Bipartisanship
July 28, 2016 at 4:25 p.m.
By -
Saturday, I was glad to see your hasty digression from the invocation of the classical liberal versus conservative ideology debate, that has been used so "liberally" by campaigning politicians, to pit the American voters against each other over issues that neither party intend to do anything about.
George Bush initially campaigned not only on the traditional conservative ideals of a lower tax burden and smaller government, but on inflammatory partisan issues such as gay marriage, abortion and flag burning. When you consider the progress made on these issues and the $9.4 trillion national debt, I fail to see where eight years of conservative Republican rule has accomplished anything positive, much less conservative.
Interestingly enough, if we're all so eager to jump on the Bush-bashing bandwagon, why did we re-elect him in the first place? I also don't understand that while we are invoking the liberal versus conservative debate, why don't we acknowledge that in Bill Clinton's last year in office, the U.S. made a $216 billion payment on the national debt that represented the largest debt pay down in American history. How is it that the Democrats have become perceived as the big spenders in Washington when in fact the exact opposite seems to be true? Could it be possibly Washington's "Culture of Deception"?
I can only imagine what benefits the American people, rich and poor alike, would reap if all the money spent in Iraq would have instead been channeled toward domestic spending programs. Silly things like Pell grants and research into alternative fuels.
But I must agree with Gary that the Climate Security Act is a doomed piece of garbage legislation that had no hope of passing since its inception. Barak and Hillary have paid it the usual amount of lip service but only because they have to appear to be on one side or the other of certain issues during an election race. Any legislation that serves to increase the burden of profitability on U.S. industry will only increase the hardship on the American worker and encourage more companies to open manufacturing overseas. It has less to do with ideology than it has to do with politicians appearing to address hot-button issues in an election year.
Our government has to come together in a complete bipartisan effort towards some common-sense legislation on the climate/energy issue that will address the ramifications of dependence on carbon-based fuels, foreign or domestic, before our economy collapses completely. Going into the future, it's going to take some radical adjustments on all our parts to cope with the changes of a deregulated, free market and global economy and the burden of additional national debt we have been gifted with. We need to leave the standard petty liberal versus conservative issues behind us and begin to concentrate on survival.
Ted Carter
Leesburg, via e-mail[[In-content Ad]]
Latest News
E-Editions
Saturday, I was glad to see your hasty digression from the invocation of the classical liberal versus conservative ideology debate, that has been used so "liberally" by campaigning politicians, to pit the American voters against each other over issues that neither party intend to do anything about.
George Bush initially campaigned not only on the traditional conservative ideals of a lower tax burden and smaller government, but on inflammatory partisan issues such as gay marriage, abortion and flag burning. When you consider the progress made on these issues and the $9.4 trillion national debt, I fail to see where eight years of conservative Republican rule has accomplished anything positive, much less conservative.
Interestingly enough, if we're all so eager to jump on the Bush-bashing bandwagon, why did we re-elect him in the first place? I also don't understand that while we are invoking the liberal versus conservative debate, why don't we acknowledge that in Bill Clinton's last year in office, the U.S. made a $216 billion payment on the national debt that represented the largest debt pay down in American history. How is it that the Democrats have become perceived as the big spenders in Washington when in fact the exact opposite seems to be true? Could it be possibly Washington's "Culture of Deception"?
I can only imagine what benefits the American people, rich and poor alike, would reap if all the money spent in Iraq would have instead been channeled toward domestic spending programs. Silly things like Pell grants and research into alternative fuels.
But I must agree with Gary that the Climate Security Act is a doomed piece of garbage legislation that had no hope of passing since its inception. Barak and Hillary have paid it the usual amount of lip service but only because they have to appear to be on one side or the other of certain issues during an election race. Any legislation that serves to increase the burden of profitability on U.S. industry will only increase the hardship on the American worker and encourage more companies to open manufacturing overseas. It has less to do with ideology than it has to do with politicians appearing to address hot-button issues in an election year.
Our government has to come together in a complete bipartisan effort towards some common-sense legislation on the climate/energy issue that will address the ramifications of dependence on carbon-based fuels, foreign or domestic, before our economy collapses completely. Going into the future, it's going to take some radical adjustments on all our parts to cope with the changes of a deregulated, free market and global economy and the burden of additional national debt we have been gifted with. We need to leave the standard petty liberal versus conservative issues behind us and begin to concentrate on survival.
Ted Carter
Leesburg, via e-mail[[In-content Ad]]
Have a news tip? Email [email protected] or Call/Text 360-922-3092