Romney again flip flopping on the Health Plan

[johnsonma]

It was Democrat policy towards war supported by American manufacturing that made America the richest most powerful country the world has ever seen. War is the engine of America economic strength. How else did you think the 90+ years of Democrat controlled and failed domestic economic policy and deficit spending was maintained?

War! That's right...let's look at history.
- Democrat Woodrow Wilson pushed America into WW1
- Democrat Franklin D. Roosevelt had America fight on two fronts during WW2
- Democrat Harry S. Truman dropped the atomic bomb
- Democrat Harry S. Truman heavily influenced the United Nations to go into Korea and act as the international police only to follow up with American troops
- Republican Dwight D. Eisenhower was smart enough to stay out of Vietnam, Democrat John F. Kennedy ignored advise from folks like Charles De Gaulle and sent troops into Vietnam, and Democrat Lyndon B Johnson really put American troops into the crapper

So, please do not be so quick to cite the stupendous domestic economic policy of 90+ years of a Democrat controlled Congress. If it wasn't for Democrat penchant for war, the deficit spending and poorly managed social policies would have made America into a social democracy long before Obama.

I have never heard of democrats being blamed for war mongering. That is an interesting viewpoint, however I think you are forgetting a few of the critical facts. First off you are somehow overlooking the fact that we got were we are due to innovation, hard work and technological breakthroughs. Second, you are mistaken in considering War as a growth related industry when it really does nothing but drain a country of its resources. It is deficit spending both in terms of resources and the sacrifices of young men to carry it out. You would rather blame democrats than give credit where it is due, you are basically saying that everything that the last few generations did to make this country great were nothing more than a facade and that war is the only reason we got where we are. You might as well spit on those that came before us and the hard work they did to make this country what it is. All because of your dislike for opposing viewpoints.

Lets take a little more in depth view at history:

WWI: At the outbreak of the war the United States pursued a policy of non-intervention, avoiding conflict while trying to broker a peace. When a German U-boat sank the British liner RMS Lusitania on 7 May 1915 with 128 Americans among the dead, President Woodrow Wilson insisted that "America is too proud to fight" but demanded an end to attacks on passenger ships. Germany complied. Wilson unsuccessfully tried to mediate a settlement. However, he also repeatedly warned that the U.S.A. would not tolerate unrestricted submarine warfare, in violation of international law. Former president Theodore Roosevelt denounced German acts as "piracy".[99] Wilson was narrowly reelected in 1916 as his supporters emphasized "he kept us out of war".

In January 1917, Germany resumed unrestricted submarine warfare, realizing it would mean American entry. The German Foreign Minister, in the Zimmermann Telegram, invited Mexico to join the war as Germany's ally against the United States. In return, the Germans would finance Mexico's war and help it recover the territories of Texas, New Mexico, and Arizona.[100] Wilson released the Zimmerman note to the public, and Americans saw it as casus belli—a cause for war. Wilson called on antiwar elements to end all wars, by winning this one and eliminating militarism from the globe. He argued that the war was so important that the U.S. had to have a voice in the peace conference.

WWII: Our territory was attacked by Japan, they were allied with Germany and Italy. Therefore we were at war with all 3, and that is why we were fighting all three. Not sure if you had a point here or were just trying to bash a President because he was a democrat.

Atom Bomb: The atomic bomb saved American lives and that is why he used it. What does this have to do with economic policy? You are really beginning to digress from any real argument at this point.

Korean War: North Korea attacked first, did you know that? You can argue about the foreign policy that placed us there to begin with I suppose but that would be even farther from the point you are trying to make.

Vietnam War: Lyndon Johnson sent the first combat troops into Vietnam, your just making stuff up at this point.

It is truly amazing what you will say to somehow place blame at the feet of the democrats. Sure WWII brought us out of the great depression but that was because of a multitude of factors and after the vietnam war how do you explain the growth then? What about the roaring twenties after WWI was already over? Not to mention the fact that economic policy has changed dramatically since then. Your completely forgetting about globalization and all the "real" factors for our economic growth.

The only possible explanation I can think of to explain what you said is that you don't live here in the U.S. Maybe you use to live here?

 

[johnsonma]

Actually johnson, we had combat troops in vietnam as early as 1956. Granted they were there to train the south Vietnese but they were combat troops. America suffered its first casualties in 1959. Major Dale R. Buis and Master Sargeant Chester M. Ovnand become the first Americans to die in the Vietnam War.

You can call them combat troops but they still weren't there to carry out combat related missions, as you said they were there to train. Lyndon Johnson was the one who initiated the air campaign and subsequent ground campaign.

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

The action to not let Americans into Lybia is already forgotten?
This is an invasion, as liberals so much like to say, whether its 5 or 50000

 

[johnsonma]

Yes, but only combat troops are capable of training someone in.............combat.

You have a point there and Kennedy may have increased the number of these "advisors", but I still think that Lyndon Johnson initiated involving American troops in direct combat with enemy combatants.

 

[dogman_1234]

Fair enough.

I thought Kennedy was actually in the process of "drawing down" our troops in Vietnam but was assassinated before he could finish? Then Johnson became pres. and completely reversed direction.

JFK was about to reduce the feet in Nam, then he was got by LH Oswald.

There is a conspiracy theory that the war machine...the 'Military Industrial Complex' was using Oswald as a pawn to kill Kennedy before he ended the war. Yes, the theory is that JFK was to end Nam, slow down the military, and reduce the force. That is when the MIC 'hired' LH Oswald, shot Kennedy and before Oswald could spill the beans, the military assassinated him as well...to prevent a plea deal for the FBI.

I don't believe it, but it is a fun theory to look at. The act of the assassination of JFK...not so much.

 

[chunkymonster]

I have never heard of democrats being blamed for war mongering. That is an interesting viewpoint, however I think you are forgetting a few of the critical facts. First off you are somehow overlooking the fact that we got were we are due to innovation, hard work and technological breakthroughs. Second, you are mistaken in considering War as a growth related industry when it really does nothing but drain a country of its resources. It is deficit spending both in terms of resources and the sacrifices of young men to carry it out.

Well, the fact is Democrats controlled Congress for the past 90+ years and going to war needs the vote of Congress. Fact is, every war America fought in during the 1900's there was a Democrat as President. So, given these facts, it should be no surprise that Democrats are war mongers. Ever hear of a branch of Keynesian economics called Military Keynesianism? A key indicator of Military Keynesianism is continued and perpetual military spending. Fact is, America did not maintain a standing army until the early 1900's; right around the time Democrats took control of congress. Please do not tell me that a significant percentage of the American economy over the past 60+ years has not been used to perpetuate military spending and bolster the domestic economy as a whole. Do not tell me that the Trillions of dollars spent to clothe, feed, house, arm, and train that army did not spur war related industry and domestic economic growth. Also, most if not all significant innovation achieved during the last century was due to tax payer contributed government funding of military R&D projects; computers, the internet, GPS, satellite TV and radio, plexi-glass, plastic/steel polymers, stealth technology, commercial airliners, and on and on.

You would rather blame democrats than give credit where it is due, you are basically saying that everything that the last few generations did to make this country great were nothing more than a facade and that war is the only reason we got where we are. You might as well spit on those that came before us and the hard work they did to make this country what it is.

Do not presume to question my patriotism. I have a tremendous respect for the military. But soldiers do not make policy, they follow orders, do not confuse the two. What previous generations did to make this country great was DESPITE the past 90+ years of a Democrat controlled congress slowly turning America away from the republic and into a social democracy.

It is truly amazing what you will say to somehow place blame at the feet of the democrats. Sure WWII brought us out of the great depression but that was because of a multitude of factors and after the vietnam war how do you explain the growth then? What about the roaring twenties after WWI was already over? Not to mention the fact that economic policy has changed dramatically since then. Your completely forgetting about globalization and all the "real" factors for our economic growth.

I'm not placing blame feet of Democrats, I am simply stating the fact that Democrats have controlled congress for 90+ years and it has been Democrat Presidents that have lead America into every war during the last century. The middle class in America did not exist until after the troops came home from WWII. The American consumer economy did not exist until after the creation of the middle class. It is the very same middle class that was started then and exists today that sustained American economic growth past the Vietnam War to tday. It was in 1971 when Nixon (Republican) took America off the gold standard that globalization was even seriously considered by American companies. Globalization did play a factor in growing the American economy, but it's only really been since the 1990's and the internet boom that globalization has had a significant growth impact on the American economy. So, since the Democrats no longer had an obvious enemy to fight, they made enemies out of Al-Queada and the Taliban so Military Keynesianism could continue. But the American people have grown tired of the past 11 years of non-stop war in the Middle East and now the economy must rely on the middle class again. And, this where the Democrats have shown their true colors, revealed their great plan to save America; Universal Health Care, raising taxes, and more failed social engineering!

The only possible explanation I can think of to explain what you said is that you don't live here in the U.S. Maybe you use to live here?

Oh, I live in America and my eyes are WIDE OPEN to what has happened over the past 90+ years of a Democrat controlled congress. But as I stated in reply to another of your posts...

To level set my POV, I am a Constitutional republican and believe that the American Constitution is the greatest document ever written for citizen based self-governance.

I don't care whether a politician is Democrat or Republican. But when I read history, when I read legislation, when I review voting records, I overwhelmingly see Democrats and big government RINO's steering America away from the republic and into becoming a social democracy.

All because of your dislike for opposing viewpoints.

I dislike opposing viewpoints?! Kettle meet pot!

Let's review this little tete-a-tete between you and I...
1) I factually stated that since the 1920's, since the 90+ years that Democrats have controlled Congress, they have slowly steered America away from the intentions of the Founding Fathers and are effectively turning America into a social democracy.
2) You state that America became the greatest country on earth as a result of 90+ years of a Democrat controlled Congress.
3) I factually point out that it was a Democrat controlled Congress in junction with a Democrat President that led America into the all of the wars America fought in during the 1900's.
4) You reply in the lengthy post above with; a review of grade school history, equivocation for the Democrat controlled Congress deficit spending, excuses for Democrat Presidents leading America into all the wars in the past century, and prevarication for the complete divergence away from the Constitution and the Founders republic.

In my opinion, 90+ years of majority control by one party in a country with a two party political system is 90+ year too many. So you go ahead and continue to defend Democrats and call Romney a flip flopper. As I replied to you in another post

Given the state of the economy and given the choices in this election, I will gladly take my chances with a candidate who changes his mind...over a standing President running for re-election that has flat-out lied about or failed to deliver on almost everything he campaigned on. Romney may be a chameleon but Obama is a stone cold hypocrite and bald faced liar.

Have a nice day.

 

[dogman_1234]

Anything wrong with progressivism?

 

[musical marv]

Another theory is the mob. Remember his brother was Attorney General. He vigorously went after the mob during his time in office. Then the icing on the cake was JFK screwing up the retaking of Cuba. One, he pissed off the Cuban freedom fighters, two he also pissed off the mob (even more) who had grand designs of getting Cuba back from the communists so they could set up shop (casinos, hotels, brothels, drug trade, all that mob type stuff) in that tropical paradise.

At least Bobby Kennedy went after the mob and had the guts to do so unfortunately he got killed for it.

 

[chunkymonster]

Anything wrong with progressivism?

inherently there is nothing wrong with progressivism. As with all ideologies, it is the application of progressivism that makes it wrong.

Like now in American where progressive ideology is being used to coerce and transform a government away from its original republican intent without the people's consent or Constitutional Amendment, then its wrong.

 

[dogman_1234]

I kinda saw progressive movement to be one for individual protection...like trust busting, setting up protection suites in the government, (ie: FDA, SEC, FAA.)

Those who rest upon an idea solely to gin popularity in their anti-Republic ideology, should not be labeled that school of thought.

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

Funny thing, all governments eventually collapse or are taken over, or are revitalised thru revolution.
The individual lives on
Painting a great society formed thru government is dishonest

 

[wanamingo]

You guys are bonkers.

Its not a conspiracy I just have a different view than you. Im not trying to overthrow the government, Im not pooping on cars, I believe in freedom, and Im a liberal.

Grow up.

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

All those who have no health care, but are employed wont be happy once the monies from their checks disappear in Obamacare

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Wuq8Ula94Ag

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

So, instead of reaching for the stars, we demand thru dem control to spend our money here on the poor.
History shows, the MSM and the dems wanted to shut down our spending on NASA.
Both Bush as well as the current admin has done nothing in this direction, but hollow promises for later on.
Kick that can as far as you can man

 

[musical marv]

Hell, we have to hitch rides into space with the Russians now. sigh

Account of Obama getting rid of the NASA program. Dam shame!

 

[chunkymonster]

Account of Obama getting rid of the NASA program. Dam shame!

I totally agree that Obama gutting NASA is absolutely a damned shame. The innovation, research, and products that found there way into the consumer market as a result of funding NASA and the space program are simply amazing!

50 Consumer Technologies Developed by NASA in the Last 50 Years

But much worse, rather than keeping the R&D and building the next generation of the American space program here in America (creating jobs, creating demand for science and math education, etc), Obama has out-sourced the jobs, technology, and innovations to China and Russia. Yeah, that's a great way maintain America as a world leader and on the cutting edge of technology and innovation...

 

[johnsonma]

I totally agree that Obama gutting NASA is absolutely a damned shame. The innovation, research, and products that found there way into the consumer market as a result of funding NASA and the space program are simply amazing!

50 Consumer Technologies Developed by NASA in the Last 50 Years

But much worse, rather than keeping the R&D and building the next generation of the American space program here in America (creating jobs, creating demand for science and math education, etc), Obama has out-sourced the jobs, technology, and innovations to China and Russia. Yeah, that's a great way maintain America as a world leader and on the cutting edge of technology and innovation...

I'm absolutely convinced that none of you actually read the real articles about issues. He increased funding for R&D in his proposal, how you came to this conclusion that he got rid of it is completely illogical or ignorant. Not to mention he increased funding for aerospace research which coincides with one of America's biggest exports. He made a budget cut of 59 million out of 17.7 billion. Go out and inform yourselves instead of blinding accepting assumptions, this is the age of information for crying out loud.