• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Blue Dogs eye comeback in 2018

Why do you keep saying the party shed its moderates? It's just not true.

The left was shed, or until recently, marginalized, with the advent of the New Dems as I mentioned to you in another post as the party became increasingly donor reliant and friendly from the 80s onwards; I even provided you with a link detailing their history, and how the conservative wing basically usurped the party and displaced the FDR wing/traditionalists. As stated, the mainstream Dems of today are essentially 90s Republicans on all but social issues; it's painfully obvious when you consider that their grand solution to the healthcare issue with control of every chamber of government was to draft a flawed GOP/Heritage Foundation proposal from 93.

The fact is that what passes for a moderate in America just isn't cutting it anymore; people don't want good cops to the GOP bad who represent their donors and sponsors foremost and not their constituents, and only really disagree about how much or how quickly those monied interests should **** you and this country.

Both parties owe their heart and souls to the moneyed elite. To corporations, wall street firms, lobbyist, special interests etc. That I don't debate. Who really represents their constituents, you mentioned healthcare. Here are the polls when the ACA was first passed thanks to RCP:

Below are the polls thanks to RCP of public opinion on the ACA when the Senate passed it in November of 2009
CNN/Opinion Research 12/2-12/3 36% for 61% Against/Oppose +25
Rasmussen Reports 11/29 - 11/29 41% for 53% Against/Oppose +12
Gallup 11/20-11/22 44% for 49% Against/Oppose +5
Ipsos/McClatchy 11/19 - 11/22 34% for 46% Against/Oppose +12
Rasmussen Reports 11/21 - 11/22 38% for 56% Against/Oppose +18
FOX News 11/17 - 11/18 35% for 51% Against/Oppose +16
PPP (D) 11/13 - 11/15 40% for 52% Against/Oppose +12

Below are the polls thanks to RCP of public opinion on the ACA when the House passed it in March of 2010
Bloomberg 3/19 - 3/22 38% for 50% Against/Oppose +12
CNN/Opinion Research 3/19 - 3/21 39% for 59% Against/Oppose +20
CBS News 3/18 - 3/21 37% for 48% Against/Oppose +11
Rasmussen Reports 3/19 - 3/20 41% for 54% Against/Oppose +13
Quinnipiac 3/16 - 3/21 36% for 54% Against/Oppose +18
Democracy Corps (D) 3/15 - 3/18 40% for 52% Against/Oppose +12
FOX News 3/16 - 3/17 35% 55% Against/Oppose +20

So did the Democratic controlled Senate and House give the people what they wanted or did they go against the peoples will?
 
A few of today's faces of the Blue Dogs: Gov. Cooper of NC, Gov. Bel Edwards of LA, Gov. McAuliffe and incoming Gov. Northam of VA. Both DEM Senators in VA; Sen. Manchin; Sen. Tester; Sen. Heitkamp; Sen. Donnelly; Sen. Nelson; Sen. McCaskill.

The Populist/Progress---ive movement of T. Roosevelt and WJ Bryan lives on with the 16th and 17th amendments, the latter being the unbastardizing of choosing US Senators by gerrymandered state houses.

I see my brother Pero torn between his Blue Dog roots and his Goldwater/Perot roots. Your fondness of Presidents Carter and Clinton for the good things they've accomplished, during and after office, carry on.

It's truly comical for me to listen to DEM regressives thinking that the 'donor class' is something new to either party, just considering the first Gilded Age as an example; which TR and WJB both fought. Worse is their ridiculous claim that FDR was a regressive progressive in their twisted Naderite logic of today ...

I was brought up in an old yeller dog Democratic household. The kind that would vote for an old yeller dog before they would vote Republican. But I was kind of a lone voice being for Eisenhower in 1956 and Nixon in 1960. I like the Goldwater type of traditional conservatism. There is no getting that out of me. The kind that believes in fiscal responsibility, in other words a balance budget with revenue matching spending. I also believe in small government, the kind that keeps government out of a citizens private business and lives. I wince at what is called fiscal conservatism today which just means low taxes with no thought of a balance budget or the ever rising national debt. I also don't thing government should have a say in whom marries whom, whether a woman gets an abortion or not, whether gays serve in the military. Goldwater himself sometime in either 1963 or 64 said, "You don't have to be straight to shoot straight." A reference way back then to gays in the military.

I like Joe Manchin a lot, I liked Jim Webb a lot and Webb was my first choice for the Democratic nomination and for president. Both Webb and Manchin are old time Democrats much like Georgia's Sam Nunn, Zell Miller, Max Cleland, Joe Frank Harris etc. The Democratic Party has pretty much dumped them. I had a certain disdain for both Trump and Hillary Clinton, so much so I voted third party.
 
You could have gone back to the 1950s for Blue Dogs, with Truman, who had to beat back the Dixiecrats of Strom Thurmond in 1948, as well as Northeasterner Dewey. Truman's ascent in Kansas City politics is troubling. The whole history of USA politics is troubling.

Here in Illinois, POTUS Candidate Stevenson was a teetotaler, as I learned first-hand at Illinois State U. in 1971, when Normal, IL was still Dry. We used to call it Illinois Straight. Mayor Daley was certainly a Blue Dog, as we saw with the 1968 and 1972 DEM Conventions ...

The thing is, the democratic party has forsaken them. Now you have to be either a northeastern or west coast progressive. Being liberal isn't enough anymore. There was a time when being a liberal believed in individual freedoms. Where a liberal was against government by kings and queen, elitist, oligarchy, for the common man. Now it seems to me the Democratic Party wants total government control and to be able to run each individuals life. The Republicans aren't that much different. The only difference is in what each party wants government to control in an individuals life.
 
Why do you keep saying the party shed its moderates? It's just not true.
/
The left was shed, or until recently, marginalized, with the advent of the New Dems as I mentioned to you in another post as the party became increasingly donor reliant and friendly from the 80s onwards; I even provided you with a link detailing their history, and how the conservative wing basically usurped the party and displaced the FDR wing/traditionalists. As stated, the mainstream Dems of today are essentially 90s Republicans on all but social issues; it's painfully obvious when you consider that their grand solution to the healthcare issue with control of every chamber of government was to draft a flawed GOP/Heritage Foundation proposal from 93.

The fact is that what passes for a moderate in America just isn't cutting it anymore; people don't want good cops to the GOP bad who represent their donors and sponsors foremost and not their constituents, and only really disagree about how much or how quickly those monied interests should **** you and this country.

I think we hear the democrats shed their moderates because of how they lost 1000 seats over the last 8 years. Many of the newer ones elected were more further left. I also think both parties have shed their moderates which is why we have 44% of the electorate are independents. People are getting kind of sick of "my way or the highway or else." Look at Roy Moore in AL, you are either with him or get out of the party. It was that way with people I knew who didnt really like Hillary. If you dont walk lockstep with either party you arent welcome. If you are someone who might vote for both republicans and democrats, you arent "one of us." I wish we could have 4 or 5 real parties but that will never happen since the two make the rules.
 
I think we hear the democrats shed their moderates because of how they lost 1000 seats over the last 8 years. Many of the newer ones elected were more further left. I also think both parties have shed their moderates which is why we have 44% of the electorate are independents. People are getting kind of sick of "my way or the highway or else." Look at Roy Moore in AL, you are either with him or get out of the party. It was that way with people I knew who didnt really like Hillary. If you dont walk lockstep with either party you arent welcome. If you are someone who might vote for both republicans and democrats, you arent "one of us." I wish we could have 4 or 5 real parties but that will never happen since the two make the rules.

There was a huge change in Washington when in 2006 the Democrats send a lot of moderate Republicans packing replacing them with what is termed now, progressive Democrats. Then in 2010 you had the opposite, the blue dogs and moderate Democrats almost became extinct being replaced by very conservative Republicans. So you had the ideologues of both parties left. Gone were the more moderate ones who were willing to work across the aisle to get things accomplished. Whether then give the other party 10 or 20% of what it wanted to get most of what you wanted, it did become my way or the highway. Both parties would settle for nothing whether to to compromise a bit, give and take, give something to the other party. That I blame on the current batch of leaders of both parties.

I can remember in the senate, pre-Reid, pre-McConnell when Dole and Mitchell would work together, when Daschle and Lott worked together. They're gone. I think you're right, what most of us want is the two parties to work together to better America. Not get stuck in an ideological war where nothing get accomplished.

I think the Democrats made a big mistake think they, alone could do health care. The GOP made a lot of mistakes this year in thinking and trying and failing to do the same thing, doing health care alone. Want to fix healthcare, let them sit down together and come up with something both parties have a stake in. That's what happened with social security and medicare. Look at the votes on those two issues and then compare it to the ACA.

Social Security votes in Congress – Over 65% of the American Public was in favor of Social Security before it was introduced to congress.
House - Democrats 284 AYE 15 NAY – Republicans 81 AYE 15 NAY
Senate – Democrats 60 AYE 1 NAY – Republicans 16 AYE 5 NAY

Medicare votes in Congress – Over 60% of the American Public was in favor of Medicare before it was introduced to congress.
House – Democrats 237 AYE 48 NAY – Republicans 70 AYE 68 NAY
Senate – Democrats 57 AYE 7 NAY – Republicans 13 AYE 17 NAY

Obamacare votes in Congress – Only 35% of the American Public was in favor of Obamacare and 58% against it before it was introduced to congress.
House – Democrats 220 AYE 36 NAY – Republicans 0 AYE 179 NAY
Senate – Democrats 60 AYE 0 NAY – Republicans 0 AYE 39 NAY

If both parties have a stake in it, one party won't trying to destroy it. Both parties will try to fix what needs fixing.
 
There was a huge change in Washington when in 2006 the Democrats send a lot of moderate Republicans packing replacing them with what is termed now, progressive Democrats. Then in 2010 you had the opposite, the blue dogs and moderate Democrats almost became extinct being replaced by very conservative Republicans. So you had the ideologues of both parties left. Gone were the more moderate ones who were willing to work across the aisle to get things accomplished. Whether then give the other party 10 or 20% of what it wanted to get most of what you wanted, it did become my way or the highway. Both parties would settle for nothing whether to to compromise a bit, give and take, give something to the other party. That I blame on the current batch of leaders of both parties.

I can remember in the senate, pre-Reid, pre-McConnell when Dole and Mitchell would work together, when Daschle and Lott worked together. They're gone. I think you're right, what most of us want is the two parties to work together to better America. Not get stuck in an ideological war where nothing get accomplished.

I think the Democrats made a big mistake think they, alone could do health care. The GOP made a lot of mistakes this year in thinking and trying and failing to do the same thing, doing health care alone. Want to fix healthcare, let them sit down together and come up with something both parties have a stake in. That's what happened with social security and medicare. Look at the votes on those two issues and then compare it to the ACA.

Social Security votes in Congress – Over 65% of the American Public was in favor of Social Security before it was introduced to congress.
House - Democrats 284 AYE 15 NAY – Republicans 81 AYE 15 NAY
Senate – Democrats 60 AYE 1 NAY – Republicans 16 AYE 5 NAY

Medicare votes in Congress – Over 60% of the American Public was in favor of Medicare before it was introduced to congress.
House – Democrats 237 AYE 48 NAY – Republicans 70 AYE 68 NAY
Senate – Democrats 57 AYE 7 NAY – Republicans 13 AYE 17 NAY

Obamacare votes in Congress – Only 35% of the American Public was in favor of Obamacare and 58% against it before it was introduced to congress.
House – Democrats 220 AYE 36 NAY – Republicans 0 AYE 179 NAY
Senate – Democrats 60 AYE 0 NAY – Republicans 0 AYE 39 NAY

If both parties have a stake in it, one party won't trying to destroy it. Both parties will try to fix what needs fixing.

I have to wonder if social media and the 24/7 news cycle hasnt driven politics into the sports world? Voters see it as their team and the other as the opposition or enemy. Win at all costs. "If you arent cheating you arent trying" sports mentality. I remember Reagan saying something about "politics stops at 5 pm and then we break bread." They ate dinner together, had drinks together and were genuinely friends outside of work. Biden is part of that old school and you can see it bothers him. I recall Mike Lee saying how when he got elected the first time, Biden went around and met them all. He seemed astounded by that since he was from a different party. It just speaks to the nastiness that is coming out all over now in real life situations. Road rage, parents fighting at their kids sporting events etc. We are just meaner people now.
 
I think we hear the democrats shed their moderates because of how they lost 1000 seats over the last 8 years. Many of the newer ones elected were more further left. I also think both parties have shed their moderates which is why we have 44% of the electorate are independents. People are getting kind of sick of "my way or the highway or else." Look at Roy Moore in AL, you are either with him or get out of the party. It was that way with people I knew who didnt really like Hillary. If you dont walk lockstep with either party you arent welcome. If you are someone who might vote for both republicans and democrats, you arent "one of us." I wish we could have 4 or 5 real parties but that will never happen since the two make the rules.

Once again, New Democrats aren't left wing; they're 90s Republicans with a side of social justice; about the only thing the party has gone further left on is social issues because going left on economic issues would run afoul of their donors. In Hillary's case, she chose to appeal to moderate Republicans in the general before progressives and it cost her dearly, including the rust belt/'blue wall'.

Meanwhile the polls have consistently shown time and time again that the broad electorate wants more policy that's genuinely and substantively left like universal college and health care and infrastructure investment, not what passes as 'moderate' in America which is really right wing per the rest of the developed world.

That said I do agree that politics have become more polarized and partisan, and that the establishment of the Dem party insists on absolute and complete compliance lest you be cast out/marginalized by every tool at their disposal as we've seen in the 2016 primaries and Perez's purge of the actual left wing of the party from all positions of power within the DNC.

Both parties owe their heart and souls to the moneyed elite. To corporations, wall street firms, lobbyist, special interests etc. That I don't debate. Who really represents their constituents, you mentioned healthcare. Here are the polls when the ACA was first passed thanks to RCP:

So did the Democratic controlled Senate and House give the people what they wanted or did they go against the peoples will?

Yes they do, and ACA was certainly unpopular.

However, ACA was not a liberal/left idea; a liberal/left idea is SP/Medicare for All UHC. ACA is a 90s Republican idea, or the kind of thing a Blue Dog/New Dem would conceive of and pass, just like keeping derivatives deregulated as Clinton chose to in the 90s, deregulating media which led to massive consolidations of the sector, partial repeal of Glass Steagall which allowed for the dangerous intermingling of commercial and investment banking etc...
 
Once again, New Democrats aren't left wing; they're 90s Republicans with a side of social justice; about the only thing the party has gone further left on is social issues because going left on economic issues would run afoul of their donors. In Hillary's case, she chose to appeal to moderate Republicans in the general before progressives and it cost her dearly, including the rust belt/'blue wall'.

Meanwhile the polls have consistently shown time and time again that the broad electorate wants more policy that's genuinely and substantively left like universal college and health care and infrastructure investment, not what passes as 'moderate' in America which is really right wing per the rest of the developed world.

That said I do agree that politics have become more polarized and partisan, and that the establishment of the Dem party insists on absolute and complete compliance lest you be cast out/marginalized by every tool at their disposal as we've seen in the 2016 primaries and Perez's purge of the actual left wing of the party from all positions of power within the DNC.



Yes they do, and ACA was certainly unpopular.

However, ACA was not a liberal/left idea; a liberal/left idea is SP/Medicare for All UHC. ACA is a 90s Republican idea, or the kind of thing a Blue Dog/New Dem would conceive of and pass, just like keeping derivatives deregulated as Clinton chose to in the 90s, deregulating media which led to massive consolidations of the sector, partial repeal of Glass Steagall which allowed for the dangerous intermingling of commercial and investment banking etc...

Its the social issues that makes democrats further left. Look at how much has been written about the white working class and how the left has forgotten about them over social justice issues. When we had 55 year old coal workers who were lifelong union democrats vote for Trump because Hillary bragged about putting them out of work, that was sort of a breaking point. Sanders instead had gone there and talked to them, found out many of them were sick and had poor healthcare or homes that were underwater. Couldnt just pack up and move to find new work. Many of the coastal elites (overused term I know) just were like "move and get a new job." It was clear they didnt get it. It was very un-democratic like. I see that here in New England with the old mills and loggers. They cant just snap their fingers and get a new job elsewhere. Its that reason 4 out of 6 New England states have GOP governors. Democrats were too corporate for them.
 
I have to wonder if social media and the 24/7 news cycle hasnt driven politics into the sports world? Voters see it as their team and the other as the opposition or enemy. Win at all costs. "If you arent cheating you arent trying" sports mentality. I remember Reagan saying something about "politics stops at 5 pm and then we break bread." They ate dinner together, had drinks together and were genuinely friends outside of work. Biden is part of that old school and you can see it bothers him. I recall Mike Lee saying how when he got elected the first time, Biden went around and met them all. He seemed astounded by that since he was from a different party. It just speaks to the nastiness that is coming out all over now in real life situations. Road rage, parents fighting at their kids sporting events etc. We are just meaner people now.

I think you got something there. It may even start with the president. IKE had LBJ then the Democratic senate majority leader over to the White House three times a week to discuss how LBJ could help IKE get his agenda through congress. JFK and then LBJ worked with Evert Dirksen then senate minority leader to get things accomplished. The civil rights bill of 1964 and the voting rights act could never have been accomplished without Dirksen's help.

Yes on Reagan, him working with Tip O'Neal, then Democratic Speaker of the House is legendary. To a lesser extent, behind the scenes, Clinton worked with Gingrich. Then a whole batch of new leaders came on the scene. Hastert, Pelosi, Reid, McConnell and it looks like Schumer is added to that list where it was all about political party and not America. At least how I see it.

It's a shame it was Joe Biden instead of Hillary Clinton last year vs. Trump. I like Joe, really distrusted Hillary to the max. I actually distrusted Hillary about the same as I distrusted Trump, maybe even more. So I voted against both. Politics has gotten down right disgusting, but it sure is interesting and keeps me coming back to DP.
 
The much bigger story is that we are rapidly becoming disgusted with both parties.

Where this goes nobody knows

This right here. ^^^

I'm a pro-2nd Amendment, military veteran, law enforcement veteran, liberal social policy leaning, non-interventionist, spend less on bombs and more on social programs and infrastructure, progressive voter without a party. I could get behind a genuine Blue Dog candidate, unfortunately there will never be one in my District (we only elect Reds you see), and it'll be a long time before one can unseat our current Dem Senator. Which is too bad, because I think she's awful.
 
Once again, New Democrats aren't left wing; they're 90s Republicans with a side of social justice; about the only thing the party has gone further left on is social issues because going left on economic issues would run afoul of their donors. In Hillary's case, she chose to appeal to moderate Republicans in the general before progressives and it cost her dearly, including the rust belt/'blue wall'.

Meanwhile the polls have consistently shown time and time again that the broad electorate wants more policy that's genuinely and substantively left like universal college and health care and infrastructure investment, not what passes as 'moderate' in America which is really right wing per the rest of the developed world.

That said I do agree that politics have become more polarized and partisan, and that the establishment of the Dem party insists on absolute and complete compliance lest you be cast out/marginalized by every tool at their disposal as we've seen in the 2016 primaries and Perez's purge of the actual left wing of the party from all positions of power within the DNC.



Yes they do, and ACA was certainly unpopular.

However, ACA was not a liberal/left idea; a liberal/left idea is SP/Medicare for All UHC. ACA is a 90s Republican idea, or the kind of thing a Blue Dog/New Dem would conceive of and pass, just like keeping derivatives deregulated as Clinton chose to in the 90s, deregulating media which led to massive consolidations of the sector, partial repeal of Glass Steagall which allowed for the dangerous intermingling of commercial and investment banking etc...

Perhaps, I'll tell you what I am sick and tired of, "too big to fail." Not only the media, but banks also. where is TR when one need him? If I had my way no one company or corporation would own more than 20% of any one market. I agree on the media, banks etc. Look at the 24 hours news channels, they aren't interested in just reporting the news, the straight new, just the facts as Sergeant Friday used to say. They all add their bias and political agenda to the fray. Of course it is all profit driven, keeping the conservatives happy, keeping the liberals happy and maintaining their audience.

What we need is another breakup as what happened with Ma Bell. That's my opinion on this matter. Neither party or any president is apt to do that though. All the corporations have to do is make a sizable donation.
 
I am not a party loyalist, but I could possibly support a Blue Dog Democrat.
 
https://www.politico.com/story/2017/07/24/democrats-blue-dogs-eye-2018-comeback-240813

120416_bluedogs_wuerker_328.jpg


Blue Dog Democrats will attract moderate Republicans--and you can now say bye-bye to the right and left wings of both parties. These are middle of the road politicians, which ruled this country since the 1930's up until the late 70's. They're conservative--hawkish--don't like Russians--and have a heart regarding the American people at the same time.
The Blue Dawgs died a miserable death with The Unaffordable Care Act. Here was a bit of legistaltion custom tailored for their opposition, and not one did.

Their death secured their former party as the Socialists of America Partei (SAPs), for their is no fiscal conservatism or social conservatism in the former Democratic/Democrat party. They’re on the socialism train pure and simple.

Saying “bye-bye to the... left wing” would be saying good-bye to the SAPs... and that is not going to happen. It would be wonderful if it happened, but Bernie Sanders, an admitted Democratic Communist rallying the party (Hillary and Obama were closet Democratic Communists) illustrates how far down the tubes that party it is.
 
I am not a party loyalist, but I could possibly support a Blue Dog Democrat.

They lose both the Blue and Dawg when they emerge in DC.

They become cogs in the Socialists of America Partei (SAPs), and the SAP quest for evermore socialist legistaltion.
 
This right here. ^^^

I'm a pro-2nd Amendment, military veteran, law enforcement veteran, liberal social policy leaning, non-interventionist, spend less on bombs and more on social programs and infrastructure, progressive voter without a party. I could get behind a genuine Blue Dog candidate, unfortunately there will never be one in my District (we only elect Reds you see), and it'll be a long time before one can unseat our current Dem Senator. Which is too bad, because I think she's awful.

Tell me, with all the trillions in social engineering spent during the past decades, how has that improved matters... and why do we need to spend more?

You want to spend less where it’s constitutionally prescribed, and spend more where it’s not in the purview of Congress. Typical of the Socialists of America Partei (SAP) and its voters, they get matters backwards.

They see the state as an machine to steal from one group, to distribute to another, and leave our defenses and borders to rot.

That’s not Blue Dawgish. Pro military, fiscal responsibility, and being a God Fearing patriotic American is the calling of Blue Dawgs. They’re basically RINO’s who caucus with the Yellow Dawg Democrats.
 
Last edited:
Tell me, with all the trillions in social engineering spent during the past decades, how has that improved matters... and why do we need to spend more?

You want to spend less where it’s constitutionally prescribed, and spend more where it’s not in the purview of Congress. Typical of the Socialists of America Partei (SAP) and its voters, they get matters backwards.

They see the state as an machine to steal from one group, to distribute to another, and leave our defenses and borders to rot.

That’s not Blue Dawgish. Pro military, fiscal responsibility, and being a God Fearing patriotic American is the calling of Blue Dawgs. They’re basically RINO’s who caucus with the Yellow Dawg Democrats.

You are delusional if you think anyone is leaving our defenses to rot. You seem to suffer from the same right wing brain disorder which pre-disposes you always feel that anyone other than the Republican party cares about our military, and you equate increased defense spending with patriotism. What does pro-military actually mean anyway? I see people on this site and others throw that around loosely as some kind of catch-all to hit anyone politically opposed to them with. To me, pro-military is more about taking care of our troops and only putting them in harms way when it is absolutely necessary to defend our country from a realistic threat. It doesn't mean giving the Pentagon a blank check so that it can enhance our ability to execute interventionist foreign policy with the latest and greatest weapons systems.

The social programs I am talking about are education, health care, and mental health. We also need more money invested in our roads, bridges, power grids, water treatment, and communications. These are not social engineering programs. We don't need 5 new super carriers and multiple squadrons of F-35's or new KEP weapons to protect this country right now. If you think we do you are ignorant and/or irrational.
 
You are delusional if you think anyone is leaving our defenses to rot. You seem to suffer from the same right wing brain disorder which pre-disposes you always feel that anyone other than the Republican party cares about our military, and you equate increased defense spending with patriotism. What does pro-military actually mean anyway? I see people on this site and others throw that around loosely as some kind of catch-all to hit anyone politically opposed to them with. To me, pro-military is more about taking care of our troops and only putting them in harms way when it is absolutely necessary to defend our country from a realistic threat. It doesn't mean giving the Pentagon a blank check so that it can enhance our ability to execute interventionist foreign policy with the latest and greatest weapons systems.

The social programs I am talking about are education, health care, and mental health. We also need more money invested in our roads, bridges, power grids, water treatment, and communications. These are not social engineering programs. We don't need 5 new super carriers and multiple squadrons of F-35's or new KEP weapons to protect this country right now. If you think we do you are ignorant and/or irrational.

Carter, Clinton and Obama all neglected our military, and the rot under Carter and Clinton was massive.

Obama signs order activating deep spending cuts
Obama signs order activating deep spending cuts - CNNPolitics

Education has been destroyed since the creation of the DoE.
Healthcare? We do not need a Socialist Healthcare scheme.
What happened to the hundreds of millions for “shovel ready jobs”? Didn;t achieve anything it seems, and Obama admitted so much. So where did the money go?

We need the best defense in the world, and we need to pay our men and women better... instead of BS socialists schemes and crony capitalism.
 
Carter, Clinton and Obama all neglected our military, and the rot under Carter and Clinton was massive.

Obama signs order activating deep spending cuts
Obama signs order activating deep spending cuts - CNNPolitics

Education has been destroyed since the creation of the DoE.
Healthcare? We do not need a Socialist Healthcare scheme.
What happened to the hundreds of millions for “shovel ready jobs”? Didn;t achieve anything it seems, and Obama admitted so much. So where did the money go?

We need the best defense in the world, and we need to pay our men and women better... instead of BS socialists schemes and crony capitalism.

Blah blah blah...socialism, blah blah blah...Clinton, Obama...blah blah." Please.

We have the best defense in the world, don't be daft. We can't afford nor do we need the obscene kind of spending we have become used to. I agree, pay our military personnel more, keep their benefits at a premium, and take care of our vets when they get home and leave the service. I've always said that. But we don't need a military that has the resources to wage multiple military campaigns around the globe simultaneously. This war mongering has to to stop at some point. We can't bomb all of our problems away, or didn't we learn that in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan?
 
Back
Top Bottom