I agree with the following.....

The Modern Liberal believes in the supremacy of the state, thereby rejecting the principles of the Declaration and the order of the civil society, in whole or part. For the Modern Liberal, the individual's imperfection and personal pursuits impede the objective of a utopian state. In this, Modern Liberalism promotes what French historian Alexis de Tocqueville described as a soft tyranny, which becomes increasingly more oppressive, potentially leading to a hard tyranny (some form of totalitarianism). As the word 'liberal' is, in its classical meaning, the opposite of authoritarian, it is more accurate, therefore, to characterize the Modern Liberal as a Statist. ... The Statist ... knows that despite his successful usurpations, enough citizens are still skeptical and even distrustful of politicians and government that he cannot force his will all at once. Thus he marches in incremental steps, adjusting his pace as circumstances dictate. Today his pace is more rapid, for resistance has slowed. ... The Conservative does not despise government. He despises tyranny. This is precisely why the Conservative reveres the Constitution and insists on adherence to it. An 'effective' government that operates outside its constitutional limitations is a dangerous government. ... The Conservative is alarmed by the ascent of a soft tyranny.... He knows that liberty once lost is rarely recovered. He knows of the decline and eventual failure of past republics. And he knows that the best prescription for addressing society's real and perceived ailments is not to further empower an already enormous federal government beyond its constitutional limits, but to return to the founding principles. A free people living in a civil society, working in self-interested cooperation, and a government operating within the limits of its authority promote more prosperity, opportunity, and happiness for more people than any alternative. Conservatism is the antidote to tyranny precisely because its principles are the founding principles.--author and radio talk-show host Mark Levin in his book Liberty and Tyranny

Socialism is inseparably interwoven with totalitarianism and the object worship of the state. It will prescribe for every one where they are to work, what they are to work at, where they may go and what they may say. Socialism is an attack on the right to breathe freely. No socialist system can be established without a political police. They would have to fall back on some form of Gestapo, no doubt very humanely directed in the first instance. - Winston Churchill

Statism, not abiding by the Constitution and Churchill's quote describes the Obamanation quite well.

In a sense, you could call neo-conservatives statists. For all their outrages against what dems are doing in Congress... Republicans were following through with the same sort of big government policies while they were in control of the office. Those that didn't favor corporate bailouts (and there were quite a few who do favor them) brought home plenty of pork barrel legislation for home states... Isn't buying votes through pork barrel legislation instilling a soft tyranny of sorts?

How can you assert that the Republican party is any different?

__________________
If you have been voting for politicians who promise to give you goodies at someone else's expense, then you have no right to complain when they take your money and give it to someone else, including themselves. – Thomas Sowell

Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program. – Milton Friedman

Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys. – P.J. O'Rourke

Les Soeurs Fideles

Yes for their aspect of expanding the federal government they can be considered statists and for that they can't be considered to be true conservatives.

And the Founders never intended the federal government to be that way and they knew if it became financially rewarding for it's politicians it would become corrupt.

Levin nor did I state anything prior to this in regards to the Republican Party. So you actually believe that there aren't any differences between the Bush Adm. and Obama's Adm. and you believe there isn't any differences in the Democrats and Republican actions and in the believes of each side?

Quote:

Yes for their aspect of expanding the federal government they can be considered statists and for that they can't be considered to be true conservatives.

Fair... I agree with you on this.

Quote:

Levin nor did I state anything prior to this in regards to the Republican Party.

I know, I know.... I made the assumption you vote Republican because it lists that you were conservative and you made the case for conservatism.

Quote:

So you actually believe that there aren't any differences between the Bush Adm. and Obama's Adm.

As is... I don't see any major differences between the two. Both administrations have racked up immense debt to finance their out of control spending habits. Bush spent to finance war, Obama is spending to finance social issues. So I suppose there is an argument there about what is more important, bread or butter... but really it amounts to the same thing: enormous deficit, especially with an unbalanced budget. Its also important to note that towards the end of his presidency, Bush tried to do both. He supported the Bailouts.

Neither administrations want to alleviate one of the biggest problems facing the economy, our debt. If foreign investors stop buying bonds... our dollar will collapse. It almost amuses me that people cry about foreign dependency on oil... but have no problem with foreign entities holding our debt. If they cash them all in at the same time... we are in serious trouble, especially if we don't have our debt resolved. The only reason they keep buying bonds is because if they stop, their investment will be worth nothing. We already are facing a deflationary impact on our dollar because of the FED... Impacts of crowding out are making it harder to get a loan and its difficult for consumers and businesses to obtain loans.

This crackdown on credit card companies looks really good on the surface, put into perspective makes one weary. It makes credit card companies drop spending limits, which is bad for some businesses that need higher limits in order to operate. This is a policy of the Bush Admin.

Both administrations increased the size of our government and the scope of power allotted to our government.

I suppose the obvious answer here is to state that Bush created an entire new department of homeland security as well as dramatically increase funding for the military, which after 9/11 was welcomed by almost everyone. If it had stopped there, I honestly wouldn't complain (maybe make a jibe that airport security would be best left to the free market than Uncle Sam- but for some reason it makes people feel better to know that the government would be in charge of security) however if you account for the excessive pork barrel spending that was injected into each of the bills he had passed... and the fact that he has one of the highest ratios for passing bills as a Republican president, I am in awe that there are people who still support him. I think the jokes in regard to him are unnecessary however...

I really don't know where to begin with critiquing Obama, because the change he's brought isn't necessarily much of a deviation from Bush aside from a larger increase in social spending. And the stimulus? A joke. Especially true when you consider that the most important issue to voters prior to the election was the economy. One could argue, it would be long, dreary, and if you want me to do it, I will, that the economy is actually worse under Obama... Yet his approval rate is still high although more poeple are becoming wary of his policies. Obama clearly has some room to improve in regards to foreign affairs... I'd like to see something a little more stiff than a speech condemning actions in Iran/ North Korea/ Hondoras. They say things happen in threes but I believe more unrest will come during this presidency.

Quote:

you believe there isn't any differences in the Democrats and Republican actions and in the believes of each side?

Growing up I was taught being a Republican meant the God, guns, less taxes, business, and less government mantra of Barry Goldwater. I was also taught that Democrat ideology meant gay rights, less guns, more government, and greater taxes. In my own experiences I learned that this was not true, maybe a little hit and miss when it comes to following the party line.

If you see it from the standpoint of what was done while each has held the majority there really isn't much of a difference.

/Sorry this is so scattered... At work and kind of worked on this with a few other tasks.

__________________
If you have been voting for politicians who promise to give you goodies at someone else's expense, then you have no right to complain when they take your money and give it to someone else, including themselves. – Thomas Sowell

Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program. – Milton Friedman

Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys. – P.J. O'Rourke

Les Soeurs Fideles

I can mostly agree with your statements, except for.......

Policy of Bush Adm.? WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama asked Congress on Tuesday to create a new agency to police the fine print on consumer products such as credit cards and mortgages and determine what fees, penalties and interest rates are fair.

The Consumer Financial Protection Agency would be in charge of regulating those products in the same way other government agencies regulate the safety of drugs, food and toys.
[LINK POSTED BY MEMBER] Only Members Can View This Political Forum Link.

[LINK POSTED BY MEMBER] Only Members Can View This Political Forum Link.


It can't be truthfully said that Bush increased government or even tried to in his first 5 months anywhere close to what Obama has and is continuing to do in his first 5 months. And by the time Obama's Term Or Terms are over, Obama's government increases and infringements will make Bush's look like nothing.

So why to do you consider homeland security and increasing military funding to be negative actions and how is increasing funding for our military expanding federal government?

Isn't much of a deviation? What businesses did Bush take over? And which Party just supported Cap and Trade which will if passed in the senate increase the government and government control? Are you aware of what Obama and his Party have done and are proposing to do?

With your supportive statements of the Democrat ideology you confirm that many of today's Libertarians have a tendency to be more agreeable with the Democrat ideology.

First off I just want to say that I hope you had an amazing holiday and were able to enjoy some time off.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Forthright I can mostly agree with your statements, except for.......

I guess I did word that terribly wrong. Technically the crackdown did begin under the Bush Admin, but the medium responsible for this crackdown was the FED under Ben Bernanke. It began under Bush, but his more potent polices have passed under Obama... I guess you could consider it a pet project of sorts.

[LINK POSTED BY MEMBER] Only Members Can View This Political Forum Link.

[LINK POSTED BY MEMBER] Only Members Can View This Political Forum Link.

It is Obama that will be going after credit card companies now for two reasons;

1. People have no common sense when using credit cards and want the government to help them.
2. His economic policy advisor probably thinks the next bubble will be through credit lending and as such... might even think this crackdown will prevent it.



You are absolutely right.

Quote:

So why to do you consider homeland security and increasing military funding to be negative actions and how is increasing funding for our military expanding federal government?

To be quite honest, I don't consider the increased military funding to be a negative action. I do however consider the creation of a new department... homeland security to be a negative action. The job of homeland security is to;

" take the lead in evaluating vulnerabilities and coordinating with other federal, state, local and private entities to ensure the most effective response. Much of this task involves assessing critical infrastructure, the physical and virtual assets, systems, and networks so vital that their incapacitation or destruction would have a debilitating effect on security, national economic security, public health or safety.
Central to this task is collecting, protecting, evaluating and disseminating information to the American public, to state and local governments and to the private sector. "

which is something that can be done by existing departments of government. I believe all it did was divert funds away from other areas that could really need the additional funding to protect our country. I think if we left airport security to the airlines, not only would it be more efficient, perhaps the industry wouldn't be as in dire straights financially at the moment). And really... who looks at what the security level is before they travel (practically advertised on their website)?

Quote:

Isn't much of a deviation? What businesses did Bush take over? And which Party just supported Cap and Trade which will if passed in the senate increase the government and government control? Are you aware of what Obama and his Party have done and are proposing to do?

I would say Bush took over the businesses of many mortgage companies when the Fed bought out all of the mortgage backed securities. I would also say that he paved the way for these sort of government buy outs of business because as a republican he supported these government initiatives, especially as he supported the auto bailouts. And although he did call for reform of Fannie Mae and Mac many, many times, he also sent them a lot of money during his presidency. So yes, I stand by what I said. I don't see much of a deviation. Both presidents sent a large amount of cash from tax payers to big businesses.

[LINK POSTED BY MEMBER] Only Members Can View This Political Forum Link.

[LINK POSTED BY MEMBER] Only Members Can View This Political Forum Link.

[LINK POSTED BY MEMBER] Only Members Can View This Political Forum Link.

I am aware of Cap and Trade. As well as his attacks on business which are ironic considering he was elected on the premise he was going to solve issues within the economy... the Department of Justice is currently investigating whether AT&T and Verizon used oligopolies to control the telecom market. I think there is a time and place for those policies, given you believe that predatory pricing is a unethical business practice requiring government action.

Quote:

With your supportive statements of the Democrat ideology you confirm that many of today's Libertarians have a tendency to be more agreeable with the Democrat ideology.

Haha. I don't know if i would call my statements supportive... No... its not that. Its just that I've been a Libertarian for several years now... but before that I was a Republican. I expect democratic leaders to support these bailouts, bankroll so much pork barrel spending, and advocate polices destructive to business and the economy. I don't expect it from republican leaders... so I suppose I am harsher on Republicans for supporting these initiatives. To me that is the best way I can explain how I see the two parties as alike. The same. I'm so harsh towards Bush about domestic issues because as a Republican he should know better than to support bail outs, or approve all of these bills full of pork that were passed. I vote Republican generally... as a matter of fact I voted for McCain because I thought Barr was an idiot. Fellow Georgian or not... there’s just something about him I don't like.

But I do know what you mean. There are a significant portion of libertarians that side with democrats... I don't know why. I'd like to see all social programs gradually downsized and phased off to the point where they don't exist anymore. Not all libertarians are that way and instead would wish for the military to be downsized and phased off to just more so of a domestic protection force. I don't believe in that, and I never will.

__________________
If you have been voting for politicians who promise to give you goodies at someone else's expense, then you have no right to complain when they take your money and give it to someone else, including themselves. – Thomas Sowell

Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program. – Milton Friedman

Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys. – P.J. O'Rourke

Les Soeurs Fideles

And I hope you had one also.

One of the reasons it was created was because of lack of communication between the CIA ,FBI. State and Local Governments prior to 911.
I doubt that Homeland Security has been the major reason the Airlines are financially struggling.
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
As for the rest of your statements and points, we seem to be mostly in agreement with each other.

Was created because of a lack of communication between existing government organizations... so create another one to fail at communication? The logic of government bureaucracy eludes me. I still stand by what I said. Let the funding go to existing government organizations who already know what they are doing, already skilled, already know where the funds need to go in order to prevent future catastrophes.

I think the department was created was to put the public at ease... and to create more jobs after the economy took a hit... Make people think the government was doing something to alert people of danger concerning the public. Something the FBI or CIA could have handled on their own. Joint press conference once a week. Would be more valuable to the public perhaps.... And no the department its not a major reason airlines are struggling but it is a contributory factor.

/Not trying to troll... I just sincerely don't understand the creation of this department.

I agree... Does this mean you are a closet libertarian? Ok I was joking

__________________
If you have been voting for politicians who promise to give you goodies at someone else's expense, then you have no right to complain when they take your money and give it to someone else, including themselves. – Thomas Sowell

Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program. – Milton Friedman

Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys. – P.J. O'Rourke

Les Soeurs Fideles