Truth Before Dishonor

I would rather be right than popular

This Is America On Liberalism

Posted by John Hitchcock on 2009/12/24


Any Questions? Like about that 25 percent graduation rate? Or that statistic that Detroit high schoolers are more likely to go to jail than to graduate high school? Or the fact Detroit schools pay more per student than the national average? Or the total collapse of Detroit?

HT Jackie

20 Responses to “This Is America On Liberalism”

  1. The result of 50+ years of progressive rule and a bunch of very stupid voters.

    Like

  2. I read where one young lady took down this video do to all the vitriol she got after putting it up (go to my original link). And I strongly suggested she should stand fast to the truth and not silence herself. The more the truth is exposed, the more those spreading the lie will attack.

    This is a trial-by-fire. Will people come out of it as tempered steel or will they be consumed in it like chaff?

    Like

  3. David said

    I take it that Ron considers both Bushes and Ronald Reagan “progressives” since they held the presidency 20 of those 50 years – the same 20 years that government spending exploded, deficits flew through the roof, and Detroit collapsed.

    Like

  4. David, do study the Constitution. Then study the history of the Legislative Branch. Then do your homework on what was required for Reagan and the less conservative elder Bush to pass their goals in the legislation. Also note GWB was by no means a true Conservative.

    While you’re at it, you might be regarded as more honest if you admitted Detroit’s collapse was due in large part to MI’s and Detroit’s legislations. In fact, Detroit’s collapse was due mainly to MI’s and Detroit’s legislations, more Detroit’s than any other.

    Again, if you knew your history at all and if you knew your Constitution at all and if you knew poli-sci at all, you’d already know this. But that would destroy your basis of argument, now, wouldn’t it?

    Like

  5. David said

    I have studied the constitution in great detail, thank you. I actually carry it with me and read it regularly.

    If you don’t want to acknowledge that unregulated trickle-down economics is an absolute failure despite all the evidence to the contrary that’s your right.

    I do agree with you on two points. The first is that GWB was not a true conservative. The second is that Michigan and Detroit both contributed greatly to their own collapse. However the Reagan bailout of Chrysler, like the Obama bailouts, gave the industry carte blanche to continue with ruinous policies.

    I hope in the future you will consider taking a less insulting tone with me simply because I disagree with you. I would hope that you would actually be interested in hearing different points of view, rather than an echo chamber.

    And what precisely is incorrect in my argument? Did or didn’t the deficit explode under Reagan and the Bushes? Did President Clinton not have to shut down the government to get a Republican congress to pass a balanced budget plan? There is a difference between not knowing history, as you incorrectly accuse me of, and choosing to have a selective memory as you do.

    Like

  6. According to the Constitution, who writes the budget to begin with? (The House of Representatives) Who owned the House of Representatives for over 40 consecutive years? (The Democrats) When did the Republicans break that ownership? (Under Clinton) Why did the Republicans and Clinton go into that drawn-out battle? (Clinton wanted to raise taxes and spending while Republicans demanded on lowering them) What happened to the tax dollars coming into the federal government when Reagan lowered taxes? (The money coming in grew instead of dropping)

    If you want to lay deficit explosion at the feet of a particular political party, that would be the Democrats. (This year and every foreseeable year in the future as examples)

    If you knew so much about history as you claim you do, you’d already know Reagan had to concede massive social spending increases from Congressional Democrats to get his tax cuts (which raised revenue) and his defense budget (which repaired the Carter destruction) in place. If you knew so much about history as you claim you do, you’d know Clinton’s budget-buster plans were partially the cause of the Republicans gaining the House for the first time in over 40 years and you’d know the Republicans’ demand for a smaller budget caused the stalemate you mentioned. If you knew so much about history as you claim you do, you’d already know the elder Bush’s “no new taxes” was scuttled by his less-than-conservative stance coupled by the Democrat Congress’s tax hikes and spending sprees.

    And the ruinous policies the industry has continued have been to knuckle-under to UAW, Democrat policies, and more recently the Chicago machine.

    If you don’t want to acknowledge that unregulated trickle-down economics is an absolute failure despite all the evidence to the contrary that’s your right.

    If you don’t want to acknowledge that sentence of yours is a bold-faced lie combined with a bold-faced lie in combination with a third bold-faced lie, I guess that’s your right, too.

    And I’m more than happy to tone down my standard attack-dog style when I find an opponent worthy of a toned-down style, but even liberals I debate on a regular basis will acknowledge despite my hard style that I show them respect. You, on the other hand, have yet to show much reason for respect. You have promise, though, unlike most I’ve “met” online.

    Like

  7. David said

    According to the Constitution, who writes the budget to begin with?
    Yes, but in actuality, The President. Is there a constitutional argument to be made that he shouldn’t? Yes, but nonetheless he does.

    Why did the Republicans and Clinton go into that drawn-out battle?…Clinton’s budget-buster plans were partially the cause of the Republicans gaining the House for the first time in over 40 years and you’d know the Republicans’ demand for a smaller budget caused the stalemate you mentioned.

    Congress wanted additional cuts in Medicare, Medicaid, education, environmental controls, and the EITC, which Clinton thought were unnecessary. Emphasis on the additional. Clinton had already cut these programs or held them at previous year levels. On Nov 13, 1995 – just before we would start to default on gov’t loans, Dick Armey insisted on much deeper cuts in Medicare (the program that is now suddenly sacrosanct to the right, and which Dick Armey has lied about changes to this year in his attempt to kill Health Care Reform).

    From Bill Clinton’s memoirs: “Armey replied gruffly that if I didn’t give in to them, they would shut the government down and my presidency would be over. I shot back, saying I would never allow their budget to become law, “even if I drop to 5 percent in the polls. If you want your budget, you’ll have to get someone else to sit in this chair!” Not surprisingly, we didn’t make a deal.”

    As for Newt, Tom Delay writes in his memoir “He told a room full of reporters that he forced the shutdown because Clinton had rudely made him and Bob Dole sit at the back of Air Force One…Newt had been careless to say such a thing, and now the whole moral tone of the shutdown had been lost. What had been a noble battle for fiscal sanity began to look like the tirade of a spoiled child. The revolution, I can tell you, was never the same.”

    Reagan had to concede massive social spending increases from Congressional Democrats to get his tax cuts

    No, he had to concede smaller cuts than he desired. There were cuts to almost every major social program under Reagan. I remember this well because people I knew at the time were directly effected by those cuts. He then went on a spending spree that WAAY overreached on the real increases we needed in the military, thus outspending the increased revenues, which came entirely on the backs of the middle class.

    Finally I am sorry to hear that “attack dog” is your standard style. Perhaps if everyone was a little less “attack dog”, and spent less time seeing those who disagree with them as “opponents” we could start as a country to get off this roller coaster ride we have built for ourselves.

    [Released from moderation (Armey’s first name got it stuck) — JH]

    Like

  8. Reagan wanted to cut the increase. There’s this trick where the baseline grows every year beyond inflation so Congresscritters don’t have to take the blame for making the increase. When someone wants to increase lower than the baseline, Democrats and MSM call that a cut and declare Republicans want to starve everyone and kill all the children and whatever else, when in fact, it is a smaller increase than the baseline and a much smaller increase than the Democrats want.

    And, if you’ll look around my site, I’m sure you’ll find I’m all for the total elimination of federal spending on education, which would allow education to be less terrible. I’m also all for the total elimination of SocSec, Medicare, Medicaid, Welfare, Foodstamps, any agency outside the legislature that has law-writing capability (like EPA, USDOT, etc). And if you look for “Davey Crockett” (spelled his name with an extra “e”) on my site, you’ll see Davy is on my side on this.

    Like

  9. A couple other points.

    Anyone who reads four words in the foreword of a novel and proclaims to know all there is to know about the novel will be declared an idiot and lazy and worse by a literature professor. But that’s exactly what a very large portion of liberals do with four words in the Preamble to the Constitution.

    I value two people walking this earth far more highly than anyone else: my daughter and my mother. But when it comes to certain areas of politics, my mother is an opponent. She is not the enemy, but merely an opponent. And there is a huge difference between the two. I would jump out in front of a run-away bus to protect either one of them, sacrificing myself. But that doesn’t change the fact that there are times my mother is a political opponent.

    I hope that clears some up for you.

    Like

  10. David said

    Reagan wanted to, and successfully did, decrease social spending – not just cut the baseline increase.

    I will let you be now. Your last statement makes it pretty clear that we will never agree on anything. I assume you live a life where the elimination of those programs would do you no harm, but since my sister has worked her ass off her entire adult life only to find herself unemployed for 10 months now, and my parents worked into their 70s (one in the private sector, one with their own business) and now have to rely on Social Security and Medicare to survive because of the damage done to the economy by deregulation I cannot say the same.

    Are those programs ripe for reform? Absolutely. There is waste and there is abuse. But there are also millions of hardworking, decent Americans who love this country and have bled for this country who rely on those programs to survive through no fault of their own. In this case “throwing the baby out with the bathwater” would do great harm to them.

    Thank you for taking the time to listen to me, even though we disagree. I wish you the best of luck and your daughter a safe service and healthy return home.

    Like

  11. Interesting that comment didn’t get thrown into moderation. I’ll fix that. 😉 But as far as my own situation goes, you are a bit off. I spent the first six months of this year accepting food and money from my sister and mother since I, too, was unemployed. And I did not qualify for unemployment. Might change your perspective of my perspective a bit.

    Like

  12. David said

    It does, as I have been doing the same for my sister and parents. Out of curiosity – what would you do if they were not able to help you?

    Like

  13. I would depend on private charities to get me on my feet, as was more the case before the government took over.

    Like

  14. And just to be clear here, I do not advocate “here today, gone tomorrow” cutting off. Those who are on those “retired” or “disabled” plans would remain on them. Those who would get on those “retired” plans within the next 5 years would still get on them. The rest, not so much.

    I am not heartless but I don’t believe in government dependency (which is dependence on the grand-kids that aren’t born yet) and I don’t believe any of those things are constitutional.

    Like

  15. David said

    Did you realize that a lot of the funding for private charities come from government grants? I know this because I have family that are in the grant writing and fund raising business. Also, do you know that as tax cuts (especially in Capital Gains) decrease, those who see the cuts give less to private charities – and a lot of the trusts set up for charitable giving are done in order to to avoid the Estate (also known as “Death”) Tax, so elimination of that tax would also most likely lead to fewer funds available for private charities? These are just some of the reasons that private charities were not able to handle the influx from the great depression, and many of these social programs had to first be created.

    That is why I believe in reform over elimination. Not just because I believe that reform can work, but because I also believe in the law of unintended consequences. It is for these same reasons that I am not a big fan of Health Care Reform as it currently stands. While I support the need for health care reform, I do not support this bill as it is made up of huge changes implemented using brand new methodologies instead of taking advantage of existing ones (i.e. medicare 🙂 ). The unintended consequences of introducing large programs are no more or less than the unintended consequences of the elimination of large programs.

    Like

  16. David said

    Ok – so much for going away – now you have me curious :-). What is your constitutional argument against such programs?

    Like

  17. If you do your research as “Mark”, a commentator on Patterico’s Pontifications has done (and did wall’s-o-text on (hate those things)) self-described liberals are scrooges with their money but free with OPM while self-described conservatives are much more free with their money but scrooges with OPM. I’m actually using a zero-bar wifi “borrowed” from a permitting neighbor so my high-speed internet days are (currently) behind me, or I’d try to find that data.

    As far as my constitutional position, a reading of my “Davey Crockett” articles would go a long way in explaining that. I’ll hunt them down for ya.

    brb

    Like

  18. Here’s a short list from my site but there are others.

    general welfare

    Preamble

    Davy Crockett

    Like

  19. You caused me to write another article. 😉

    Like

  20. Matt said

    Just wanted to contribute this tidbit:

    “Governments can err, Presidents do make mistakes, but the immortal Dante tells us that divine justice weighs the sins of the cold-blooded and the sins of the warm-hearted in different scales. Better the occasional faults of a Government that lives in a spirit of charity than the constant omission of a Government frozen in the ice of its own indifference.”
    -Franklin D. Roosevelt

    Like

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

 
<span>%d</span> bloggers like this: