Originally Posted by Villages Kahuna

I suppose there are lots more examples, but how about Harry S. Truman? He was a Democrat...a liberal, if you will.

Give us a break. Definitions change over time. Democrats were once somewhat conservative, until they discovered that giving money away buys votes!!!

Originally Posted by Villages Kahuna

I suppose there are lots more examples, but how about Harry S. Truman? He was a Democrat...a liberal, if you will.

I swore I would never come back here but I cannot allow you to get away with this remark !!!

To compare the Democratic party of Harry Truman to this democratic party is an outrage...no, better said...an OUTRAGE !!!!

I was a loyal hardworking member of the Democratic party until the early 70's when the incidious growth within the party of those who were more interested in VOTES than anything and everything.

Then, at the turn of this century the party was bought and paid for by the progressive wing of the party and if you want,will supply the facts already listed on this forum many times ! Just google folks like Soros !

This is NOT the democratic party of which I was a proud and very hard working member...it is not even close.

The Republican party, as well has swung to far to the right, but not even close to the way the Democratic party has swung left. Those who are getting press from the far right have NO..NO...say in Republican affairs, however on the other hand, those hard left progressives are running the current Democratic party !

I can recall in the early 70's being told by a high ranking Democratic official in Pennsylvania that the emphasis will be on getting the minority vote and that "we" will promise them everything and anything to get that vote. Whether what is promised can be done or is the right thing is not up for discussion !

But I want to add one thing. The Republicans have not gone too far to the right. It only looks like it has compared to the Progressives. Remember how much spending the party did when Bush had the congress. There is no way in heck that would have happened if there was someone in there that was like Reagan. Bush caved in on immigration and spending. Bush was no real conservative.

Originally Posted by Bucco

...This is NOT the democratic party of which I was a proud and very hard working member...it is not even close....

Bucco, you know where I stand on things. I'm the last one who will defend this Democratic party. (I won't defend the Republicans either, by the way.)

But Harry Truman was FDR's Vice President. Is there a huge difference between what has occurred in this administration compared to FDR? Both were coming off a depression, both had high unemployment. Lots of similar problems. About all FDR didn't have was a war or two to contend with--that and having terrorists trying to kill Americans in their homeland if possible.

But are all the "government intrusions" into people's lives all that different between FDR and BO? Both Democrats, separated only by about 75 years. I'm not challenging your memory, Bucco, but I thinlk it can be demonstrated that the Democrats of old aren't all that different than today.

One exception--like the Republicans, the Democrats also have a "wingnut faction" as far to the left as the GOP wingnuts are to the right. Maybe the wingnuts were there back in the 1930's as well, but I don't recall reading about them.

Originally Posted by Villages Kahuna

Bucco, you know where I stand on things. I'm the last one who will defend this Democratic party. (I won't defend the Republicans either, by the way.)

But Harry Truman was FDR's Vice President. Is there a huge difference between what has occurred in this administration compared to FDR? Both were coming off a depression, both had high unemployment. Lots of similar problems. About all FDR didn't have was a war or two to contend with--that and having terrorists trying to kill Americans in their homeland if possible.

But are all the "government intrusions" into people's lives all that different between FDR and BO? Both Democrats, separated only by about 75 years. I'm not challenging your memory, Bucco, but I thinlk it can be demonstrated that the Democrats of old aren't all that different than today.

One exception--like the Republicans, the Democrats also have a "wingnut faction" as far to the left as the GOP wingnuts are to the right. Maybe the wingnuts were there back in the 1930's as well, but I don't recall reading about them.

I am sure that you know this, but basically every program that FDR enacted, with the exception of Social Security has been overturned !!!!

Listen, I agree..both parties have the wingnut faction, but starting in 2000 this party has been overtaken by the far left...will not call them wingnut because I am not into labels or name calling....HOWEVER, this party is "owned" right now by the unions and those who lean VERY far left. If you really read about the folks in the background of this party...those who pushed Obama to where he is....it is shocking.

Now, this is NOT a defense of the Republican party....they, as you say, both have their segments. Difference is the far left has been SUCCESFULL in taking over control of thier party....the far right makes noise but controls nothing at this point within the Republican party.

Listen, this is my opinion, but as I told you during the campaign I have really spent time reading about the rise of this faction in the party the last 10 years and the evidence to me is overwhelming about the idealogy that is controlling this White House.

I think it may have been you who brought up the right wing "neo conservative" groups that had much too much input in the early Bush years but they fizzled out quickly...this progressive group in the Democratic party is so well funded and so strong there is little to no chance of them being moved out unless the voters send a clear message.

We need both parties back to the middle and quickly.

By the way, if my history memory serves me...FDR brought out his own type of "tea ******" movement and again...all but Social Security have been turned over. There may be a few financial controls that he set up still around, but the point is...FDR caused the same stir !

The world is a different place...while money was important then, it is more now...the world is "smaller"....FDR held out in getting involved in what was happening in the world until Pearl Harbor and probably made WW2 last much longer at more severe loss of life, but that is for historians to debate. Point is, you cannot ignore these things today !


Point is....to me,anyway, this current Democratic party is controlled by the extreme far left, albeit a much smoother and sly faction, and that is very dangerous to this country. Neo conservative could also be as dangerous but simply consider a President and congress who facing serious and back breaking deficits would pass a financial mess like the health care bill which does not even do what they said....address costs...and was totally opposed by the american citizens and despite what they have said, it is more opposed the more the american public knows. Add that to the fact that is was done with backroom deals, secret pacts, payoffs, etc, and you can see the danger.

Originally Posted by ptownrob

Were you asking this question while happily living on Social Security and Medicare. Or was it while you were driving on nicely paved highways with traffic lights to avoid accidents? Perhaps it was while you were drinking a glass of water that was clean to your government's standards. Or taking your medicine that is regulated by your FDA. Perhaps it was eating a burger that was not full of rancid meat and rat droppings, or maybe while you were safe in your home becasue your fire and police and the U.S. Military are watching over you for your safety.

!

So far as I know, no-one on this board was given the option to not pay into Social Security and save that portion of their income. Social Security was conceived as an inter-generational Ponzi scheme with each following generation paying for the ones before it. As any Ponzi scheme goes broke when the number of suckers willing to jump in can no longer support the outflow. This has now happened to Social Security and benefit cuts are coming. My children know that they will never receive a dime from Social Security. By the time they would become age eligible, the 'means testing' will eliminate them. Medicare is in similar straits. Let's stop this BS and start discussing with some concept of reality.

Originally Posted by BBQMan

Let's stop this BS and start discussing with some concept of reality.

I guess we can only use your concept of reality, huh? Everyone else's is invalid.

I notice you completely ignored the bulk of my post which was about the public services we receive from our government- the same services that make the U.S. "The #1 country in the world."

Originally Posted by Bucco

...We need both parties back to the middle and quickly....

Right on, Bucco!

About the only time I'm seen some cooperation between the parties recently, compromise if you will, seems to be what's going on right now on the financial regulatory reform bill negotiations. From what I've read, the POTUS is involved and there is a clear but behind the scenes give and take in a joint effort to get a bill that can be passed by both the GOP and the Democrats, with support from the President. Maybe even more encouraging--if I'm interpreting what I read correctly--both sides seem to be stiff-arming the entreaties of the lobbyists for the banks. Congress seems to be refusing every effort by the special interests to gut the bill being negotiated. It's not done until it's done, but I'm hopeful on this one.

The question I have regarding a similar situation is: why couldn't such negotiation and compromise have happened on the healthcare bill? The problem facing the nation was at least as critical. Virtually everyone agreed that something needed to be done. But what was passed was a Rube Goldberg bill, heavily influenced by virtually every healthcare lobby that there was, which produced a bill which had only limited "reforms" and will have to be fixed--many times probably--by future Congresses.

What happened between the passing of the healthcare bill and what seems to be happening now on financial regulatory reform?

Originally Posted by ptownrob

I guess we can only use your concept of reality, huh? Everyone else's is invalid.

I notice you completely ignored the bulk of my post which was about the public services we receive from our government- the same services that make the U.S. "The #1 country in the world."

PTown, I did not bother to respond to them since these are largely the services and protection required by the US Constitution. Apparently you are unfamiliar with that document, but I sincerely recommend it to you.

Why I primarily addressed Social Security and Medicare is that they are two programs that 'liberals', such as yourself use to justify bigger and bigger government and attack those who disagree. These programs are crumbling as I write this. This is failed liberalism.

The current liberal government of the United States is not looking forward, but rather marching backwards to the time of the New Deal. Government stimulus was tried then for 12 years and it did not work then and is not working now. As VK has pointed out, the Obama administration is doing its best to copy Greece with unsustainable welfare programs and deficits. Greece is going down and may well take the rest of the EU with it. Why should we choose to emulate a failed solution?

Go to your union towns, I suggest Detroit, St Louis and East St Louis to see the impact of 'liberal' politics. If you want, I will go to Detroit with you and we can take the Segway tour of a destroyed city - one that was the richest city in the world in 1950. Heck, I'll even pay for your Segway tour! Once you fall in love, you can sell your Villages home and buy one in the liberal paradise of Detroit and have a lot of cash left over. The median price for a home in Detroit is $6,100. Think, do you really leave the conservative values of Florida and embrace the liberal values of Detroit? If you do not, please tell us why a liberal would choose to live in a conservative community rather than a liberal Detroit?

Be right back. Going for a diet coke.

Originally Posted by Villages Kahuna

Right on, Bucco!

About the only time I'm seen some cooperation between the parties recently, compromise if you will, seems to be what's going on right now on the financial regulatory reform bill negotiations. From what I've read, the POTUS is involved and there is a clear but behind the scenes give and take in a joint effort to get a bill that can be passed by both the GOP and the Democrats, with support from the President. Maybe even more encouraging--if I'm interpreting what I read correctly--both sides seem to be stiff-arming the entreaties of the lobbyists for the banks. Congress seems to be refusing every effort by the special interests to gut the bill being negotiated. It's not done until it's done, but I'm hopeful on this one.

The question I have regarding a similar situation is: why couldn't such negotiation and compromise have happened on the healthcare bill? The problem facing the nation was at least as critical. Virtually everyone agreed that something needed to be done. But what was passed was a Rube Goldberg bill, heavily influenced by virtually every healthcare lobby that there was, which produced a bill which had only limited "reforms" and will have to be fixed--many times probably--by future Congresses.

What happened between the passing of the healthcare bill and what seems to be happening now on financial regulatory reform?

Yes, wouldn't it be nice if Washington worked this way all the time in OUR best interests.

But to answer your question, it is the opinion of this Independent that what is happening, in regards to the Financial reform, is the issue of mid term elections. We have one party smelling blood and not wanting to make a serious mistake while the other party is running scared and both do not want to look bad by not going after the "bad guys", ie Wall Street.

Originally Posted by BBQMan

...Go to your union towns, I suggest Detroit, St Louis and East St Louis to see the impact of 'liberal' politics. If you want, I will go to Detroit with you and we can take the Segway tour of a destroyed city - one that was the richest city in the world in 1950....

There's a whole lot more that lead to the decline of the auto industry and Detroit than "liberal politics", BBQ, and you know that.

I lived in Detroit for ten years and one of my sons lives there now. I worked in the auto industry while I was there and he does as well. I arrived in Detroit right out of college in June of 1960. Yes, that was a time when Detroit was a proud, productive city. The auto industry appeared to be one of the best-managed group of companies in the world. Auto workers defined what "middle class" meant and what a middle class could accomplish.

Since 1960--fifty years--Detroit and the auto industry has gotten to where it is now. There has been the cyclical ebb and flow of political leadership in the country, from Kennedy and Johnson's liberalism thru Nixon and Ford and the first Bush's conservative tilt (with a short interruption by Jimmy Carter). Two terms of the most conservative President we've had in fifty years, Ronald Reagan, was followed by two terms of Clinton, arguably a liberal, followed by two terms of Bush 43's "compassionate conservatism". The makeup of Congress has had similar ebbs and flows of political ideology over the fifty years that Detroit has experienced such decline.

So for you to assert that Detroit and the auto industry has declined because of "liberal politics" while Florida is just fine is not only inaccurate, but ridiculous on its face. As of March, 2010 Michigan's unemployment rate is 14.1%, Florida isn't far behind at 12.8%, both states are substantially higher than the national average.

So much for the effect of the effect of the conservative government of Florida as opposed to the liberal government of Michigan.

You need to look for another example of the effect of liberal ideology as opposed to conservatism. If you dig deeply enough, you might find that the problems faced by the U.S. today are more the result of incompetent, self-serving, special interest driven government rather than any ideological or party label.

VK, could not have daid it better.

VK-- Neither Bush is a conservative. As far as Florida is conserned JEB is probably more conservative then the other two Bush's, but Christ certainly isn't a conservative. Not even close. I do agree with your last sentence, however.

Originally Posted by BBQMan

PTown, I did not bother to respond to them since these are largely the services and protection required by the US Constitution. Apparently you are unfamiliar with that document, but I sincerely recommend it to you.

Why I primarily addressed Social Security and Medicare is that they are two programs that 'liberals', such as yourself use to justify bigger and bigger government and attack those who disagree. These programs are crumbling as I write this. This is failed liberalism.

The current liberal government of the United States is not looking forward, but rather marching backwards to the time of the New Deal. Government stimulus was tried then for 12 years and it did not work then and is not working now. As VK has pointed out, the Obama administration is doing its best to copy Greece with unsustainable welfare programs and deficits. Greece is going down and may well take the rest of the EU with it. Why should we choose to emulate a failed solution?

Go to your union towns, I suggest Detroit, St Louis and East St Louis to see the impact of 'liberal' politics. If you want, I will go to Detroit with you and we can take the Segway tour of a destroyed city - one that was the richest city in the world in 1950. Heck, I'll even pay for your Segway tour! Once you fall in love, you can sell your Villages home and buy one in the liberal paradise of Detroit and have a lot of cash left over. The median price for a home in Detroit is $6,100. Think, do you really leave the conservative values of Florida and embrace the liberal values of Detroit? If you do not, please tell us why a liberal would choose to live in a conservative community rather than a liberal Detroit?

The most liberal cities and states are the ones that are in financial distress. Just one critical look at Kalifornia explains it all.