government." > > If Mr. Frank really believes this, then one of us is crazy. �But I don't > think he believes it. �I think he's in the tank for Barack Obama and wants to > use the megaphone of the WSJ to put some meat on Obama's bones of "the last > eight years." > > You can read his whole article, and you'll find no shred of evidence to > support any of his claims. �His logic is simple -- and flawed. �It goes like > this. > > � a.. Republicans are conservative. (Flawed premise number one.) > � b.. Republicans have ruled in recent years. (Flawed premise number two.) > � c.. Everything wrong in that time is therefore due to conservatism. (The > good old post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy, even if based on good premises.) > > Republicans are conservative > > We conservatives wish Republicans governed with any conservatism. �There were > some tax rate cuts in 2001, but that's about the sum total of the > conservative "wish list" that was enacted under George W. Bush. > > And how about those tax cuts? �In 2006, the federal government took in more > money, after adjusting for inflation, than it ever had in its history. �While > it was "only" 18.4% of GDP, that still beat the 1960-2000 average of 18.2%. > �And those making over $200,000 per year, or the top 2%, paid 47% of all > personal income tax . > > As a conservative, I can tell you that historic levels of federal revenue > were not on my wish list. �Nor was a tax code so progressive that 2% of > filers pay almost half of all income taxes. �Could Mr. Frank, as a > non-conservative (one could presume), please tell us how much the federal > government should take in? �Is the most in history not enough? > > And that's as good as it gets, conservative agenda-wise. �I see Mr. Frank did > not bother even listing "spending cuts" in his so-called conservative wish > list. �I'm a conservative who reads lots of conservative stuff, and I don't > recall seeing much in the way of calls for "outsourcing federal work." �But > every conservative I know wants the government to cut spending. �And every > conservative I know is pretty irritated that the exact opposite happened > under George Bush. > > As for deregulation and privatization, what is Mr. Frank talking about? �I'm > sure that somewhere in the byzantine world of government, some regulation was > changed or something might have been privatized. �But the general trend has > been the exact opposite. �In 1999 the federal register published 73,880 pages > of regulations. �In 2004 it was 78,851, or almost 5,000 more pages of > regulations. �And whatever was privatized, our government still managed to > spend 20.3% of GDP in 2006 versus 18.4% in 2000. �If we privatized anything, > it was overwhelmed by un-privatizing a net 1.9% of our economy (about a > quarter of a trillion dollars). > > To be blunt, we conservatives did not get a damn thing on our real wish list. > �Instead we got more government spending, prescription coverage under > Medicare, No Child Left Behind, Campaign Finance Reform, increased minimum > wage, etc., etc. �And we conservatives believe that is the problem! > > Republicans Have Ruled? > > George W. Bush has been President since January 20, 2001, or almost the last > eight years; that is true. �But the President can only sign the budgets > Congress gives him, and he can only fill high-level positions with people > approved by the Senate. > > On June 6, 2001, Jim Jeffords jumped from the Republican party and the Senate > jumped to Democratic control with him, for almost two years. �And both houses > of Congress have been in Democratic hands the last two years. �For those four > years in between, the Democrats had enough Senators to filibuster anything, > and they used that power freely. �But with Republicans like Chafee (now > endorsing Obama), Collins, Snowe and Specter, the filibuster was not always > necessary. > > The US Senate has been the final resting place of virtually every > "conservative" initiative in the last eight years, yet the birthplace of such > non-conservative monsters as Campaign Finance Reform and Comprehensive > Immigration Reform. > > By the way, at the end of 2006, just before the Democrats took over Congress > again, the unemployment rate stood at 4.4% and real GDP had averaged 3% > annual growth in the previous four years. �Did you get the change you wanted? > > Everything Wrong Is Due to Conservatism > > In what way was the "rescue and recovery of the Gulf Coast" a "disaster"? > �Our military and Coast Guard pulled thousands of people out of harm's way. > �Virtually all fatalities were due to the initial hurricane and immediate > flooding, having nothing whatever to do with a federal government response, > and just about everything to do with a Cat-4 hurricane hitting a major > population center built below sea level. �What we saw on TV was a mess at the > Superdome, a place where people who had been told to leave the city were told > not to go. > > Just as the Katrina mess should be blamed on a hurricane and not on > "conservative policies", Iraq reconstruction problems should be blamed on 20 > years of rule by the psychotic Saddam Hussein. �The Iraqi infrastructure, > other than Saddam's palaces, had been neglected ever since Saddam > assassinated his way to power 20 years before. �The security situation was a > little dicey because Saddam's "police", rather than serving and protecting, > raped, killed and tortured Iraqi citizens. �There was a rape room in almost > every police station, with the busiest one in the Baghdad Central Police > Academy. �Such thugs do not go gently. > > How can Mr. Franks so glibly, with no evidence whatever brought to bear, > blame the Iraqi reconstruction difficulties on conservative policies? �What > "conservative" policies? �The one of using only 150,000 troops? �The one of > insisting on Iraqis running Iraq, under a constitution and fair elections? > �The one of spending billions of our own dollars in Iraq? �Would a 5-year > occupation under a US viceroy and 500,000 troops have been the "liberal" > policy? �Would he have preferred Harry Truman's "liberal" solution used on > Japan in 1945 - two atomic bombs? �Again, what is Mr. Franks talking about? > > Deregulation and the Financial Mess > > When it comes to blaming the current financial mess on "deregulation", Mr. > Franks is not alone. �Barack Obama did just that in the most recent debate. > > How did we manage to deregulate the world, from Germany and Britain to > Belgium and Iceland? �Are you telling me that a minor change to > Glass-Steagall signed into law by President Clinton in 1999 �ultimately > caused Iceland to go bankrupt in 2008? > > The very liberal Village Voice �places the blame of the housing mess very > squarely on the shoulders of Andrew Cuomo, President Clinton's Secretary of > HUD. �Hint: he did not "deregulate." > > And when it came to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac failing, which started the > whole snowball, it was Republicans who were clamoring for stricter regulation > and oversight, and Democrats fighting them tooth and claw. �Here was Barney > Frank in 2003: > > � "These two entities, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, are not facing any kind of > financial crisis. �The more people exaggerate these problems, the more > pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of > affordable housing." > > You can also see on YouTube how those Democrats treated the regulators. > > Thomas Frank said in the WSJ, "The regulatory agencies became so dumb they > didn't even see the disasters." �I think he mixed up the regulators, who did > see disasters coming, with Barney Frank, the Congressional Black Caucus and > other defenders of Fannie Mae. > > Conversely, John McCain co-sponsored (with three other Republicans) the > Federal Housing Enterprise Act of 2005, a bill "to address the regulation of > secondary mortgage market enterprises" and which passed committee. �McCain > then made an impassioned plea on the floor of the Senate to pass the Act , > beginning this way: > > � Mr. President, this week Fannie Mae's regulator reported that the company's > quarterly reports of profit growth over the past few years were "illusions > deliberately and systematically created" by the company's senior management, > which resulted in a $10.6 billion accounting scandal. > > The bill was killed on the Senate floor. > > Three of Fannie Mae's top executives were sued by the government for > misstating earnings. �According to the Washington Post: > > � The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight sued the former > executives in 2006, seeking to recoup more than $115 million of compensation > the agency said they received while Fannie Mae's earnings were misstated, > plus penalties that could have exceeded $100 million. �[Franklin] Raines, > former chief financial officer J. Timothy Howard and former controller Leanne > G. Spencer were fighting the charges. > > � ... OFHEO Director James B. Lockhart III said the former executives > "improperly manipulated earnings to maximize their bonuses . . . misleading > the regulator and the public." > > Also according to the Washington Post , the executives ... > > read more � --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
