Long-term economic planning

Beginning with Reaganomics and really ramping up with dubyanomics, this part of the long-term plan has succeeded wildly:

"The United States ranks behind every industrial nation except France in the percentage of overall economic activity devoted to manufacturing"
www.nytimes.com/2009/07/21/business/economy/21manufacture.html?_r=3&scp=2&sq=general+electric&st=nyt

Now, as Americans we need to ask - WHY is this a good thing? Why do we want to support efforts to decrease manufacturing in the United States? Many Americans think it's a great idea, as evidenced by their support of those who push hard for that agenda. I, for one, do not. I think an increase in manufacturing would be better. That is a big reason why I am vehemently opposed to the new conservatism and the Republican Party.

But it played well to the base at the time

In fifty years, which opinion will be more humiliating to our modern Conservatives: global climate change denial, opposing gay marriage, maintaining fossil fuel dependency, opposing healthcare for all? Better suggestions?

Past winners: segregation instead of civil rights, workers should not be allowed to organize, organ transplants prevent souls from reaching Heaven, opposing pain relief medications during childbirth because it denies women the glory of knowing Christ's pain, allowing women the right to vote will destroy democracy, Social Security will bankrupt America, providing healthcare to senior citizens will destroy the medical system for everybody, having unemployment insurance will bankrupt America, WWII is a European problem and we should stay out of it.

What's the rush?

Just slow down, stay the course for now, everything is fine the way it is so don't mess it up. The right is repeating their same old mantra over and over again about improving healthcare in America.

Why do anything? Well, doing nothing kills 22,000 people per year. Six 9/11s per year, and that's deemed acceptable by the right.

What's the rush? Uh, this was originally debated in 1945. After over 60 years, you still think that improvements are too fast in coming?

open.salon.com/blog/david_sirota/2009/07/23/as_22k_die_annually_elites_ask_why_rush_on_health_care

Of course, nobody really suffers with staying the course, and following medical treatments based on cost, rather than patient's well being, is the best course:
petaluma360.com/article/20090723/COMMUNITY/907239997/1362?Title=Petaluma-man-3rd-local-swine-flu-death

Plus, everything about Canada's system is horrible, so we can't change the US system:
economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/08/how-canadians-feel-about-their-health-care-wait-times-and-spending/
www.snopes.com/politics/medical/canada.asp

Lastly, to combat the mythical conservative talking point about good folk have jobs and therefore insurance, and therefore they're better off with no improvement to US healthcare, consider how typical this scenario is becoming: work, save, be insured, but get sick. Congratulations, you're bankrupt and will have your salary garnished if you ever work again. Why do conservatives think is this OK? Why do so many believe the status quo the best possible solution for America? Why is even discussing change "off the table" for conservatives?

"My husband and I were sued by one of our doctors for being unable to pay
our healthcare bill. We lost our house, had to declare bankruptcy and we
moved to our daughter's basement." - Donna, Chicago IL
www.prescriptionforchange.org/video.html?bcpid=1767981878&bclid=1551048398&bctid=1713712313

theplumline.whorunsgov.com/republican-party/new-ad-bashes-gop-for-blocking-health-care-reform-for-15-years

Bush's legacy

This sums up how history will see Bush/Cheney, and their legacy of torturing children to extract false confessions from their parents:

http://www.opednews.com/articles/President-Carter-Many-Chi-by-Ralph-Lopez-090717-322.html

Today, even among Republicans, it is difficult to find those who will embrace Richard Nixon, though for a while he was every bit the perceived victim of "left-wing hate" that Bush and Cheney are now. Incredibly, to compare Nixon to Bush-Cheney is to do a deeply flawed man a disservice. Nixon inherited Vietnam. He did not orchestrate from whole cloth a campaign to link Saddam with 9/11, and strenuously push to war despite the objections of his countrymen and the world. Nixon spied on political enemies. He did not use a tragedy to illegally spy on millions, the true numbers of which we still do not know because congress has never investigated.

It's almost possible to feel sorry for the shifty, friendless Nixon. It is less possible to feel so for the smirking Bush, who thought nothing of telling soldier's families that war critics were saying that their loved ones "had died in vain."

GOPper leadership

Potential GOPper candidate for prez Bobby Jindal publicly ridiculed Obama for the economic stimulus and declared that he would turn down the federal stimulus for Louisiana, because it is a failure. Pointing out that this political posturing would hurt his own citizens had no effect, the posturing was more important than the people.

The reality - he ended up accepting the stimulus from Obama, but takes credit for himself and makes a big hoopla over presenting the money to the people.

http://thinkprogress.org/2009/07/21/jindal-stimulus-check/

Republicans - welcome to the integrity of your future leaders.