McCain Sez Answer to Corruption Is Smaller Gov't!

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by wkmac, Jun 25, 2006.

  1. wkmac

    wkmac Well-Known Member

  2. scratch

    scratch Least Best Moderator Staff Member


    This is probably one of the few times when I agree with what McCain says. But like you said, you have to look at a politician's voting record to see where they really stand. Too many people do not pay attention to what these people do, but instead vote for the campaign promises they make, which are usually impossible to keep. We live in a country where we have the right to vote for our government, but sadly a large part of our population is too busy to take advantage of that opportunity. A lot of the folks that do vote, have a "herd mentality", in that they vote for one party because they always have or someone tells them to. I believe that if you don't bother to vote, then you have no right to gripe about who is running things. Every vote counts, some Elections have been very close. I urge everyone to vote, I know that it is hard to do with our work schedules sometimes, but now I just call the County Courthouse and have an Absentee Ballot mailed to me.

    I consider myself as an Independent. I am not a member of either of the two major parties, in fact I have voted third party before. I am against big government, because that takes away from our freedom and waste our hard earned money we are severely over taxed on. I think that the wide-open borders and budget overruns will be big this next election. Voters are being squeezed by way too many problems. Primaries are coming up....
  3. tieguy

    tieguy Banned

    I don't know if you can blame the increase of government on neo-conservatism. While those who have increased the size of government are neo-conservatives I don't thing its necessarily a dogma fundemental to those. Bush has always in my opinion been very mainstream. In fact in hindsight he is probably more a liberal democrat then a neo-conservative. Spend like a liberal and makes war like a democrat. :closedeye
  4. tieguy

    tieguy Banned

    The increase of government is a good catch all with all the proper conotations. To do the debate justice though we probably should go through the increase of government, department by department and then determine if the increase was needed.

    We went to war in Afghanistan in response to 9/11. Justified yes.

    we went to war in Iraq for various reasons. Justified ?

    We created homeland security in response to 9/11 and in response to congressional investigations that determined the CIA and FBI needed to be in one department working together. Justified ?

    money well spent?

    Many americans want us to control the illegal immigration issue.

    Building a fence and patrolling the border will cost money. Funding for the SSA to investigate invalid Social security numbers or identity theft issues will cost more money. Money well spent?

    This is where Bush is extremely weak. He catches grief about increasing government and starts mamby pambying around about the line item veto trying to harp on the traiditional outdated republican response that the democrats in congress are tacking excesses on good bills.

    Stand up george . Tell us what you spent the money on and why you think it was well spent. Tell us what cuts you made in government and why you think that plan was sound.

    Too many games played in politics too many vague political references that confuse the issues.
  5. wkmac

    wkmac Well-Known Member

    Research Irving Kristol, the proclaimed father of the American Neo-Conservative movement. Spend some time reading at the American Enterprise Institute's website
    Also a 3 year old piece written by Irving Kristol on the subject of Neo-Conservatism.

    Also not a bad piece on the subject from Wikipedia either. I don't whole and completely endorse it because I've never fully researched but on the high points it covers a lot of good basic ground that tells the story in a few minutes worth of reading. For more on Irving Kristol click on his linked name in the Wikipedia article linked above.

    There are some shared principles of traditional conservatives and neo-cons between them but overall there is a much vaster difference with the core issues of federal power and foreign and expansionist policies. Traditional conservatives and the classic liberal actually have a lot more in common as the so-called libertarian in it's truest sense is in reality a classic liberal and I have no problem describing myself as such. In fact I'm proud too.

    Although I greatly disagree with Pat Buchannon on moral issues just as I disagree with you on many of the same, I do agree with Pat over the issue on foriegn policy and our ever increasing expansionist actions which it so happens you and I somewhat disagree on as well. Fortunately for all concerned in both our cases, we don't set policy that effects everyone else's life!:lol: Bullschitt Away Dude!:thumbup1:

    Someone here in another thread said that labels are unjust terms (liberal, conservative, etc.) and that really is so true. A conservative in the South will tend to be far more individualist than say a conservative in the north or even in the west. Liberals will be the same. You have to look at regional differences with people because the culture in which they came up will influence their thinking. I'm of Highland Scot ancestry and I never understood my natural rebel streak until a few years ago I learned from which I came. Those from England however came from society that was more ordered and you stood your place in society no matter what and those in power were granted the right to decide and that was proper. Roman occupation influence I guess. We think because of the passing generations that we change and in some respects we do but there is a very good genetic arguement on how we believe and express ourselves even today as a result of who or moreso where we came from.

    This is also another reason that I believe some universal central gov't will never work with any longterm success but rather we need regional or even in some cases local centered powers to take into account for the culture of the people themselves. We can share a larger collective avenue of helping to protect and defend one another and to maintain the unalienable rights spoken of in the great document that was signed on this day 230 years ago. I also believe many of the founding fathers understood these differences and that also a strong central power would lead to abuse and corruption and in the end allow the few to become powerful again (remember the term British Aristocracy and No Titles of Nobility?) and dominate the many and to the many's disadvantage and misfortune. Good idea to read that great document again today and just ponder for a moment what they would think and do if they were alive today. I'll bet Osama would be the least of Washington's worries and you could take that to the bank!
  6. tieguy

    tieguy Banned


    I really didn't ask for a definition of neo conservatism nor did I ask for a homework assignment on the subject. I'm trying based on your previous post to determine if you believe in government and if you believe a government has a right to tax for the common good. I think you have both the central and the local government already. A local smaller government by itself would be reminiscent of chinease fifedoms and not effective. If you believe in the evils of government then you have to believe smaller governments with no federal oversight would be a recipe for disaster.

    If you believe a government is needed and taxation required for the common good then you have to conceed that the organizers of a tax protest were seditious as charged.

    If not then you have to believe that the citizenry should be allowed to basically undermine whatever form of government you believe in whenever it suits them.

    I'm sorry but it all sounds like chaos to me.
  7. wkmac

    wkmac Well-Known Member

    Then you believe that what took place 230 years ago and what sprang forth from it is pure chaos. Understand those principles and you will fully understand what I believe gov't to be, what it's function, what it's place and what it's powers should be. There is a place for gov't and there is a place for taxation and how it is administered.

    BTW Tie,
    The intent of the links was not to give you a homework assignment but to in fact give you something that I think you'll find a lot of common beliefs between yourself and the neoconservative thinking out there. I don't say that as a putdown or to condemn but in fact as I've read many writing from Irving Kristol, to his son Bill Kristol, to Newt Gingrich and so forth, much of what they say I think you would wholely agree with and support. Seriously, I do think you'll find some very good stuff from your point of view at AEI.
    Last edited: Jul 4, 2006
  8. tieguy

    tieguy Banned

    maybe. Though my position may be changing. And I'm not at that point where I am debating the idea that we need smaller government because I do believe less is better.

    In evaluating the growth of spending under Bush you could make a very good argument to the fact that he had to increase spending and grow the government to deal with the outcome of 9/11.

    In assessing the causes I have a hard time come up with good answers as to what I would have eliminated.
  9. wkmac

    wkmac Well-Known Member

    You could crusie the pages of the budget and find lots of items that could be excluded that has no other function than to benefit the fortunes of those that recieve them but that's not gonna happen. That said, the 5 minute solution to the tip of the iceberg is at the link below but more importantly is using this website to look at your own Congressperson and Senators and if each of us do this and start holding their feet to the fire then it might be possible to reel some of these folks in.

    Limited gov't can be a wonderful thing as was once proven in this country but when the people sit back and only demand more wine and circus, guys like me are given more and more traction to cry for "Get Rid of It All!" As time goes by more and more have their personal ox goared so they join in the frey. The best way to shut it down (the traction) is to reel in what gives it traction. Ever thought that very little if anything might be said about the federal surveillance program for terrorism if the gov't wasn't already so massive and is only showing trends of getting bigger and more powerful? Ever thought that there would have been no Osama at all to surveil had there been limited gov't? Both President's Eisenhower and Kennedy warn on the size and scope of gov't as they saw it in their day and even Eisenhower himself looking at the early days of the coldwar warned about the evils of the Military/Industrial complex. Why? How saw Nazi Germany's Military/Industrial Complex up close and personal? Could it be he understood trends and parrallels?

    If an employee at work shows trends of not doing his/her job over time and over that same timeframe the trend has grown with less and less productivity, would you then give that employee a job assignment that would further encourage less productivity or would you strip away the job just down to the bare essentials and then monitor that employee like a hawk and hold them accountable? Would you agree that basically what I said above would be the smart thing to do? People are people no matter what they do in life so way would I be scorned for wanting to do the same with other people who are showing the exact same kind of trends.

    Here's the link to Citizens Against Gov't Waste and their "2006' PigBook" which IMO is a good organization and bi-partisan at least with what I've seen.

    Hey I'll be the first one to agree there are many problems out there and the solutions seem so complex and time consuming. Here's something we all need to consider about our gov't going forward. Consider the amount of time and effort you have to labor over the course of a year to pay for all the taxes that you pay. I'm talking Fed. State and local and soon maybe international as the UN is now talking about a global income taxation plan. Now look around at you co-workers, family, friends and neighbors and think of how much they have to do the same. Now look at what you get in return. What is essential will jump off the page at you immediately and in most cases we would agree. But most of those essentials you will find that up until recent times was for the most part done by local and in some cases State govt's that were closest to the people to be overseen and who's scale of size was smaller and easier to manage. Besides, what's harder to manipulate and rob from, 50 banks or in some cases 1000's or just 1? That question write there gets to the heart of the matter and one of the bedrock reasons our founding fathers granted very limited powers to a centralized gov't in the first place.

    Sedition and treason are hard words and we scorn people today we believe engage in such actions. However, yesterday we celebrated the very actions of seditious and treasonous persons even to the highest level with the leader of our nation. One man's treason and sedition is another's man's patriot and national hero. All depends on which side of the fence you stand.

    Hope you had a great 4th as we went to a "Little Big Town" concert (2 singers are local girls) in our town square and a great fireworks show with it. Back to the real life today!

    c ya!
  10. wkmac

    wkmac Well-Known Member

  11. tieguy

    tieguy Banned

    I don't doubt it . Many little tack ons to get people to vote for the bill. One of the complex line item veto type issues we have to address. I agree our leaders should be held accountable for how they vote but If your congressman tacks a little pork on the immigration bill that pumps 300 million into your state for road repair no one is going to get upset in your town. ( other than you?)

    And so the game of politics goes.

    4th was different and actually kind of neat. We weren't going to go see the fireworks at first due to a thunderstorm that rolled through about 7 pm. Storm clears out and we start driving at the last second. We stayed on major interstates as we drove and saw 6 different fireworks shows. Actually looked down from the highway and watched part of one small communities show. A different perspective that we actually enjoyed.
    Then fired a bunch of fireworks off from the back of the pool while puffing on a big old cigar.

    Scrubbing the gunpowder stains of the pools coping will take some work though.
  12. tieguy

    tieguy Banned

    The rebuttal to this point may be Clinton getting us into Bosnia despite having a republican congress trying to hold him in check. No congress would have ever denied any president after 9/11. While I think Bush has weaknesses I don't think the Cheney working a bush puppet applies. Bush has one of the most talented cabinets I think I have ever seen. You can't give Cheney the credit for all the moves without somehow discrediting the rest of his staff.

    This brings another thought to mind. Many have argued for political solutions to garner the love of muslims. Yet in 95 we went into bosnia to save the muslims from genocide at the hands of the serbs. Why did that action not get us the appreciation of the muslims. Why is that while we were saving the muslims from the serbs the Al Quiadas were still hard at work plotting attacks against us?

    how is it that we can fight for the muslims in Bosnia , depose a leader who may have killed as many as a million muslims in Iraq and yet still not get the credit and appreciation we should have earned?
  13. wkmac

    wkmac Well-Known Member

    Oh I agree that crediting Cheney only for all things is not accurate at all but then we like to simplify our lives by focusing in singularities and not multiple targets. To understand the policies of today concerning Iraq you have to go back into the 90's during the Clinton years and read what was happening. To kickoff the proceeding, you have to look at 96' when Richard Perle at the Washington group Institute for Advanced Strategic & Political Studies issued a report to Israeli Prime Minister called Operation Clean Break that advocated the removal of Saddam Hussein from power. At the time the report did not advocate or consider US involvement in this process but rather what were details in the specific interest of the State of Israel. Now David Wurmser, Middle East Advisor to Cheney, was a primary author of the Clean Break report, but his "Crumbling States" document in 96'
    was the center piece that advocated a combined US/Israeli partnership to remove Saddam and the point where the serious thinking on this began but for some reason it's always Richard Perle who gets the finger pointed at.

    Now even though Perle introduced to Wolfowitz a Mr. Amad Chalabi back in 85' it was during this 96' era that Chalabi came into his own so to speak. Who is Chalabi? Chalabi, a secular Iraqi Shiite from a wealthy banking family, left Iraq in 1956 at age 12. Founded a Jordanian bank in 1978; fled country in '89; received 22 year sentence for embezzlement. At one point after the overthrow of Saddam he was Iraq's new oil minister but don't know it that is still the case. He is out of favor with the neocons after playing games with the Iranians.

    OK, step back away from the picture and let's just look at the bigger scheme and ask a few questions. Chalabi is Shiite and Saddam and the Bathist are Sunni. Shiite's and Sunni's don't play nice. One holds power and the other doesn't. Also a 6/4/2004 Washington Post article gives some interesting details of a 95' plot by Chalabi to kill Saddam and Chalabi had CIA backing in this effort. Now how interesting during the Clinton years we had this going on and of course it was kept secret. Who's fighting right now with each other in Iraq? Who stands to profit from controlling Iraq? See any trends jump at ya?

    OK, back to case at hand. This is just a scratching of the surface of the actions and the players in the game as it concerns Iraq in the mid-70's. Also at this same time you had a military industrial complex being forced to geardown as a result of the collaspe of the old Soviet Empire and the end of the coldwar. So again let's just again stepback as good detectives and consider the picture presented. You have an internal Iraqi conflict brooding over power and control of Iraq, you have a an external power Israel who views the removal of faction in their interest and you have an American military/industrial complex looking for something to make themselves meaningful again. Now jump forward to 97 and an organization called Project For the New American Century and who these folks might be.
    Now in June of 97' PNAC Chairman William Kristol, noted conservative commentator on FoxNews and son of Irving Kristol, the father of the American Neo-Conservative movement, along with other members of the PNAC issues a Statement of Principles and they are of interest to read but go to the bottom of the page and read the names of these members.
    Now consider a PNAC letter sent to then President Clinton in 98' on the situation in Iraq.

    Other PNAC documents to consider during the prior years to Bush entering the White House.

    From their UN expert who is now in the UN

    Wolfowitz speaks on the matter

    And you could spend some time reading at their website and I'd encourage it. Also look at the cast of characters at the American Enterprise Institute's website. In understanding what drives many of the people making decisions that could effect your and my life, it is IMO worth the few minutes. What's also interesting is that so far I've found no specific PNAC document with Cheney's name on it. Is he stupid? Oh hell no! Is he too busy running Haliburton during that time? Maybe but I doubt it. What gives then? Is this the standard MO of Plausible Denial on his part? I think that's a major part of it but that's JMO.

    The bottomline is there is evidence to suggest something bigger than just reacting to circumstances at the time. Granted, you could say it's only circumstancial evidence but people have been placed in the electric chair on circumstancial evidence so there you go. It's also of interest that during this mid 90's timeframe, ole' GW is nowhere to be found on this political landscape other than tending to the affairs of State in Texas. History may clear Cheney's goodname or condemn him, time must bare that out but there is evidence at present that would clearly make one question the motives of people at the top including Cheney as to what is happening with our current foreign policy. When it comes to Iraq I do think Bush is a somewhat of a willing patsy and I also think Powell saw the light and got out of dodge after being used. As you can see when the CIA was trying to cap Saddam in the Clinton years, I think this thing is way beyond a single lone President and has become it's own beast. Rome was not alone in it's conspiracies and intrigue as we are learning as we look.

    Concerning Bush and his spending habits, I found this 2 page Cato Institute report a very worthwhile read:

    c ya!
  14. susiedriver

    susiedriver New Member

  15. tieguy

    tieguy Banned

    Can't find my drink and I have no straw to stir it with. Whats a fella to do.!!!:tongue_sm
  16. wkmac

    wkmac Well-Known Member

    Be a real man. Drink a beer!

    Have a good weekend.
  17. tieguy

    tieguy Banned

    As a chaser for my drink?
  18. wkmac

    wkmac Well-Known Member

    Why waste a perfectly could glass of Jack Daniels or Jim Bean with a mixer or chaser. Straight up is the only way to drink sippin' whiskey!