It is time to elect a conservative President! - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 01-25-2005, 03:36 PM   #1
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 11:41 PM
It is time to elect a conservative President!

An American who can't say no

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: January 24, 2005
1:00 a.m. Eastern


© 2005 Creators Syndicate, Inc.


Historians celebrate his predecessor Truman and his successor JFK as near-great. Yet, Eisenhower is ignored. A positive-passive president, he is called, at best an average president.

Yet, what did Ike accomplish? He took office in 1953 and in six months ended the no-win war in Korea. With a million illegal aliens here, he ordered them home in "Operation Wetback." They went.


He built up U.S. armed forces to where we were invincible. When the Hungarian Revolution erupted, Ike refused to send troops beyond the bridge at Andau. America stayed out, and the revolution was snuffed out by Soviet tanks. But there was no war between America and the Soviet Union.

When the British, French and Israelis launched an invasion to retake Suez from Nasser, who had nationalized it, Ike ordered the Brits and French out, threatened to sink the pound if Prime Minister Eden balked, told Israel's David Ben-Gurion to get out of Sinai or face the wrath of the man who had commanded D-Day. All obeyed.

Ike gave us peace and prosperity, balanced the budget, and went off to play golf at the all-men's Burning Tree Country Club, where this writer was a summer caddy. Once, as I was walking out the long driveway at Burning Tree to walk to River Road, to hitch-hike back to D.C., the president's limo approached.

I put out my thumb, and got Ike's famous smile and a wave as he passed by. Ike was a leader who could say no. He was what we needed after the disastrous tenure of Harry Truman, who had left office with an approval rate of 23 percent.

Today, America is a country that cannot say no. The backslapping of Republicans notwithstanding, we do not have a true or tough conservative in the Oval Office. There is no conservative party in Washington. And we shall pay a historic price for it.

Under President Bush, the U.S. government collects 16 percent of the GDP in taxes and spends 20 percent. We have a deficit of close to 4 percent of the economy.

Yet, as the Washington Post's Robert Samuelson writes, Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid – which already consume 7 percent of GDP – will rise to 13 percent in 2030, i.e., the federal take will rise to 26 or 27 percent of our economy.

Thus, the problem. If the feds are taking in 16 to 17 percent of GDP, but spending 26 to 27 percent of GDP, how do we close the gap? Do we raise taxes 10 percent of GDP, or raise the deficit to 10 percent of GDP?

As Samuelson writes, just to close the coming gap in Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid would require a $700-billion-a-year tax hike. That would sink the economy.

Now, consider our foreign debt, the largest in history.

In 2004, the U.S. trade deficit will come in near $600 billion. In November, at $60 billion, it was running at $720 billion a year, with the merchandise trade deficit approaching $800 billion.

We are borrowing 6 percent to 7 percent of GDP abroad to finance our purchases abroad. Japan and China are lending us the hundreds of billions we need each year to cover our purchases of foreign goods. Why are our lenders so generous? Because it enables them to siphon our manufacturing base out of America, into Asia.

By putting us into bottomless debt and hooking us on their products, they are making us a dependent nation – dependent on them.

Why do we Americans not use our own savings, if we feel we must buy beyond our income? Because the average American saves nothing, about 1 percent of what he earns. Never before have our people been so deeply in family debt, on credit cards, mortgages and car loans.

From every standpoint, America is a nation over-extended, living beyond its means, mortgaging its future for the present.

Then, consider our military commitments. President Bush is expected to ask Congress for $100 billion in supplemental funds to pay for the Iraq and Afghan wars. As we do not have the money, we shall have to borrow to fight these wars.

Beyond the fiscal cost, there is America's strategic deficit. With 150,000 troops in Iraq, 40 percent of them Guard and Reserve, with 9,000 in Afghanistan, our 500,000-man Army is stretched to the limit. Our Navy is falling below one-half the 600 ships of Ronald Reagan's Navy.

Yet, the Bush Doctrine calls for us to fight Iran and North Korea to keep them from going nuclear. The neocons want Syria attacked. Beltway elites are raising their fists at Russia and demanding Ukraine be brought into NATO. Meanwhile, China appears to be building its forces for the ultimate showdown with Taiwan.

America is a nation over-committed, over-extended in every way. And the IOUs are coming due.

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=42518
__________________

__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 01-25-2005, 03:48 PM   #2
Blue Crack Addict
 
verte76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: hoping for changes
Posts: 23,331
Local Time: 04:41 AM
Excellent article, I like it very much. I found it quite shocking last year when I was criticizing a Republican Administration for deficit spending, a traditionally conservative position that this Administration has rejected. Strangely it was the Democrats who swiped the welfare reform proposals from the Republicans and made it stick, along with a surplus. This game has gone nuts. I'm confused. Who's conservative these days? Who's liberal? Maybe it's time to pitch these old labels.
__________________

__________________
verte76 is offline  
Old 01-25-2005, 04:51 PM   #3
War Child
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
Posts: 760
Local Time: 04:41 AM
It raises the question whether the political system can actually allow for a truly liberal or conservative party to ever again come into power. With thousands of lobbyists, interest groups, and political backers demanding their returns on their investments into politicians, the fact that politicians have to water down and compromise their principles (assuming there still are such things), is not surprising.

Given the lack of fiscal conservatism displayed by the Bush Administration these past four years, maybe Bono and DATA will eventually have to go to work and plead with the world banks and international community to forgive U.S. its debts.
__________________
Judah is offline  
Old 01-25-2005, 04:53 PM   #4
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Macfistowannabe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Ohio
Posts: 4,129
Local Time: 12:41 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by verte76
Excellent article, I like it very much. I found it quite shocking last year when I was criticizing a Republican Administration for deficit spending, a traditionally conservative position that this Administration has rejected. Strangely it was the Democrats who swiped the welfare reform proposals from the Republicans and made it stick, along with a surplus. This game has gone nuts. I'm confused. Who's conservative these days? Who's liberal? Maybe it's time to pitch these old labels.
As far as financially, I don't really like to call it "conservative". I would think of conservative as carefully planned, cautious, and not so risky.
__________________
Macfistowannabe is offline  
Old 01-25-2005, 05:13 PM   #5
Blue Crack Addict
 
verte76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: hoping for changes
Posts: 23,331
Local Time: 04:41 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Macfistowannabe
As far as financially, I don't really like to call it "conservative". I would think of conservative as carefully planned, cautious, and not so risky.
That's interesting because if I were allowed only word to describe the Bush Administration it would be "risky".
__________________
verte76 is offline  
Old 01-25-2005, 05:26 PM   #6
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,685
Local Time: 10:41 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Macfistowannabe
As far as financially, I don't really like to call it "conservative". I would think of conservative as carefully planned, cautious, and not so risky.
Are you saying Bush isn't a conservative when it comes to his economics? Because I'd agree with that.
__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 01-25-2005, 10:14 PM   #7
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Macfistowannabe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Ohio
Posts: 4,129
Local Time: 12:41 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar
Are you saying Bush isn't a conservative when it comes to his economics? Because I'd agree with that.
He doesn't fit my definition of "economically conservative", which I defined in my last post.
__________________
Macfistowannabe is offline  
Old 01-26-2005, 12:57 AM   #8
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Popmartijn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 32,543
Local Time: 05:41 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Judah
It raises the question whether the political system can actually allow for a truly liberal or conservative party to ever again come into power. With thousands of lobbyists, interest groups, and political backers demanding their returns on their investments into politicians, the fact that politicians have to water down and compromise their principles (assuming there still are such things), is not surprising.
Considering the fact that the article has been written by Pat Buchanan ( ) I think at least one person has that conviction.
Nevertheless, I think the article raises some interesting points. From what I read, spending is out of control. And the trade balance is very fragile. And sometimes it is better to use diplomacy than force.

C ya!

Marty
__________________
Popmartijn is offline  
Old 01-26-2005, 06:13 AM   #9
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 11:41 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Popmartijn


Considering the fact that the article has been written by Pat Buchanan ( ) I think at least one person has that conviction.
Nevertheless, I think the article raises some interesting points. From what I read, spending is out of control. And the trade balance is very fragile. And sometimes it is better to use diplomacy than force.

C ya!

Marty
Despite who wrote it, I found it to be a very well written article. I do not like this president because he is most definitely not a conservative in my book. Fiscally, I am very nervous for the baby boomers who are retireing in the next 10-25 years. What is the economy and social security going to bring them?

I think the diplomacy by this administraton, short of weilding force, has been lacking. I know we had Lybia disarm, but that was not due to negotiations in my book, but because of Iraq. Are there any other diplomtic things that have been accomplished that were not accomplished without force?
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 01-26-2005, 07:27 AM   #10
Blue Crack Addict
 
verte76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: hoping for changes
Posts: 23,331
Local Time: 04:41 AM
Good grief, it's not exactly every day that I agree with Buchanan. He's right in that Bush is not a real conservative. Not that I necessarily want to vote for conservatives, but it's true, there aren't any principles in politics anymore, only paybacks to lobbyists.
__________________

__________________
verte76 is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:41 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com