The economic crisis is growing more serious every day, and the time for action has come.And here is a definition that the president and his democratic cohorts in congress would do well to understand:
Last week, the House of Representatives passed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, which will jumpstart our economy and put more than 3 million people back to work.
...
The stakes are too high to allow partisan politics to get in the way.
That's why I've consulted with Republicans as well as Democrats to put together a plan that will address the crisis we face.
bi·par·ti·san: Of, consisting of, or supported by members of two parties, especially two major political partiesI have not seen this kind of approach in the bailout bill that the house passed last week.. if anything it had a bit of bipartisan opposition. I believe that the president is sincere in his desire to be bipartisan but last week's activity by Democrats in the House of Representatives was very partisan.
Lets hope.. I guess we can hope.. that their Democratic counterparts in the Senate will take the presidents message to heart and get rid of partisan politics.
I will hold out some hope with you on this Bob. Though I won't be holding my breath.
ReplyDeleteLOL - ditto that for me too Mark!
ReplyDeleteMaybe I'm too simple, but there has been, and is, a reason there are two parties; two different ideologies. If we ever come to the place that this country is led by one overwhelming ideology, we will be in big trouble. Perhaps not initially, but eventually the power will corrupt those who drive the ideology and they will allow no serious opposition.
ReplyDeleteWe have seen the seed of this in both parties in recent years. When the Replubicans finally became the majority party, they did well with their 'Contract with America' But it didn't take long for the corruption to set in after they took power. Now we see the Democtrats going the same route. e.g. Apparently they are 'above the law' when it comes to tax evasion. as long as you're a member of the 'good old boys' club, your 'mistakes' can be overlooked.
Nope. we need the two party system and the ongoing battle of ideologies. The only problem I see on the horizon is that I fear the watchdog referee (the major media) has now taken sides. I don't like to see 'the news' weighted toward one ideology. They need to remove themselves from the cheering section and watchdog this stimulus package like their children's future depended on it - because it does!
Ditto what you said about the two party system Ken.. I just wish that, when it comes to spending, there were differences in the two parties. The main ideological differences seem to focus on abortion and gay rights.
ReplyDeleteI think that the media is fairly well represented when you factor in squawk radio and TV :)
They just want some Republicans to go down with them.
ReplyDeleteThose are the two 'hot-button' ideologies. But the free market/capitalism vs. socialism ideologies are much deeper and more important than the two distraction ideologies you mentioned. The 'stimulus package' that the Democrats are pushing is a huge government expansion bill - and remember, the government has never done anything on a temporary basis. "Use the crisis as a means to our ends."
ReplyDeleteI do not believe that the mainstream media is fairly watchdogging this thing at all. The only TV news outlet that seems to be attempting to watchdog is FOX - and they keep getting villianized by the rest of the media for it. Limbaugh has been picked by BHO himself as the 'enemy'. This is what I mean by having one ideology prevailing in an overwhelming way. The first thing they want to do is minimize or shut out the dissenting voices.
One thing Limbaugh said that seems to be becomming apparent is that 'bipartisanship to the liberals is when you agree with us'.
Not sure that the GOP and the Dems are all that different Ken. I did not see a push for smaller govt when Bush and the GOP congress were in power.. in the name of defense they created more govt when they instituted the patriot act and the dept of homeland security.. not to mention the additional govt required to support the Iraqi war.
ReplyDeleteI have been trying hard to think of a major (fiscal/social) conservative US politician Ken and, in my lifetime, I only come up with 2 names that have made any significant contributions to the cause of conservatism - Reagan and Gingrich.. can you think of anyone else?
Maybe El Rushbo should run for office.. of course the money wouldn't be good.. he would have to do it because he really believed in conservatism :)
What El Rushbo said about bipartisanship for the liberals seemed to be the same when the GOP was in majority.. interesting that he was not too concerned back then :)
Enjoying the dialog my friend.
Shalom, Bob
Bob,
ReplyDeleteI enjoy it as well. I don't get too deeply embroiled in politics, so I do not in any way attempt to represent myself as an expert in the field. I'm just a guy who has worked in international relief and development for a number of years, and all of our service was in helping the voiceless people who were exploited by (failed) mono-ideological socialist governnmets. I will never be able to burn the images and impressions from my mind. I have seen what people are willing to sacrifice for freedom over government 'provision/supervision' once the governments had taken over. The only ones who seemed to be content were the government officials and those who worked for them.
Back to your comment; Bush was in no wise a fiscal conservative nor a Reaganite. His problem (in my estimation) was that he WAS bipartisian and he gave a lot of ground to the fiscal liberals. I don't particularly have a problem with 'expansionism of executive duties' during wartime. I guess I'd use the analogy of entrusting decisions to an ad hoc committee with needed experience and expertise as opposed to entrusting it to a grossly expanded committee made up of members who are tied to and influenced by numerous special interest groups.
At any rate, the Republican party has a lot of work to do if it ever intends to come back to a purer form of its ideology. As an aside, there were many things I like about the Democratic Party back in the days of JFK. But except for some of the southern Democrats, they don't even resemble that party any more. They have gone way far to the left. Pelosi is a good example of today's Democratic leadership - and I don't see BHO making any moves to correct it ... yet.
Thx again Ken! You might be interested in this 10 minute video that shows how there are really only two options when it comes to government - an Oligarchy or a Republic. If you watch it please let me know what you think.
ReplyDeleteWell, I never took any government courses in college, so I cannot know if the definitions in the video are acedemically accepted in our institutions of learning. But, by using the definitions set for by the producer of the video, I am in complete agreement with it's entire message. It's interesting to see that the principles can be applied to the many problems within the church as well. I believe this is because the framers of our Constitution held a strong Biblical world view, and set up our nation accordingly. As long as the Constitution (Bible) remains to be the ultimate authority that limits the power of leaders (Theologians, Pastors, Bishops, etc.), the people (congregants) are free to pursue their potential. When people are willing to trade their freedom for security, they are asking for an oligarchy.
ReplyDeleteI hope the President pulls the Democratic members of Congress into his office and gives them a good spanking. I believe he is ready to move beyond partisan politics. But, the antics of the Democratic "leaders" has been abysmal, particularly on this bailout stuff.
ReplyDeleteHaving two different ideologies is fine. I'm not particularly fond of the two party system. But, I can see why some think it has merit. However, there is a time to get things done and just because you come at an issue from a different ideology doesn't mean you can't come to pragmatic solution and just get some things done!
I like that analogy Ken.. thx for the feedback!
ReplyDeleteDo you think that there is a supreme court (interpreter of the constitution/bible) in the church?
Ditto what you said about the president and congressional democrats Brian.
ReplyDeleteI am a pragmatist.. I think that pragmatists like me sometimes compromise and rationalize a bit too much. I think that congress needs to get the pragmatic pork out of the bailout and stop appeasing their fellow legislators to get the bill passed.
Interesting... I don't see the pork as pragmatism, but greed. I don't know whatever happened to the line item veto. But, it's time for the President to be able to only approve the parts of a spending bill he wants to approve. I'm sick to death of the pork. Let's have a bill that is just what that bill is. If you want a bridge in your homestate, that should have to stand on its own merits.
ReplyDeleteInteresting... I don't see the pork as pragmatism, but greed. I don't know whatever happened to the line item veto. But, it's time for the President to be able to only approve the parts of a spending bill he wants to approve. I'm sick to death of the pork. Let's have a bill that is just what that bill is. If you want a bridge in your homestate, that should have to stand on its own merits.
ReplyDeleteThe pragmatism comes into play when the pragmatists capitulate to the powerful greedy legislators.. it is the way that they rationalize achieving the "greater good".
ReplyDeleteAh, now I see. Ironically, a friend was just explaining it to me. YOu say "I don't like your spending on that library." So, they say "OK, I''ll give you a bridge."
ReplyDelete"Do you think that there is a supreme court (interpreter of the constitution/bible) in the church?"
ReplyDeleteThe Pope? :)
Just kidding. I think on major issues (essentials to the faith, or 'orthodoxy') the Bible clearly interprets itself. In the minor issues (non-essentials to the faith), let those who differ agree to disagree. It may create sectarianism, but it doesn't have to be hateful. The overruling law of the constitution of the Bible is this; "Love the Lord your God with your all and love your neighbor as yourself". Those who interpret and uphold the rule of the constitution are to do so in the character of love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithflness, gentleness and self-control. Against such there is no law. The church is not perfect, but it should at least reflect the perfect One. Jesus walked this earth as a man, and as a man He set the ultimate example for His church. He is God's final Word to man.