| Search Fishin.com |
Senior Member
Only 23 percent of Americans said they approve of President Bush’s job performance in a new Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg survey, which is a new low for him in that poll. Seventy-three percent of respondents said they disapproved of the job Bush is doing.
Consumer confidence is at a 16 year low sooooooooooooo care to guess who was president back then?
One thing bush is a sucess at is being a failure.
His daddy ain't gonna be able to get him out of this mess.
Another thing the repubes blocked the democrats efforts yesterday to rein in the oil speculators soooooooooo once again who is for screwing the American consumers out of their money?
How do ya'll like those high gas prices about now?
Senior Member
Originally Posted by PL
Too bad the Dem controlled congress's approval level is about half of Bush's at 12%.... BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHA Lower than a lame duck!!!
Now tell me .... where are those lower gas prices the Dems promised us back in '06? Wait.... they cant do anythingt because they are in the pockets of the environmentalists, who want $5.00 gas.
Cant wait for all of that change we will be getting in '09......
Keep on chuckin'
Senior Member
An LA Times survey eh?. Now there's a fair and balanced source of information. I detest surveys, they can be skewed by 40 points either way by the verbiage and where/who they're given to. Count me in the 23 per cent on the dark side.
Be sure and post President Bush's approval rating according to those bastions of impartiality at move on dot org too.
Is the government the answer to everything to you? For crying out loud, you and the Dems want the government to control free market speculators. Let's give the federal government some more power, that'll cure our every ill.
Don't like the gas prices very much, but I'll tell you what I like a lot less..a state controlled society. Our freedom has been cut back enough already without the Dems creating more government.
This must be a troll. If so you're the smart one and I'm the dimwit.
Senior Member
Yes let big business control the USA, like they have been since Bush came into office. Look they dereged airlines a long time ago and now look at the mess they are in. A question doe's letting the corperations running things make sense. Look at gas and oil. look at all the miscarriage of justice of letting the speculators run up oli prices. We need some Gov control somewhat espically on things like energy, health care, medicines, food. WAGES etc. This administration is the greedist I have ever seen. I cannot see why any working man would support this current admin as they are not and have never been for the working person, if they were then gas and food would not be this high. I admit It is not all Bush's fault, he is just a pawn to stupid to relize that. H eis just a good ole boy that glot a job he could not do that's why Cheny is VP, he runs the show and always has, actally Bush Sr wanted Jeb to be prez but Jeb was a little to smart so they had to get lil Bush. Lil Bush would be fun to hang out and fish and hunt with and have a beer or two with but he cannot run a country, he could not even run a business he was given. But he can fish I saw a show one time and he can fish so at least he is good at something.
Senior Member
Its called C-A-P-I-T-A-L-I-S-M. Simply let business do what they do and don't interfere. The proper role of government in our daily life is to protect PROPERTY rights by resolving disputes between two parties. Other than the defense of the nation the Government should have no say on how business is conducted. The OVER-REGULATION of certain segments of the economy (i.e. energy) leads to high pricing and inflated pricing. If the government would simply get out of the way and let energy companies, or what ever a company produces, do what they do best, prices would go down. THE MARKET should be the ultimate arbiter on whether a product is safe, proper, useful, and fairly priced.
Its amazing how no matter what the subject, those of a certain ideological bent always seem to jump on President Bush and impugn his intelligence or ability. This does nothing more than betray how ignorant they are of the mechanics behind the proper functioning of our government. Its both quite funny, and frightening all at once. In all reality the president, any president, controls very little, especially when it comes to economic matters. Although he controls the armed forces, the only tools he has at his disposal are the veto pen and the bully pulpit. He cannot introduce legislation, nor does he control the purse strings, those powers belong to congress, which is now controlled by the Democratic party. The powers to regulate industry (which by the way DON'T EXIST IN THE CONSTITUTION) has been abused by congress over the years to the point that the common American believes that is their role. IT IS NOT!!! Again the government is there to protect the property rights of one party against the other party. Read your constitution... if you don't have one Ill send you one. Id be glad to do so.
As for wages.... Do you wonder why wages have not kept pace with the price of inflation. The reason is simple, and chances are you are going to hate it. The UNIONS, yes the unions, bear ultimate responsibility for the decrease in wages because they sought to ARTIFICIALLY INFLATE wages based upon their desire to force socialism down the throats of American business owners. Ever wonder why a company would relocate their manufacturing operations overseas? Its because any dunder head can assemble a stove, car, or TV on an assembly line, the only difference is that American Labor Unions demand that manufacturers pay five times as much for the dunder heads we have here. Therefore when a company sees an opportunity to pay a Chinese worker 1/4 the wage to do the same menial, unskilled job they jump at the chance and move their factory. Now there are some of you who would stand there and decry those companies who do so, but can you really blame them? Would you not take the opportunity to live up to the commitment you made to those who have invested their hard earned money into your business (the shareholders) and try to make the largest profit (gasp... a profit being made!) possible? The only responsibly that a company owes to its employees is to pay them a wage agreed upon between the individual (not some "collective") in exchange for the labor the individual provides. Therefore if the INDIVIDUAL has a valuable skill, as opposed to standing there screwing in a screw, he will get paid more because his skills are of more value. That's why an engineer should makes more than a janitor, because he has a skill that is more valuable because of the time, effort, and talent it takes to learn the engineering skills. The problem arises when artificial forces arrive to inflate wages above their true market value (please refer to the dot-com bubble of the late '90s for a macro example of this scenario), once the market is forced to correct itself, those wages that have been inflated drop. In all actuality wages have risen over the last seven years, as they have done over the majority of the past 30 years. Its just that the elimination of manufacturing jobs (with over inflated wages) have moved overseas and replaced with similar paying service jobs that many in the manufacturing sector are not qualified to hold. Not my problem, its theirs. They should take measures to increase their viability in the open market instead of relying on some collective organization of socialist to blackmail business owners into paying them an over inflated, and therefore unfair wage.
Do you actually want the US Government to assume responsibility for health care? You surely cant be serious. By socializing 1/5 of the US economy you are handing control over to the most ineffective bureaucracy the world has ever known. Look at the tax code and how convoluted it has become. Go stand at the DMV and imaging its an emergency room. the only motivation I can guess would be you want something for nothing. Look what the demands for insurance benefits have done to the US auto industry. And you want this saddled upon the shoulders of the American tax payers. Give me a break. I WILL NEVER PAY TO HAVE YOUR TEETH CLEANED, YOUR EYES CHECKED, OR YOUR BROKEN BONES SET, UNLESS IT IS BY MY OWN FREE WILL. To coerce the tax payer into paying for the well being of another is nothing more than unbridled despotism, and I for one will never stand for it. I would rather sit in a federal prison than pay one dollar into a tax payer funded medical system that forces me to help take care of someone else's responsibility, whether it be their children, their elderly parents, or their fat lazy behinds!!!! There is no right to medical care, only the right to Peruse happiness, with no guarantee we will ever get it.
Got to get back to work..................
Senior Member
Stonewall, you are my new hero!
Your dissertation sums up my feelings for the most part perfectly.
Why is so hard to understand simple concepts? Why is 'big business' which is a huge part of our economy, the new villain for the Dems?
The Democratic party is bribing people with the promise of taking wealth away from those who have achieved, and distributing it to their supporters. It's called socialism folks, and it doesn't work. Never has, never will. You can't take away the money from those who make more and give it to those who make less or none. The system will collapse.
BTW, before you jump, I'm no great achiever, I've worked all my life and still do. I simply don't believe legally obtained money should be forcibly taken by our government and given to me or anyone else.
Yes, 'they' deregulated the airlines, and for many years we the consumers have enjoyed the affordable pricing the competitive free market provides. As to whatever mess they're in, they suffer (and flourish) in the economy right along with the rest of us. I don't want to pay the government through my taxes to run the air travel business.
'They' derugulated the phone company, which has over the years provided us all with vast price cuts, and more choices. I believe that move directly contributed to the technilogical progress we've made over the last 2 decades. Imagine it still plodding along under artificial government controlled pricing.
Name me one, just a single one efficient federal agency or program.
Senior Member
On some things I have to agree with you. But the fact is we already pay for health insurance for others that either don't have it or can't pay for it. I shared your views for many years until about 6 years ago. All it takes to change someones perception of the world is to walk in someones shoes. When my son was born with a Metobolic Disorder it effected every aspect of our life. I don't ask for pitty. But can tell you from my personal experience that walking in the shoes of others can change a man and his political beliefs. Everyone that has a role in my son's life works at least 40 hours a week but it can be overwhelming the amount of money it takes to take care of a chronic illness such as a Metobolic Disorder even with good insurance.
I am not hating on you I just know that my son's illness has changed me and my political beliefs. I think that it would most any father.
Senior Member
Article 1 Sec. 8: "The Congress shall have power . . . To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes"
Any definition of "regulating commerce" that doesn't include governmental regulations is verbal gymnastics. Has the government overstepped at times? Yep, but it undeniably has the right--and responsibility--to regulate industry.
Let the market decide what is safe? At what price? How many thalidomide babies are worth saving a few cents on a prescription?
You have a lot more faith in corporations than I do.
Last edited by jcb; 06-26-2008 at 02:18 PM. Reason: typo
Senior Member
Excuse me Stonewall, one I am not loking for a handout I am a Taxpaying citizen just like you and # 2 I AM NOT STUPID OR INGNORENT, just my spelling is bad. I know more how your tax dollars are spent than you do as I work for the State, giving out food stamps and med cards to all the people who are suffering right now. As for health care look at some of the other countrys in the world that have gov provided health care, they seem to be doing ok, also this is supposed to an open minded disscusion, but you have to result in name calling and running me down come on, be adult you do not have to disrespect a person to make your point but thats the mind set of some out there, This country will never get back on track if we cannot work together to fix our problems. See this is just like in Washington the Dems and Repubs are also fighting instead of working to fix a problem. But one thing that I have really noticed is how some of you repub's always have to disrespect someone to make a point instead of having a good debate.
Senior Member
Opinion from a State Employee...... thank you for proving my point.
I rest my case.
Didn't call you any names... just said that SOME people have an ignorant view of the constitution. If you group yourself among those people, or infer that I was talking about you personally, I'm sorry. I too have bad spelling I know how you feel.
I fear that your protestations are nothing more than a thinly veiled attempt to have me silenced by the moderator. If so I throw myself upon their mercy and point to my post as proof that there was no intent to impugn you personally.
I will never, repeat never, "work together to fix our problems". That's socialist lingo for "give me your property so we can give it to those who don't work for a living." I will, however, work to solve my own problems, and will not wallow in self pity waiting for "Big Government" to come and save me a-la Hurricane Katrina.... its called self reliance.
Don't really see that many problems with the country. Slow growth, yes, 5.5% unemployment (gasp!), yes, $4.00 gas, yes, other than that, I'm fine, as is the majority of the country. The media and the Dems on the other hand would have you believe that the world is on the brink of a Bush induced depression
The fight you refer to in Washington is a struggle for what direction the country should go. The founders did it (a bit more acrimoniously I should say) and we have been doing it ever since. Its a simple manifestation of the exertion of political will. It will never end until one party or the other temporarily gains a filibuster proof majority. That periods of "peace" will last for a short time and again we will return to fighting. Its how politics works. Quite honestly... the less government does, the happier I am.
I too enjoy a good debate…. when both sides are represented. Your claim that I want the opposite side silenced and resort to name calling in order to achieve my goals rings hollow. The originator of this post was far more forceful and vitriolic and yet you say nothing about what he says. I fear that it is the content not so much the intent that raises your ire. The idea that one should cordially agree to disagree is nothing more than the effect of watching to much Ophra. One should defend his points vigorously and with verve whenever he bothers to speak out. If not his voice will be shadowed by those who speak louder, or more often. It’s a tactic used by those on the political left all across the world, and I must admit, it has proven effective. Mr. Obama uses it to great effect… just preempt any attack and claim that any subsequest attack is personal and that we need to keep things civil. The problem is that their idea of civility is for the opposition to just wither away and say nothing about their policies. Is it disrespectful for one to point out the fallacy of another's policy or the sheer ridiculousness of their ideology? I say, no it is not. Some would even say that it is rooted in great compassion and for one to try to lead the other from the darkness of their worldview is one of the greatest examples of friendship and kindness there is. So I extend my hand in friendship and encourage you to see things my way and cast away all of you pessimism and gloom… rejoice that you are fortunate enough to live in a land a great as ours. One that allows us to debate openly and honestly and depart as friends instead of armed enemies.
P.s. I am not a Republican.... I'm a registered independent who votes conservative. No allegiance to a party... never have, never will.
Senior Member
Article 1 Sec. 8 refers to the power that congress holds to insure that the laws between two states don't conflict therefore restricting the flow of commerce. Its original intent is to allow for the free flow of goods between the states. In 1895 the SCOTUS restricted the interpretation the "Commerce Clause' so that congress could not regulate the manufacture of goods even if they crossed state lines (ahhhh the good ole days). This interpretation was also used to over rule some elements of FDR's New Deal that the courts felt exceeded the governments power. Later, following FDR's attempt to reconstruct the courts the "Commerce Clause' was used to do everything from desegregate schools to limit production and regulate all manner of businesses, a gross violation of the "original intent".
And yes…. I have more faith in Businesses than I do in the government. The Market is not subject to the whims of voters who are bribed every two years with others money confiscated by the tax collector. Sorry….
Last edited by Stonewall2002; 06-26-2008 at 03:46 PM. Reason: spelling
Senior Member
these threads always end up the same,is there a "repeat" button so ya'll don't have to re type the same ol lessons everytime??
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote