That hardly defines Clinton. He encouraged investment in America.

Bush, like his father, and Bill Clinton (he signed NAFTA, remember?) care little for the average American and more for global/overseas economic interests.

In Clinton’s America, the rich get lower tax rates only if they were creating jobs in America, not overseas. Your tax rate is reduced for investment in America, not just for “being you” and having a lot of money. In Bush’s America, you get the same tax break whether you are keeping America strong or whether you are selling jobs off to India, China, etc.

Hence when the internet boom started, and continued through the late 90’s, the investment dollar (the world’s billionaires collectively scrambling to get in on the next big thing) went into creating startups and employing people here in America, not overseas. I believe that history would have been quite different in this regards were it not for tax policy that encouraged investment here and that Indian and Chinese software sweatshops would have been all the rage.

Undoing this bit of common sense, naively pretending that the wealthy would invest here rather than overseas, is/was an act of idiocy that always bothered me and still does. Bush phrased his justification in terms of “fairness” and that was a bunch of hooey aimed at encouraging overseas investment rather than protecting American jobs. Bush, like his father, cares little for the average American and more for global/overseas economic interests.

Because of the fall of the Soviet Union the United States was able to slash defense spending. At the exact same time some U.S. Army units were deploying from Germany to Iraq in late 1990/early 1991, other units in Germany were being demobilized. Look at the number of B-2 bombers produced versus the number planned; look at the size of our strategic nuclear forces now compared to 1992; look at the size of the Navy compared to then etc and you will see massive reductions in forces with corresponding reductions in spending.

The simple fact is that the needs for large defense spending in the 90s was significantly different that what they were in the 80s and after 9/11, and those smaller needs were reflected in the budget numbers.

Oh, and what party was controlling both houses of Congress between 1995 and Jan 2001?

I remember a time , less than 10 years ago, when our government had actually started to spend less than it took in, and taxes were able to be lowered for everyone. America was prosperous and our wealth was being invested inwards, creating jobs in America instead of other nations. It was a good time.

It wasn’t that long ago. I think we can return to a happy state. It won’t hapen overnight but it might happen more quickly than one would think possible.

There’s a great book “The Agenda” by Bob Woodward about the first year of Clinton’s Presidency, it describes the choices made trhat helped to get us back onto the right path. I’m sure it’s a lot less exciting ans simple-mindedly satisfying to many of you than to just swallow in the usual corrupt GOP-slanted propoganda but if you want to feel good about America in general you might want to read that and reflect on where we were circa 1992 and where we were circa 2000.

Staying in power is also why the Democratic controlled Congress is going to pass the GIVE Act, which creates and generously funds a whole host of new “public service organizations” and inflates the existing ones, and decrees “mandatory” public service. These “mass organizations” or “people’s organizations” so beloved of tyrants and dictators –Hitler, Mao, Mussolini, Castro, Chaves–are going to be a civilian power base for Obama, filled with his supporters and those beholden to him, like ACORN volunteers and the “deserving” poor who get a check from the Obama administration, many of them available to do what Obama needs to be done, whether to insure he and the Democrats win the next election, or to intimidate his opponents.

The quote attributed to Benjamin Franklin, “When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.” is playing out right before our eyes.

I note that during the passage of Obama’s $3.7 trillion dollar budget–which got not one single Republican vote in either the House or the Senate–the Democrats used their ability to set the rules of debate and passage for legislation in the Senate to require that the Obama budget was to be voted on using the “reconciliation” procedure, which is a last-ditch, drastic parliamentary tactic normally only used when there is a stalemate over the Budget and the Budget has to be forced to a vote in order to keep the government running, which was not the case in this situation at all. Using the reconciliation procedure in the Senate made sure that Obama’s budget passed, since under this special procedure passage required only 55 votes–which was all the Budget got, rather than the 60 votes usually required to pass such a budget i.e. under the normal rules it might not have passed at all.

One account of the debate and passage of
the Obama budget noted that Democrats gave Republicans exactly 20 minutes total to present their alternative budget and for debate on it.

Yes, a Third Party movement could cause the Democrats and Republicans to temporarily adjust their positions to compensate but, from my vantage point, that is just not enough.

We need to “throw the rascals out,” not just get them to temporarily tone it down, like a rowdy frat house right after a visit from the police, that will be right back up there at the same decibel level in a few hours i.e. after they have saved their seats.

A major problem, of course, is the fact that most politicians have no firm principles, routinely lie or, they may be somewhat sincere as candidates, but once they get into office and see what the pay, power, perks and benefits are like, and experience the ego inflation that goes along with becoming a member of Congress–believe me, I have seen it in action, up close and personal–all those principles and promises come in a very distant second to just doing what needs to be done–i.e. raising money and making promises in exchange for support–to stay in office and feed at the trough.

I take an extremely dim view of Obama & Co, and believe if Obama and the Democrats have their way for even a few years, they will have put into place laws, programs, policies and Supreme Court appointees that will deliberately and almost irrevocably change America for the worse, and they will also be in a very strong position–think White House control of the Census that is used to create, eliminate, and set the boundaries of congressional districts, think White House having effective control over the Internet, think election rigging ACORN funded with hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars, think hundreds of thousands of Obama supporters–many of them the new welfare recipients who pay no taxes but get a “tax credit” check from the Obama administration and are beholden to it–doing their “mandatory” public service in all the “people’s organizations” he is creating; we will be in Fidel Castro land at this point.

So, the objective should be to get enough people who really adhere to traditional limited government principles and values elected to Congress to break the Democrats majority control of one or both Houses, for if we can’t accomplish this–and soon–it will all be over.

Majority control is total control in Congress, with the majority appointing the leadership, the parliamentarians who rule on points of order and procedure, all the committee chairman, they set up committee ratios of majority to minority members to give the majority party an automatic voting majority on all committees, and decide what is to be debated and how, what investigations are to be pursued, and through their control of the legislative agenda and procedure, decide what legislation is to be passed or even considered–if you are in the minority and the majority does not want to give your arguments a fair hearing, or wants to make it impossible for you to prevail, they can very easily do this, as they are are doing right now.

Unfortunately, it looks to me like we have to work within the existing system to have a chance to change the existing system.

BUT a third party can be used to move one or both parties on some particular issue. As Perot did on deficit reduction in 1992.

These are interesting times.

If it is to have any effect at all, the Tea Parties have to continue—with more and bigger and more frequent protests–but the movement has, somehow, to avoid being captured and used by the very same politicians in Washington who have created the economic crisis, and used to it advance their big government/out of control spending/redistributionist/socialist agendas.

Some have talked about the Tea Parties morphing into a new Third Party movement, but it seems to me that any attempt to win control of the Congress and the Presidency by a Third Party is doomed, because of the overwhelming advantages that the two existing parties have in the way of finances, organization and propaganda; the deck is very thoroughly stacked against a Third Party.

The question then is, are there enough existing members of Congress, or can enough new political candidates in the existing two parties be found and backed to run in the 2010 and 2012 elections who truly believe in the Constitution as written, in traditional core American principles of limited, small government, in dramatically decreased government taxing and spending, in decreasing government intrusion and control in our lives, in increased freedom, personal responsibility, and in states rights; people, moreover, who will not, as so many have done, change their tune once in office?

The organizers couldn’t afford an adequate sound system, they couldn’t afford fliers, they couldn’t afford an adequately larger shelter for the speakers, and the moonbats keep saying that Fox News or the RNC funded these events. That’s hogwash. If Tea Parties had gotten funding from anyone, they wouldn’t have had to run on such a shoestring begging and borrowing what was ultimately inadequate equipment.

You can tell a true grass-roots event by the infrastructure and polish these events have, and these events had no infrastructure and were decidedly unpolished. These events are about as real as it gets when it comes to true grass-roots movements.

AMEN to that - and I plan to have a sign stating just that at the April 25 party.
I’m with Greg, I can’t decide which party is trying to sell our country out first….but the race is on and we’re heading toward the finish line.

Once again, screw the people who do the right thing.