Reflections from the Grounded Center

3.13.2006

Clarification

This is what I meant to point out in the last post...not the fact that someone from the Bush Administration didn't show up. It seems that the point got lost in the politics...what a surprise.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/03/12/BUSH.TMP

9 Comments:

Anonymous Doc Barnett said...

I'm not sure that the "Spending gone WILD!!" under G.W. will do his reputation any more harm than it did Reagan's (who was just as much of a don't-tax and do-spender). I mean, I want him to go down, for sure, but somehow the national dept sprial of death we're in just doesn't resonate with people.

10:57

 
Blogger A. K. Brown said...

That is because the REALLY important issues aren't whether the dollar will become less valuable than the Mexican peso, or that if it weren't for Japan and our other debtors we would be bankrupt...but rather whether gays and lesbians can marry or get abortions. That is clearly what will make or break outr nation.

11:47

 
Blogger KOB said...

Bankruptcy is the result of having more debt then you can handle, not from spending more than you have - that is physically impossible without credit.

The main reason for any potential US bankruptcy would be BECAUSE of our foreign debtors. Unfortunately, they are also the reason for our current prosperity.

It is often gluttonous consumption that over-burdens an individual’s financial health. In the case of the USA, that takes the form of entitlements and pork. Is it any surprise that a nation with ridiculously low individual savings rates supports government that does the same? Of the people, by the people, for the people…


BTW, Bush isn't the one that made gay marriage an important issue.

15:31

 
Blogger A. K. Brown said...

He made it important enough to mention in 4 consecutive State of the Union addresses. Not to mention how much Karl Rove loved it in GW's Texas Gubernatorial campaign, as well as both presidential elections. But you're right, if the oppressed would just stop rising/speaking up against injustice, we would have no more issues, right??? Great solution.

And no, the state of our economy is no surprise. If Congress does not extend our debt ceiling by March 17, before their break, we will default on our debt on March 21st (for the first time I might add - can anyone remember a balanced budget? I can).

I am sure they will do it, but will they tie it to obligatory changes and controls to avoid this type of situation? That is the question. If the Republican Congress acts as a rubber stamp, as it has for most of the past 5 years (recent events excluded), then probably not.

Gotta love big government "conservatives!"

15:42

 
Blogger KOB said...

So if Bush was a suporter of gay marriage and fighting for its recognition, you would still argue that he is not focusing on the important issues right? Be honest now, it's his position not his focus that bothers you.

The national debt was never balanced. There was a PROJECTED surplus that never came to fruition for a number of reasons.

You just spent two threads talking about conservative disagreement with government spending, and I have already stated that I disagree with big spending, but again you lump "conservatives" in together. Why do you do it when it's convenient for you, but hate when I use the term Liberal to categorize all Democrats?

21:12

 
Blogger A. K. Brown said...

I put conservative in quotes becaue I don't think that GW is a conservative in the traditional way that the term is used. But, as you knwo from the previous post, I have great disdain for the use of either of these words with their current nuance associated with them. Yes, people can be more or less liberal or conservative, but they are so poiltically charged that I shy away from their usage.

As for gay marriage, you are right - half right. Yes, of course my position on GW's social outlook would be different if he thought differently...that is true. HOWEVER, it would not detract form my position that this is not as important of an issue as the war, Homeland security (in terms of both terrorism and natural disaster preparation), health care, education and the economy. I would be happier about his stance, but no less disturbed by the focus, and I can say this honestly. Had John Kerry come out against gay marriage, as Bill Clinton advised him to do, I would have still voted for him over GW.

22:31

 
Anonymous gerd said...

Wasn't the point of both these articles to illustrate the growing dissatisfaction of Bush's policies and performance by his supposed "base?"

That Bush isn't really acting as a "republican" or a "conservative" as he promotes a larger government and bigger spending? Why are we talking about gay marriage?

Oh right, the Republican thing to do is to deflect any critisism or consideration of the real issues by bringing up controversal "moral" issues to hide their parties failings.

Well I guess it works, it was why they won the 2004 Presidential election.

17:51

 
Blogger A. K. Brown said...

No, no, no...I brought it up.

HOWEVER, your comment is still valid. It was precisely because they do exactly what you say - deflect from real issues by distracting voters with emotional issues that have no real baearing on leadership or direction.

But to be fair, although not particularly partisan, others do it as well (read: Dubai Ports deal).

22:25

 
Blogger KOB said...

(Restraint) Again – please, please, please read all the posts in sequence before posting.

Gerd - […the Republican thing to do is to deflect any critisism or consideration of the real issues by bringing up controversal "moral" issues to hide their parties failings.

Well I guess it works, it was why they won the 2004 Presidential election.]

Could it be that the dumbest, worst speaking, most-vacationing, least compassionate, most racist president ever is a master of shifting public debate? Or is it more plausible that those distracting “moral” issues are actually very important to the majority of voters?

a.k. brown – [HOWEVER, your comment is still valid. It was precisely because they do exactly what you say - deflect from real issues by distracting voters with emotional issues that have no real baearing on leadership or direction.]

From your earlier post you listed the important issues in this order – [the war, Homeland security (in terms of both terrorism and natural disaster preparation), health care, education and the economy.]

My memory’s not what it used to be, but I’m pretty sure that list matches Bush’s campaign issues pretty closely - so much for deflecting the “real” issues.

How do feel about the “real” issue of the impending social security disaster that he was not afraid to touch?

13:25

 

Post a Comment

<< Home