Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I would not normally advocate a single Party dominance in Govt. But, these times may require that. Congress, specifically the Senate, is ineffectual due to political agenda. They have lost any sense of thoughtful representation. In normal situations, we can afford the political aspects. These are not normal times.
This is true, tho, I don't trust either party enough to want either to have full control.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 7 Wishes
That said, it may be too early to tell. There are actually a lot of similarities in terms of polarization, unpopularity, and the possibility of the President's opposition taking over Congress to Clinton two years into his term (and to a lesser extent Reagan and GW Bush 2 years into their first terms) and look what happened. A LOT (both good and bad) can happen in 2 years and time will tell. There was a Barron's article yesterday (I can't find it now... ) making a quote about suddenly lower GDP growth and how the economy is screwed and they noted how this quote was made by the Wall St. Journal in 2003, not now, but the economy didn't keep heading south.
This is a good point, but the economy is already screwed so it's a bit different. I really sway with Obama. I watched him on the view on youtube this morning and he sounds so reasonable.
no matter how many major and influential parties we have in the US, most people will not have the exact beliefs on issues as any one party. Just as it is today with having 2 main parties, many people will support maybe the majority of one parties platforms on issues, but still have things they don't agree with. If you add another party in the mix, it will be the same thing with most of their supporters.
Yes, overwhelmed is the perfect word to describe it. I'm not sure what to think. Initially, I spent a lot of time reading up on his proposed policies, his background, his rhetoric. I spent time on Hillary as well. I read her book, and their policies were similar. It was ok and made sense at the time. The policies don't make sense in this current climate. Like health care. There are too many unemployed people, and an employed population is necessary for the reform to work.
I still need to spend a good amount of time investigating what's exactly happening to have any solid opinions on Obama. Beyond him, tho, are the party holders. They're such a turn off.
Obama promised healthcare reform during the campaign, and that's exactly what he did. Healthcare reform bill PASSED. So where is the lie in that? You say you read up on his platform BEFORE you voted for him. What didn't you understand about his saying healthcare reform would be something he would do?
"An employed population is necessary for reform to work"?....EXACTLY HOW SO? Tell us how unemployment relates to the healthcare reform bill with was passed.
I would not normally advocate a single Party dominance in Govt. But, these times may require that. Congress, specifically the Senate, is ineffectual due to political agenda. They have lost any sense of thoughtful representation. In normal situations, we can afford the political aspects. These are not normal times.
How interesting.
You think we need one party rule...and happen to be a leftist.
This post assumes that all Democratic voters are leftist socialist radicals. There are moderates on our side as well.
yep, which means the moderate vote will be split three ways, and that still means that the liberals still maintain power for a long time to come.
if you want to see what kind of candidate would win a three party race, just look at the republican primaries in 2008. you had two good solid conservatives in romney and huckabee, and a RINO in john mccain. the conservative vote was split between huckabee and romney, the moderate vote was split three ways, and the liberal vote all went to mccain.
or look at the 1992 election with three candidates, clinton, bush 41, and perot. perot took enough votes away from bush 41 which ultimately cost bush the election. it meant that in states that bush should have won, clinton won.
I consider myself an Independent. I voted for Obama in 2008, but I probably won't vote for him again. I look to the left charging the Tea Party and frankly, I see a bunch of loons pointing fingers. I look to the right at Beck et al with their crap about gay marriage, again, another lot of full of loons. Both the dems/liberals and Repubs/conservatives seem to have lost their minds. And they do much of the same thing - war, cries of racism, exude laziness, steal, etc. At this juncture, I don't think it matters who is POTUS or who has the house majority.
How about, "NO POLITICAL PARTIES"?
Let the elected representatives represent the PEOPLE that elected them and NO ONE else.
As someone who is socially rather liberal but fiscally conservative, I can't find a sole to vote for. The blue dogs used to be a close fit, but their main party is so far left it is ridiculous.
Obama promised healthcare reform during the campaign, and that's exactly what he did. Healthcare reform bill PASSED. So where is the lie in that? You say you read up on his platform BEFORE you voted for him. What didn't you understand about his saying healthcare reform would be something he would do?
"An employed population is necessary for reform to work"?....EXACTLY HOW SO? Tell us how unemployment relates to the healthcare reform bill with was passed.
To be clear, I'm not anti-reform. I just think the timing is off and I'm using my own common sense here. Correct me where you find me to be wrong.
Did you read his proposed policies in '08? The issues here are stratified and I'll attempt to break it down. How did he intend to pay for reform?
1. The way he planned to pay for it, in part, was via savings. This is highly dependent on a well-employed workforce and healthy economy. You can state the current costs for the uninsured will reduce the deficit by $100 (random number for ease) based on unemployed rates and those that subsist on the public dole. Ok, implement reform based on monies coming in. With the economy in the tank, and a greater number of uninsured, costs are actually higher than when the proposal was drafted and that reduction in deficit is going to go down. The numbers have simply changed.
2. Another way he planned on paying for it was by taxing investment income. Well, obviously that's problematic given this deep recession. The projected income from those taxes is no longer a reality since everybody has been losing money and a loss of money equals a loss of tax on that revenue.
3. Another way he planned to pay for it is with tanning bed taxes and similar. I believe that tax started this past July1. Again, common sense tells me that since our economy is in the tank, consumer confidence is at an all time low, people might not continue to spend on frivolous items as we once did. It's no secret that people aren't generally spending. So, this hurts business in a recession as well as questionable assumptions on monies that might not manifest.
Another issue when it comes to reform and unemployment is for those that are already unemployed. Businesses that are struggling are not going to find re-hiring attractive with added costs. Companies are making due with a smaller workforce. It's a fragile economy and we should tread lightly.
Another issue is that unemployment extensions are adding to the national deficit at record rates. We're just going deeper into debt. That's not to say we won't find our way out of this mess, but how will the economy be catapulted if businesses are concerned with added costs and unwilling to rehire; consumers unwilling to spend; and small businesses taking a hit with added taxes; and monies that were to be relied upon are drying up? It's a catch-22.
Let the elected representatives represent the PEOPLE that elected them and NO ONE else.
As someone who is socially rather liberal but fiscally conservative, I can't find a sole to vote for. The blue dogs used to be a close fit, but their main party is so far left it is ridiculous.
Sure, that would be great, but it's really dependent on the people. Are the people really concerned about the issues? Do they give a hoot about reform? I like the Reform Party, but I never hear anything about them in the MSM. You can read about their platform here.
I don't know if most folk give a hoot. Maybe that's pessimistic and just based on net hyperbole. As noted in the OP, folk seem to be very interested in focusing on the fringe on the right (Tea Party racists), the fringe on the left (Farrakhan, Wright, etc). People that do not even have a seat at the table, but the drama is just too inciting I guess. The issues discussed and that decide votes...gay marriage? Yep, so many are more concerned with the going-ons in somebody's bedroom vs the issues that actually affect our lives.
Abortion is another one, and I can understand moral objections, but the reality is that the right and left political machines will never allow abortion to become illegal because it's one of the greatest political tools they both have in their tool boxes. It's no difference with all the obsessions about racism; meaningless distractions.
Sure, that would be great, but it's really dependent on the people. Are the people really concerned about the issues? Do they give a hoot about reform? I like the Reform Party, but I never hear anything about them in the MSM. You can read about their platform here.
I don't know if most folk give a hoot. Maybe that's pessimistic and just based on net hyperbole. As noted in the OP, folk seem to be very interested in focusing on the fringe on the right (Tea Party racists), the fringe on the left (Farrakhan, Wright, etc). People that do not even have a seat at the table, but the drama is just too inciting I guess. The issues discussed and that decide votes...gay marriage? Yep, so many are more concerned with the going-ons in somebody's bedroom vs the issues that actually affect our lives.
Abortion is another one, and I can understand moral objections, but the reality is that the right and left political machines will never allow abortion to become illegal because it's one of the greatest political tools they both have in their tool boxes. It's no difference with all the obsessions about racism; meaningless distractions.
Well said and I agree, especially with the abortion one. I don't even care whether a candidate is pro-life or pro-choice anymore. Basically the supreme court has determined abortion to be a "constitutional" right. To change that, historically is took a "constitutional amendment". I don't see the bozos from any party agreeing on a constitutional amendment this day and age.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
) making a quote about suddenly lower GDP growth and how the economy is screwed and they noted how this quote was made by the Wall St. Journal in 2003, not now, but the economy didn't keep heading south.
