CAPITALISM: I used to think the Republican side was clearly better...

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Rearden Metal, Sep 2, 2003.

  1. Voting Rebuplican used to be a no-brainer for me.

    After all, I support Ayn Rand's ideal political system of capitalistic freedom, where people are free to create and produce, collectivism is shunned and individual rights are respected above all. The only legitimate role of government should be: Police, Military, & Courts of Law.

    I thought (and still think) that liberals were out to create a welfare state, where the productive men of ability are sacrificed to the lazy & incompetant. Where need is rewarded & ability is penalized. I also thought that the Republican side was clearly the lesser of the two evils, and would be more inclined to preserve the capitalistic elements of our society.

    So now that the Republicans have a triple-hold on government, controlling the House, Senate, and Presidency....what have they done for us?

    First off, Government spending has become much worse. The government is increasing it's spending allowences far faster than the economy is expanding. The so called 'tax-cuts' are a joke when spending is expanding uncontrollably, the tax cuts are really just tax-defferments. We'll have to pay for all this eventually...with interest. Goverment is getting bigger, not smaller. The government prescription drug plan is probably the biggest new social program since Roosevelt's 'New Deal', and we'll all suffer the results. The 'Patriot Acts' show callous disregard for individual rights, and have the founding fathers of this country turning in their graves. Instead of fixing our existing apparatuses of national security, a brand new one has been created- the Homeland Security department. Global altruism(at taxpayer expense) is breaking new highs with Bush's African aid program. Bush's motives for invading & occupying Iraq (price tag: one billion dollars per week) are becoming suspect with the non-discovery of WMD's.

    It just seems like we were better off with a (albiet slimy & dishonest) Democrat as president, with a Republican Congress to restrain him. Now it just seems like NOBODY is restraining our precipitous & rapid decline into STATISM.

    I'd welcome comments from any devout Republicans here...
  2. I'm not a devout Republican. I agree with most of what you wrote. Other than in responding to global terrorism, Bush has been at best a very average persident. Unfortunately politics is all about getting elected, and not about idealogical purity. Bush never ran as a small government, conservative true believer, and he has not disappointed.

    On some areas he has been pretty good. His judicial picks have been excellent, but he has not been willing to face down the incredible hostility from Senate Democrats. In fact, he badly misread their level of hostility and gave away a lot in his first two years trying to coexist with them. Their response was to accept his gifts then launch unprecedented filibusters against outstanding candidates. Part of the problem here is the timidity of the Republican Senate leadership. Like a beaten dog, they have forgotten how to bite back.

    Bush's tax policies and desired spending cuts face the problem that his party has a razor thin edge in the Senate and he is constantly backstabbed by a group of three or four liberal Republicans. There is no reasoning with these people, and if he leans too hard on the Republican traitors, they can switch parties and hand the Senate back to the Dem's.

    Politics is about the least worst alternative, not the perfect. Would the country be better off if Al Gore had been elected? Almost certainly not, in my view. The previous administration's flaccid approach to terrorism led to the first World Trade Center bombing, the Khobar Towers bombing, the USS Cole bombing, the embassy bombings in Africa, the establishment of terrorist central in Afghanistan and finally 9/11. The current Democrat cnadidates appear to be equally clueless on security matters. Their approach is to work with the UN.

    Whatever our budget problems, higher taxes are not the answer, yet that is the first thing any Democrat will fight for. Who is more likely to control illegal immigration, Bush or a liberal Democrat? Who would you prefer to be appointing judges and high government officials, Bush or Howard Dean?

    It's frustrating, but this is the world we live in.
  3. Frustrating indeed.... and yes sometimes I wonder if we'd be better off with (Clintonesque scumbag) Al Gore as president, with a Republican House & Senate holding him in check.

    Just like in mathamatics, a double negative equals a's almost like Republicans with a triple-hold on power act even MORE liberal/statist than a dem pres/rep house mix. I know you fault the stonewalling of dems + the 3 or 4 liberal Republicans, but I'm just not sure things would be any better if Reps had a stronger majority.

    Reps worked their asses off in the 90's to block Clinton's socialist medicine ideas...and then turn around and enact similar garbage themselves- what the hell is that?

    Would I prefer Dean appointing high officials instead of Bush? Believe it or not, Dean would be clearly BETTER for certain individual freedoms. The idiotic 'War on Drugs' was (and is) a Republican folly. The patriot acts? Dems didn't do those either.
    A woman's right to choose?....well I think you know who's policies fit with the objectivist philosophy, and who's do not.

    Sorry, I'm beginning to think that dems & reps are equally polluted by desire for statism. Government is just going to get bigger & bigger (under either party) until one day we find ourselves living in a fascist statist America, and I'll no longer be able to freely write posts such as this one...
  4. Let us not forget that Saddam Hussein and OBL were allowed to survive as long as they were, and were actually funded with our tax dollars, by none other than GWB's hero, Ronald Reagan.

    Let's also not forget that the same group of derelicts are in charge now -- Cheney, Rumsfeld (see attached pic), to name two, who actually DID fund Saddam and OBL.

    Hard on terorrism my ass!

    And how about Iran Contra? When govt derelicts skirted the Constitution for financial gain, and North testified that Reagan and his cabinet were aware of the whole thing.

    You'd think that the derelicts in Reagan's cabinet who were indicted by Congress would be working in industry as well-paid consultants, but no, they found their way back into our government through appointments by our current leader, President Einstein. Of course, these were all appointments that did NOT require congressional approval. These men of such honor and courage include Otto Reich (next in power behind colin powell), John Poindexter, John Negroponte, and Elliott Abrams.

    And who pardoned the Iran Contra scumbags?? Good 'ol daddy Bush.

    Human rights my ass -- need a refresher on Iran Contra? Read this and see how much Bush's cronies give a rat's ass about "Saddam's torture chambers" when they didn't give a shit about what was going on in Latin America

    What a scam! It blows my mind that anyone can look at the current US regime and not fall on the floor laughing! But apparently it only happens everywhere else in the world, and not the US, because the rest of the world thinks the Bush regime is a fuckin' joke.

    The truth hurts, baby!

    Men of integrity, my ass- chickenhawks for oil is more like it. How about Harken and GWB?? The list goes on...

    Anyone read this yet -- it just came out

    PS -- Rearden, these men in charge of the US are NOT true capitalists. They are fascist neocons who exploit the US military for their own financial gain. THAT is not capitalism. Capitalism is free markets.
  5. By the way, do you want to know what was the last straw for me... the reason why I now hesitate to punch the 'R' ballot square? It was none of the major issues listed above, but a seemingly minor thing that affects me personally.

    Since daytrading has turned to shit, I now spend most of my time as a pro-poker player, almost entirely online. Now Senator John Kyl (R-AZ) has his panties in a knot trying to outlaw the funding of internet gambling. So I ask, WHO THE FUCK DO YOU THINK YOU ARE, JOHN KYL, YOU SACK OF SHIT, TRYING TO TELL ME WHAT I CAN DO IN MY OWN LIVING ROOM WITH MY OWN MONEY, YOU ANTI-AMERICAN DOUCHBAG.

    The founding fathers of this great nation are no longer with us, but I'm sure they'd see Ashcroft & Kyl as no better than the Redcoats they had to fight to earn our freedom in the first place.
  6. Bungrider, alot of what you say makes sense to me, but I have to ask...was it wrong for America to use Joseph Stalin and his powerful army as a temporary ally against Hitler?

    And if temporary co-operation with Stalin made sense in WW2, how does this differ from the various maggots we had to ally ourselves with during the Cold War?
  7. maxpi


    Republicans are big proponents of deregulation and it never seems to work out very well, Airlines, California Energy, etc.

    In the case of the California energy problems what should have been exposed is the actual shortage of production of electricity by the state and dependence on buying from Washington in the summertime but what happened was that the blame was laid entirely on the energy traders, very early on, by environmentalists and it stuck. Republicans have to become a lot more astute at politics if they want to succeed.

    We need a mix of both parties, look what happens when we have an all Democrat power structure like in California, near bankruptcy and a dying economy in just one term and the Dems are not giving up their unions, easy access to disability and refusal to build nuclear plants. With all Republicans we got deregulation and high energy prices that is driving businesses out of the state even today.
  8. msfe


    wasn´t it the other way round ?
  9. I can't argue with you there, and actually to my knowledge, it was Stalin begging the Brits to help him stave off the Germans kicking the shit out of and overrunning his poor, communist country, and that was how we got involved. Stalin's army was not really powerful in terms of weapons, but powerful in terms of manpower. It was my understanding that the better trained and better armed (read: better funded) Germans killed like 10 Russians for every Nazi that the Russians got.

    However, the Brits and Americans realized that if the Germans got Russia (and they most certainly would have, if the Allies had not intervened), we would be in serious trouble down the road. Russia's vast farm, fossil, mineral, and other natural resources would have fueled the Nazi war machine, and we would have been in deep shit, especially considering the Nazi army was getting quite good at what they were doing, meaning that their armies had more experience than the Allied forces.

    I think Colin Powell said it best when he said that the most important characteristic in a President is integrity, and in GWBush, I see absolutely none of that.

    I'd align most closely with the libertarians (I am strongly anti-spending), but one aspect I feel strongly about is the role of government in promoting capitalism equally for all interested parties, and I am also strongly pro-environment, maybe more so than anyone on this board, simply because I like it, and let's not forget that eased environmental restrictions for the drillers, energy companies, and developers, while it seems to generate jobs and revenue in the short term, ends up hurting farmers, lowers property values, and hurts many small businesses who depend on tourism and a clean environment. And how about smog and other pollution giving citizens cancer, maybe forcing into bankruptcy from their medical bills. And how about insurance companies having to pay for higher medical bills from everybody getting cancer and other pollution-induced diseases? Normally I'd say "fuck the insurance companies" but you know who's going to have to pay for those higher medical bills? You and me, in the form of higher premiums. My premiums are 60% higher than they were 3 years ago. Fucking malpractice scumbag lawyers.

    Let's also not forget that eased environmental restrictions often necessitate EXPENSIVE cleanup projects -- and who gets the bill for the cleanup? Everybody. That is bullshit.

    What I see in the Bush administration is a clear bias towards certain sectors of corporate America, while using tax revenue to help them out, and that is fucked up.

    The role of government is to step off and make sure nobody gets exploited unfairly by allowing 100% free, 100% accessible markets.

    The role of government is to engage in a foreign policy that does not inspire more terrorism. Yes, kick the shit out of the Taliban, but do not break UN rules about invading other countries.

    And do not spend money the treasury does not have to set up a puppet govt in Iraq. Reconstruction costs estimated at $40bil.

    And please, DO NOT legislate Judeo-Christian morality in a "free" country. This means stop locking people up for victimless crimes.

    Let's also not forget that the oil companies, for years, have deliberately engaged in subverting alternative power sources (if a company came out with an alternative to oil, the oil companies would simply buy out that company and make sure the technology never saw consumers).

    I'm ranting here and I have to stop spending time on this, but I could go on and on with the GWB regime's attack of the Bill of Rights, and all that other crap that no one seems to know is going on. It wouldn't surprise me if they sponsored a bill tomorrow that required women to wear vails whenever in public...

    And how about that consumption tax that the administration wanted earlier this spring??? What a bunch of fucking retards.
  10. trdrmac


    #10     Sep 2, 2003