President-elect Barack Obama says he will bar pork-barrel projects from the massive economic stimulus bill he wants Congress to pass.
I hear a lot of people here always using the term "liberals" as an insult, I don't think that they really understand what a liberal is....so here is the wikipedia definition of liberalism:
Liberalism is a broad class of political philosophies that considers individual liberty to be the most important political goal.[1]
Liberalism emphasizes individual rights and equality of opportunity. Within liberalism there are various streams of thought which compete over the use of the term "liberal" and may propose very different policies, but they are generally united by their support for a number of principles, including: freedom of thought and speech, limitations on the power of governments, the rule of law, an individual's right to private property,[2] and a transparent system of government.[3][4][5
Javier40,
Okay, I am not here to differ with you on what your belief of a liberal or liberalism is. Just do me a huge favor the next time you quote something. Don't use Wikipedia, please. Wikipedia is a compilation of different views from many people and does not necessarily deal in terms of facts. Heck, I can go on their right now and make "an unwashed potato" or "potatoe" for you Dan Quayle fans the definition of liberal.
I have never seen or heard a liberal act on these virtues. Liberal state that they stand for but never done
Javier, you are defining classic liberalism, not the strain now prevalent. Big government and freedom have nothing in common.
I'm with Carlos Toadvine, Javier 40.0. You've defined classic liberalism. In contemporaneous usage, you've defined conservatism.
That's right. The Wikipedia definition of liberalism is a functional definition of conservatism.
Let's scope the attributes of liberalism you excerpted from Wikipedia to highlight how far modern Progressivism has deviated from classic liberalism/conservatism:
Individual Rights. Progressives believe in civil liberties, conservatives in individual rights. There's a hugh difference between the two.
Civil Liberties flow from The State to We The People. Progressives maintain that civil liberties would be meaningless unless The State enforces them. Thus, Progressives believe We The People have no 'rights' or 'liberties' unless The State exists. Progressives also maintain that the judiciary has not only the right but also the obligation to define what our civil liberties are, even though the legislature or We The People vote otherwise.
otoh, Individual Rights are unalienable and predate the existence of any state. Note this exactly-180-degrees difference in emphasis. We conservative maintain that The State has no 'right' to interfere with our basic Individual Rights, while Progressives maintain that The State can redefine what constitutes our Individual Rights anytime they wish. Please read the text of many modern, Progressive-based Supreme Court rulings that mention things like "the evolving standards of decency in a civilized society". In essence, this is standard Progressive credo or doctrine; namely, that Individual Rights also 'evolve'. Well, if they 'evolve', they aren't 'unalienable'. If they aren't 'unalienable', then the only rights we have are those granted by The State.
If The State has the right to redefine what the Declaration of Independence considers unalienable, this is "limited government"? I'd call it all-powerful gov't, if you asked me.
Limitations on the Powers of Government. See previous entry. Obama is proposing a near-trillion-dollar stimulus package. This is limited gov't? Progressives lust to rein in the free market via massive gov't legislation and intervention, creating a State that intrudes in all aspects of our economic lives. This is limited gov't?
Freedom of Thought. The inclusion of this attribute is laughable. Independent of anything else, we can all think anything we want. I remember reading a book many decades ago by a Holocaust survivor. He said that the one thing that the Nazis couldn't force him to do was to think the way they wanted him to think. His last right, as it were.
Freedom of Expression. I'd suggest you scope what's happening on our university and college campuses, certainly a bastion of the radical left-wing. A good place to start is FIRE's Web site. A particularly good article is FIRE's Liberty on Campus in 2008: FIRE's Year in Review. Progressives and Marxists are world-class masters at suppressing freedom of expression on college campuses. They justify this suppression in many ways: Calling conservative speech "Hate Speech", or being "uncivil", or being "hurtful" to another person's self-esteem. What's worse, colleges and universities indoctrinate students in a very particular POV. That POV, naturally, is Progressive or Marxist. Again, peruse FIRE's site. If what's happening on our colleges and universities doesn't disgust you, then you support suppression of free speech.
No, we conservatives don't want to repress liberal speech. In fact, I and my fellow conservatives couldn't encourage it more. Why, you may ask? Well, liberals don't understand how hateful they appear to others. I just need to mention Coulter, Limbaugh, or Savage and the enraged, spittle-spewing liberals crawl out from under the woodwork, saying things that test the extreme bounds of incivility. Of course, liberals maintain that what Coulter, Limbaugh, and Savage practice is Hate Speech; therefore, anything liberals say in response is not only justified but also ruthlessly moral and radically ethical.
No, we conservatives strongly encourage liberals to speak their minds. I enjoy liberals self-destructing.
The Rule of Law. Here's one we conservatives don't support. Our reasoning is simple: If we support The Rule of Law as Progressives intend it to mean, then the rule of We The People diminishes. Specifically, what we conservatives fear (and what any sensible person should fear) is an Autocracy of the Legal Profession.
Let's take a specific example: The US Supreme Court ruling Grutter v. Bollinger which upheld the University of Michigan Law School's "diversity-based" admission program.
Forget the merits of the case. What struck me was this: The University of Michigan Law School is a Law School. The then-President of the Law School was a lawyer. Lawyers crafted the admission policy. Lawyers sued to end the policy. At every step along the way, the judge, the prosecuting attorneys, and the defense attorneys were lawyers.
Notice something? This entire process occurred entirely within the province of the legal profession. Did We The People have anything to do with it, or anything to say about it? @!$%#, no. Did the Executive and Legislative branches of gov't have anything to do with it, or anything to say about it? @!$%#, no.
Another example. The specific US Supreme Court rulings on torture, Guantameno, etc. had an interesting sidelight. It just so happens that the US Senate never ratified the various 1977 Protocols to the Geneva Convention. These Protocols functionally ceded the complete gamut of rights to terrorists who were not ceded those rights in the original Geneva Convention. The original conventions only ceded those rights to a category they defined as "lawful combatants"; eg, those wearing a uniform as demarking them as lawful soliders. In essence, the original convention implicitly defined a category called "unlawful combatants". However, the 1977 Protocols essentially voided this category, mandating that anyone captured by, say, the US military should be given all rights formerly due only to lawful combatants.
Again, forget the merits of the arguments here. What struck me was this: The functional impact of the various US Supreme Court rulings was to ratify the Protocols to the Geneva Convention, a right clearly defined in the Constitution as belonging only to the Senate.
Why did the USSC rule this way? Well, Progressives on the court lust to 'harmonize' US law with int'l law. The US Senate hasn't ratified the Protocols? Well, @!$%# the Senate, the Progressive supremes say. We will.
There are other cases (eg, executing those under 18) where the Supreme Court has cited law from other nation-states in their rulings. Of course, they call this citation only 'advisory', but their clear intent is to implement int'l law in the US code via a back door.
All judges are sworn to uphold the US Constitution. Well, in the torture, Guantanemo, etc. rulings, the Progressives essentially nulled and voided that part of the Constitution which gave the US Senate sole authority to ratify treaties. In essence, theose Progressive Supreme Court judges could be charged with treason.
The Rule Of Law is one thing, but we conservatives strongly object to an Imperial Judiciary whose rulings are completely beyond the power of We The People to impact.
An Individuals' Right To Private Property. God, this is the most laughable one. Progressives lust to confiscate the wealth of the rich and redistribute it to the poor. This is protecting the Right To Private Property?
Progressives intone endlessly about the rich paying their "fare share". Well, do you realize, Javier, that both the Reagan and the Bush tax cuts made the income tax MORE progressive? That's right. After both tax cuts, the rich (using as definition of what constitutes the rich) paid a higher percentage of total income taxes after the tax cuts than before. Also, both tax cuts removed huge numbers of the lowest-income from the income tax rolls entirely. Currently, somewhere between 40-45% of those who are lowest-income who file fed'l income taxes either pay zero income taxes or receive a credit; eg, EITC.
As one progresses on a scale from extreme right-wing to extreme left-wing, the unalienable right to private property fiercely championed by Ayn-Rand-like conservatives becomes the ownership of all property by The State championed by Marxist and Communists. iow, the more liberal one becomes, the more one believes in group ownership of property; ie, the more liberals one is, the more one does not believe in private property rights.
I could expand this point indefinitely, but it's time to end this rational screed.
Transparency of Government. The vast, permanent, unelected, and unaccountable fed'l bureaucracy is dominated by liberals. After all, conservatives hate gov't, and would much prefer to work in the private sector. otoh, liberals love gov't and so dominate it.
If the government is not transparent, blame the union-belonging, liberal-dominated bureaucracy.
As the bureaucracy grows (by one estimate, Obama plans to add 600,000 federal workers), our elected representatives become increasingly unable to exercise oversight on said bureaucracy. The larger gov't becomes (A primal Progressive lust, to be sure), the less transparency of gov't there is. That's a simple fact. The bigger something is, the harder it becomes to control.
Cripes. I'm plumb tuckered out. Time to end this expostulation.
If you truly believe in the definition of liberalism you cited, convert to conservatism, Javier.
Boy Hollywood, ops I mean the American people haven't seen such a show boating president since Reagan. He isn't president yet and yet he has been on the TV more than anyone lately with his big promises and wonderful ways to set everything right. I would be happy if he just got away from the cameras and did his work quietly and without the fan faire that he apparently loves.
Hope when he gets in, he can do everything he and his handlers have promised, we'll see!!!
You and me both! We are seeing history because no other president elect has had less respect for the sitting president and the country during his transition to the office. (Bush bashers - get over it! His term is over!) The big promises and wonderful ways to set things right will fizzle out with the fireworks!
The media has had such a hard on for this guy soon we will see who gets screwed.
Bend over America here come your daddy.
You know what is so funny is that Obama and his transition team are constantly saying "there is one president at a time", and when he says that you people gripe about that. Here's a thought...turn you TV to espn, AMC or TVLand and you wont see him at all.
Who has time for TV, I would like to read not watch TV.
MSNBC does a nice job turning brains to mush along with CNN (Clinton news Network), ABC,CBS, NBC, PBS, Paul William Tenny on newsvine (Mr. Propaganda) even FOX gives obama time it is crap. If you want news don't read it if printed in the USA.
So how about banning ALL earmarks? It would cut the legs out from under spending our tax dollars!
Passing a bill is absolutely no different than selling a Senate seat! Buying a vote is just as bad as buying a seat in Congress!!
"Obama said he will create an "economic recovery oversight board" and bring "a long overdue sense of responsibility and accountability to Washington.""
Sounds like a great idea, but I hope it doesn't turn out to be a partisan "political cover" scam.
As for the "Earmarks", there was a comment that "some of them are very popular". If that's so, then they should have no problem being discussed and voted on. Even Obama got quite a few as a Senator, and I'm sure they all sounded good to Illinois, but they were still Pork. Let's see how "transparent" this truly becomes.
We can only hope it's a bit more "transparent" than Illinois politics.....
After reading today that our government spent $770M on our largest ever embassy, in Bagdad of all places I'm glad we voted out as many senators and US Rep's as we did. We may look forward, in 1,2,3 + years to watching that embassy taken over as we saw in Iran. This government just loves to spend money and if the new administration is watching, lets hope something will change regarding WASTE.
I'm truly sorry for all those who think any president can change how the congress works. The president does not have the authority to control congress. When do people actually learn how the government works??. Any person can say whatever he/she wants to happen, but the priveledge of being president does not give that person power to control congress.
No president has had or will have that kind of power. Not in this republic. Otherwise there would be no need to have people in congress.
People think that the incoming president will be better than the outgoing one. That is their own stupidity at work. No person is better just because people think he/she is. Never has any president satisfied everyone. IMPOSSIBLE.
Times constantly change and situations in the world constantly change. People can say whatever they want, but people need to think for themselves and provide for themselves without expecting the government to pay for them. When the government pays, it is like asking your neighbor to pay your salary. I DON'T THINK SO!
What is so funny about people like you David is that you look at social programs as a handout, but I bet you take every tax break and credit that you can every year. If you work out of your home, I bet you claim more square footage of work space than you use, or perhaps you claim more miles on your car than you actually use for business. Did you scream and shout about taxpayers paying your salary when they proposed allowing small businesses to claim 1/2 the depreciation value of equipment for this tax year? Do you scream and shout when you take your tax break for donating to charity? That should be done out the kindness of your heart...not at our expense. Do you only pay 15% taxes on your Capital Gains dispite your income?
Please David, don't think you are holier than thou, because you are utilizing handouts just like the welfare mother....they are just in the form of tax breaks.
Of course I don't know if you take any of these tax breaks, but I do wonder if you shout just as loudly at those that do.
i guess gov richardson didn't write this bill. and javier is correct, too bad that they dont follow the defined term.
Bold statements, I wish him well, congress sets appropriations I believe. Accountability?
What are the consequences for those who pass bills with pork? Anything? Talk tough but no big stick to apply!
There isn't a politician in congress that doesn't like pork. Even muslim, jewish, and vegan politicians love it.
Excellent analysis but you forgot to mention that they all love a huge side dish of b.s. with it!
Who can I call to say keep my $20 per week? I'd rather not contribute to the madness anymore. It's not worth the $300 billion bill we'll have to pay back later.
I’m with you – who can we call? A $500 reduction in payroll taxes works out to be $9.61 per week. Is this supposed to be some sort of a joke?? How does an extra $9 a week help anyone? Seems to me that any payroll tax reductions would need to be triple the proposed amount to be at all meaningful. Also, it wouldn’t surprise me one little bit to eventually learn that they forgot to adjust the tax tables and people end up owing an additional $500 to the IRS at the end of the year. And what about the millions of people who are unemployed & not receiving a paycheck - how does this proposal help them? BFD: $9 a week – keep it – it’s not worth the time and trouble it will take to reprogram the payroll & accounting systems …
Did AP ever tell it's reporters to get the whole story? This big deal plan by Obama gives the average person with a family just $80 per month in payroll tax reductions. Those who pay no income tax, the vote for something for nothing crowd, will get more since their incomes are less. So why work? Just vote for those who will give you more money for doing nothing. The joke is on all those who voted for Obama, but AP like the other media outlets does not tell you the entire story so you can't laugh about it.
Get something done and do it NOW!!!!!
The whole "stimulus" package is pork. We're spending billions to save jobs and billions to create jobs. Forget the stimulus packages, cut the corporate tax rate to 20% permanently and eliminate the tax on capital gains for the next two years, then phase it back in over the next five years to its current rate. It's a simple plan and keeps government out of business. While we're at it, eliminate the U.S. Department of Commerce; we don't need it.
let's hope he makes every bill stand on it's own
if not we will have just more of the same
come on! you bunch of hating conservatives are trashing his plan before you even know what it is. why don't you take the fine example the libs set the last 8 years and treat give the guy the same chance & respect they gave w.
Now that's funny. :)
hey rocket dad, where have you been these past 8 years? Chance and respect that we gave Bush? No one ever respected the man since we invaded Iraq.
We know what Obama's plan is - it's all over the media and on his website. I frankly could care less about getting $80 a month on my check - it certainly won't make me spend anymore - I may be able to pay the phone bill. I'd rather not incur anymore debt on the economy, so they can just keep it. I'm betting only the republicans think that way, because the dems like the welfare and the handouts from our government.
Great plan our new president has for us!
Thanks, but no thanks.
Obama has some good ideas that you Obama haters just can't stand. Calm down. Your guy got eight years, now it is someone else's turn. Why is that so difficult to accept?
rmantano,
I'm sure all these Obama haters are just doing the same thing that you probably did 8 years ago, and they did 16 years ago, and you did 28 years ago. Get my point? I can't stand it when anyone, no matter who, decides they want to take billions of dollars we don't have and throw it against a wall to see what sticks.
You make a good point, tired. Although I did try to give bush a fair chance in the beginning, that didn't go too well. However most economists seem to say that deficit spending on public works projects is a sound investment in economic recovery. I say give it a chance. If we do nothing but argue this whole country is going down the tubes.
rmantano,
Sure, some investement. Just enough to get the economy rolling again in the right direction. However, I have a problem with the government wanting to take over areas such as automobile production as Pelosi, Reid and Obama would love to do. I am against bailing all the money institutions out and then putting no restrictions on how they can and will lend in the future, as it pertains to federal funding. To loose a grip on the reigns of the financial world when it come to the goverment is what got us into this mess. I don't have the answers but I sure know what got us into this mess. You would think that our elected officials would know that too, but I think they have their heads in the sand again.
For sure , Fannie & Freddy put it in our fanny, BIG TIME ! BARNEY FWANKS & CHRIS DUDD ! + many more. I'm still for the ONE WAY Street signs heading OUT of DC !
"Obama has some good ideas that you Obama haters just can't stand. Calm down. Your guy got eight years, now it is someone else's turn. Why is that so difficult to accept?"
Is that a serious question? We had a moron for President before, so it's ok to have an even bigger moron as President now? Seriously, what? Here's what Obama haters can't stand...he not only has NO good ideas, but every idea he has will cost jobs, increase outsourcing, hurt business growth in a time when business growth should be our main focus, and screw us over much more than we've seen in the past several years. We didn't get eight years, we had one of the most business liberal Presidents in history over the last eight years (such as our now world record corporate tax rate causing our outsourcing problems), and now we have someone working to actually EXPAND upon our already damaging liberal business policies. We've had eight years of this already, now it should be someone else's turn, but unfortunately 52% of Americans voted for it to NOT be a turn for new ideas. The question is, why are those facts so difficult to accept? Apparently people are choosing to ignore the actual policies set forth by Bush, and the policies promised by the even more incompetent Obama.
I'm really confused by your quote, "Obama has some good ideas that you Obama haters just can't stand." If Obama had some good ideas, why would we be Obama haters? You hate the one who has no good ideas, and you approve of the one who actually does know how to make proposals that would benefit the nation. We are Obama haters because he has HORRIBLE ideas that we "just can't stand," that's it, right there, and you seem to have entirely missed that point.
Beckwolf
Obviously a majority of Americans disagree with your assessment of Obama. That's Ok. That's why we have elections.
Beckwolf! Yesssss! 10 out of 10!
(W)e had one of the most business liberal Presidents in history over the last eight years ... and now we have someone working to actually EXPAND upon our already damaging liberal business policies... (N)ow it should be someone else's turn, but unfortunately 52% of Americans voted for it to NOT be a turn for new ideas. The question is, why are those facts so difficult to accept? Apparently people are choosing to ignore the actual policies set forth by Bush, and the policies promised by the even more incompetent Obama.
What follows is not tongue-in-check, but guileless and earnest.
You aced it. What you wrote is the single best comment I've read on Newsvine.
You understand. Even better, what you wrote is singularly novel & unique in its perspective. Even now, 15 or so minutes after I first read your comment, what you wrote still resonates.
What a joke. Will never happen. Our President elect and his croonies in the Senate owe to many favors to too many well heeled people and organizations. Lets see he still had what 650 million left over from his campaign, so donate that to the cause of really helping the american people. Then start addressing the real fact of what providing social services for over 30 million illegal aliens is really costing the American legal taxpayer. The United States can no longer afford to provide social services to illegal aliens and their anchor babies, when they work under the table and do not contribute to state or federal tax bases and also the money lost from the nonpayment into again state and federal tax bases by the employers of these illegal aliens.
he needs their votes after he legalizes them for the next elections
Annette,
As soon as the House and Senate pass the bill and the President signs it those 30 million illegal aliens will be 30 million new Democratic voters. So, in actuality we will be providing social services to 30 million new Americans. Shame on you for talking about our newest citizens like they were trailer trash, no offense to the state of Georgia.
I think you meant to say no offense to California. With a $40 BIL deficit and about 1/2 of those "New Americans" we can expect a $Trillion of the new deficit to be spent on that pathetic excuse for a state.
No, my ex-wife is from Georgia and she's trailer trash.
I'm going to fool them all, I just bought stock in a company that owns 40 Hispanic radio and TV stations, bring on the advertisers and line my pockets.
Ban or bar pork projects. Not going to happen. Is Big O aware a congressional bill does not
require his signature if he declines to sign or vetoes. Bill goes back to the Congress for a veto overide vote and if that happens, it's a done deal. Refuse to sign or veto, the bill can remain on his desk and become "approved" automatically after a less than two week delay. When it involves spending money, Congress holds the purse strings--the Prez is just a water boy.
Once again, The Obamanation shows his naivety and total clueless approach to government! But what else should we expect from a man that voted "present" on the few bills he participated in while in the Senate!!!! This is what we get when we elect a president based on race rather than character, experience, gravitas, and management skill. Folks, we are in huge trouble!
No pork for anyone, what a joke, they already have it. The banks, insurance companies, toy makers, everyone but the poor dummies who work for a living and pay for all of it.
The website for public viewing shouldhighlight any proposed earmarks in this and any other proposals and the member of congress who is responsible. Provide the public with email addresses and telephone numbers to bombard the offenders. Though I did not vote for him, I applaud Obama's efforts to restore some accountability to government, and I'm more than willing to help him accomplish his goals, even when his fellow democrats fail to do so!
It doesn't matter who's in ,dem or rep.. the result is the same ..... all the pork products we don't want or need.
Sounds like we are just a Vienna sausage!
somebody do the math if you were to split up the 750 billion dollar plan and give it to the people who pay federal income tax how much would that be per person, would love to know?
It use to be Medicare and Social Security reform that would bankrupt the US. We now add the stimulus package, above the recent TARP. Total could be as much as three trillion. One trillion was about 2.5% of GDP. Two concerns: (1) We are proposing to use government inefficiencies to correct problems mainly caused by our government; (2) Our government can become bankrupt, as other countries have. For the benefit of my 3 children and 13 grandchildren, I hope the plans work. I will not be here to pay for them.
You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead. |