Jump to content

Is it time for a new party?


Boston Guy
This topic is 6682 days old and is no longer open for new replies.  Replies are automatically disabled after two years of inactivity.  Please create a new topic instead of posting here.  

Recommended Posts

I don't post in this forum often. Politics interests me greatly, but I engage in political discussions so often in other parts of my life that I usually don't feel like discussing it when I come here.

 

But I found myself thinking this morning about the situation in the US. We have two main parties and a bunch of small parties that seem to me to reflect views either to the right of the Republicans or the left of the Democrats. That may not be accurate, but it's an accurate representation of how well they have marketed their positions to me, if no one else.

 

I have little interest in joining or supporting a small political party on the outskirts. They have no hope of influencing anything, really, and seem to function more as spoilers.

 

But a lot of Americans are unhappy with their party. Many Republicans claim to be unhappy with how the party has been hijacked by the religious right. A friend of mine calls them "the whackos on the right." And many Democrats seem to feel that the party has lost its way and often sounds just like the Republicans on a lot of the issues. I used to think that the Democrats were the party with the real social conscience, but it's hard to hold that view now.

 

So this morning I started wondering if it was time for a new party in America. Not a small party to the left or the right, but a party smack dab in the middle with strong positions that might have a chance of pulling a lot of people from either of the two main parties.

 

If I were desiging such a party, I would want it to support:

 

* The Bill of Rights, including strong support for First Amendment rights; strong support for real separation of church and state; and strong support for personal privacy and keeping the government out of our houses, much less our bedrooms. Stemming from this, of course, would be support for a woman's right to choose.

 

* A strong defense. Unless we defend America, we could find ourselves in a position where its existence was threatened. Again. So a strong defense is important to me -- but that should be a smart defense, rather than one necessarily built on the premises that were in use throughout the cold war. And that means also paying the armed forces a real living wage, providing good health care, education benefits after, etc. People who are willing to serve in the armed forces should be proud to do so and proud of the country and organization they serve.

 

* A tax policy that encourages individual initiative and entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurs have been the engine through which America has grown strong. America's traditional approach to entrepreneurship really separates America from Europe, where it's much more difficult to start a company and almost impossible if you have had a previous failed business. Here, we see a previous failure as simply good experience on the way to success.

 

* A tax policy that is simple, clear and easy to understand. A tax policy that doesn't change often and can be relied upon when making long-term, strategic decisions. A tax policy that that isn't full of loopholes.

 

* A tax policy that recognizes that some people really do need help from the rest of us. Progressive taxation is necessary at some level in order to allow the nation to provide support for the neediest among us.

 

* A foreign policy that is based on the concept of a strong America but grounded in the idea that it is not sensible to try to go it alone. Strong alliances should be a fundamental part of how we interact with the rest of the world.

 

* Free trade, but with strong government support for initiatives that can help make our businesses more competitive. Support for research in academia and in business.

 

* A smart approach to research and science. Politicians are not scientists and often make bad decisions based on politics instead of science. Decisions on scientific matters should be informed ones based on the best knowledge we can bring to bear.

 

* Support for communities and families -- all families.

 

* Fiscal discipline. The US budget should be balanced each year and, if possible, in surplus. The debt must be brought down.

 

* Support for the states: The US simply cannot do everything, nor are many things best handled at the national level. Issues and concerns that can be best dealt with at the local or state level should be.

 

* Health care for all Americans. What's more basic than keeping your citizens healthy?

 

* Strong support for protection of the environment.

 

* The concept that government is often not the best place for all solutions to exist. Corporations should not be running the Army or the Senate. But the US government is a huge organization. A careful study of its activities would most likely identify many things that it does that can be done better, smarter and more cost-effectively -- with a much more diligent eye toward customer service -- by business. When a function can be done at least as well by a private organization as by the government, the choice should normally be to let the organization handle the task and let the government monitor its activities to make sure its providing the services effectively. Small government is a good thing when possible.

 

 

Those would be my preferences. I'm sure others would have their own set of choices and perhaps it would be difficult to pull together a "strong-defense, pro-business, pro-environment, strong-social-issues, centrist" party. But if someone could put together such a party, would it succeed?

 

BG

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 29
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Setting aside what you may have been taught in sixth grade, neither of the parties has a consistent political philosophy, and both already cater to "smack dab in the middle with strong positions that might have a chance of pulling a lot of people from either side." Have you noticed that Schwarzenegger and Giuliani have very little in common with Hatch and DeLay? They're just working in the same brothel, putting together whatever kind of coalition will get 51% of the vote. In fact, the objective is to avoid 52%, because that means bringing in a few million more voters whose priorities have to be accommodated.

 

The Blues and the Reds are like the Yankees and Sox. You can align yourself with either side, and devote hours to arguing their respective merits, but in the bottom of the 9th, they're both playing the same game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Merlin

When a third party arises which has a popular position, that position is quickly assumed by one of the two parties and the third party disappears. The Green Party has little chance of surviving, for instance, because if its program becomes more popular, the Dems will become more radically green, while the Republicans will become more green. Multiple parties can exist in countries with Parliamentary forms of representative democracy, because the Prime Minister is chosen by a majority from the parliment itself, and the majority may consist of a coalition of several parties. In the Presidential system, such as the US, the President is chosen seperately from one party only, which may be a minority of voters. This means that a third party has little chance of electing the President or of controlling a house of Congress.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RE: No, it isn't time.

 

>Setting aside what you may have been taught in sixth grade,

>neither of the parties has a consistent political philosophy,

 

I don't think that is accurate. Democratic Party policies consistently favor the less prosperous, and this has been true since the 19th century. Republican policies favor the more prosperous, and have for a comparable period. There is virtually no difference between the tax policy of Bush and that championed by Reagan twenty years ago; both believe in stimulating growth by tax cuts for the rich. Reagan reduced the top marginal income tax rate, which few Americans actually pay, while eliminating deductions like the one for interest on credit card debt and personal loans, which benefited the less-well-off. Bush favors tax cuts that give little relief except to the biggest taxpayers, which cutting programs that provide services to the less-well-off. Clinton, on the other hand, championed the Earned Income Tax Credit program, which has funneled billions of dollars to the working poor. If that doesn't present you with a clear choice, what the hell would?

 

The same is true of workplace and environmental policies; Bush, like Reagan, has named industry lobbyists to federal positions in charge of policing workplace safety and environmental compliance in the very industries those people used to represent. The coal industry is an excellent example of this.

 

>and both already cater to "smack dab in the middle with strong

>positions that might have a chance of pulling a lot of people

>from either side."

 

It would be more accurate to say that both have a certain base of voters who support their real policies, but since that base is not enough to provide victory both try to characterize their policies in ways that appeal to moderates. Bush's tax cuts went primarily to the top 1 or 2 percent of taxpayers, and his position in favor of ending the estate tax benefits only the 3 percent of Americans whose estates are large enough at death to require the payment of any tax; but instead he goes around the country making speeches in which he talks about "giving the American people back their own money" and "ending the death tax so that family farms won't have to be sold." If he told each audience, "I want to end the estate tax, but that really has nothing to do with any of you folks because only 3% of the people who die in this country each year leave a large enough estate to pay any tax," what would the reaction be? So instead he describes his policies in ways that make them seem different from what they are.

 

 

>Have you noticed that Schwarzenegger and

>Giuliani have very little in common with Hatch and DeLay?

 

Nonsense. Anyone who lived in New York during the Giuliani era remembers the ruthless cuts in services that Giuliani forced through because he, like all Republicans these days, favors service cuts over tax increases to balance budgets. If you look at the budget Arnold just approved in California, you will see he is doing exactly the same thing -- there are no tax increases, just more borrowing and service cuts. These guys differ from Hatch and DeLay on social issues, but not on economic issues that have a far greater effect on their constituents. They distinguish themselves on issues like gay marriage that affect only a tiny percentage of the population, but not on the economic issues that affect ALL of the population.

 

Republicans can't justify their economic policies in terms of the interests of most people, so they either lie about the affect of those policies the way Bush does or change the subject to social issues. In your case, their strategy seems to be working.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree, however, I don't foresee any movement launching a new and independent-minded party soon. The far right and religious right will continue to haunt the republicans, because that is where they are able to find some influence. The far left, especially those most concerned over social and enviromental issues, will cling to the democratic party, simply out of fear that any sort of discord will hand the republicans a victory. This, in particular, is a real vicious circle.

I have a bad feeling that it's going to take a real catastrophe for america to open itself to new ideas,and possible sacrifice (especially in terms of oil, and the automobile)

 

Trix

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RE: No, it isn't time.

 

> Clinton, on the other

>hand, championed the Earned Income Tax Credit program, which

>has funneled billions of dollars to the working poor. If that

>doesn't present you with a clear choice, what the hell would?

 

Let's see now, who was it that signed Earned Income Credit into law? Oh, that's right -- Richard Nixon.

 

>The same is true of workplace and environmental policies

 

Let's see now, who was it that created the Environmental Protection Agency and OSHA? Oh, that's right -- Richard Nixon.

 

 

> These

>guys differ from Hatch and DeLay on social issues, but not on

>economic issues that have a far greater effect on their

>constituents.

 

On those, Schwarzenegger and Giuliani are much more like Bill Clinton, who helped repeal welfare benefits for millions of American families.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"I have a bad feeling that it's going to take a real catastrophe for america to open itself to new ideas,and possible sacrifice (especially in terms of oil, and the automobile)"

 

I agree, but without the hysterics ("a real catastrophe"). Our system is one of democratic capitalism. When the need is truly apparent, the solutions will be forthcoming. That is, when those who make the solid money decisions (i.e., both companies and consumers acting in their economic interest) are convinced that the era of cheap oil is truly over, the solutions -- which are already at hand -- will be pretty swiftly implemented. That they have not been yet is a collective, systemic economic decision -- not some kind of plot.

 

Evidence? Two things. 1) When heating oil began to be permanently more expensive in the early 70's, almost the entire cold part of the nation very quickly converted to double paned windows and better insulation, and new buildings were swiftly designed to meet that real need. The beneficial results of that adjustment are still with us. 2) When the first real gas crisis hit in the late 70's, the automobile fleet quickly (in a matter of a few years) downsized: the end of V8s, smaller and more efficient cars, and especially, the rise of the (still best selling) light pickup truck were the response. All accomplished within a few years.

 

It will happen again, but when the need is real. It seems to me that there is a difference between prediction and need. There are a lot of people peering into the future and making recommendations on the basis of what they see -- and a good thing too. The press gives them appropriate space, people hear their ideas, and scientists and technologists act on them. Solutions are in fact developed as a result of many of these recommendations. Those lighter-sipping cars and alternative-source power cells and other next-generation applications are already around. But their widespread adoption awaits the actual emergence of real need, and the ones that succeed will be the ones that respond to the actual dynamic of that need when it occurs.

 

What this means is not catastrophe but periods of adjustment in which the new reality becomes apparent to the general public and to those who wish to continue to do profitable business. Widespread social changes only occur when the need to change is unavoidable. When that day dawns, and the general public and the profit-making industrial sectors agree, solutions will be quickly implemented.

 

There is another way. Instead of democratic capitalism we could try what most of Western Europe does -- a soft version of a state-controlled command economy. The state can decide to pursue a policy on the basis of future-oriented recommendations. The prerequisites for this include a very large tax base -- far higher on a per capita basis than the US has -- to fund these projects, as they will not happen spontaneously without actual need; a fairly homogeneous population to implement social programs, like universal health care and centralized educational curricula; and a reasonably compact population/land mass ratio for the implementation of public transit as a comprehensive alternative to the automobile.

 

None of these can really be accomplished in the US. We have very little tradition of successful socialist financing of public projects, with the exception of TVA and public power projects in the Depression and Social Security. Medicare is popular, but no one thinks it is a permanent solution to health care needs. Our population is culturally too diverse to have a single health care or educational system for everyone. And our geography prevents any more than regional public transportation for densely-populated metropolitan areas. You still have to use car and truck transportation within 100 miles of New York City -- the distances are so great and the population density so relatively small that rail transit outside the city and main suburbs can't be made to work. And finally, of course, we have no accepted tradition of successful coercive government to draw on as a model for new action, as most European and Asian societies do.

 

This is why the social democratic model which the Democrats keep tiptoeing up to and then abandoning will not succeed here, and why Kerry, among others, is reluctant to tell the nation what he really prefers -- which is in fact a French/German European state-determined model of economic and policy development. In a word, it cannot win elections here. Deep down, the electorate knows that the Democrats want to raise their taxes and tell them how to run their lives by creating compulsory, top-down, "expert"-driven systems, but does not have the competence to make them work. This is the internal political contradiction that haunts the Democrats, and will likely keep them from power until they can somehow resolve it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RE: No, it isn't time.

 

>> Clinton, on the other

>>hand, championed the Earned Income Tax Credit program, which

>>has funneled billions of dollars to the working poor. If

>that

>>doesn't present you with a clear choice, what the hell would?

 

 

>Let's see now, who was it that signed Earned Income Credit

>into law? Oh, that's right -- Richard Nixon.

>

>>The same is true of workplace and environmental policies

>

>Let's see now, who was it that created the Environmental

>Protection Agency and OSHA? Oh, that's right -- Richard

>Nixon.

 

That's right. And what have Nixon's successors done with that legacy? Clinton vastly expanded the EIC. Reagan and Bush have tried to gut the EPA.

 

>> These

>>guys differ from Hatch and DeLay on social issues, but not

>on

>>economic issues that have a far greater effect on their

>>constituents.

 

>On those, Schwarzenegger and Giuliani are much more like Bill

>Clinton, who helped repeal welfare benefits for millions of

>American families.

 

Welfare benefits were not going to "families," but to single mothers who couldn't work or get married without losing their benefits. The AFDC program was created generations ago as a means of helping widows with children until they could remarry. It became a program that encouraged single mothers to continue a situation that offered them no chance to improve their lives. Clinton was right to replace it with programs that reward work and don't penalize people for seeking a better life. Opponents of the change predicted at the time that America's cities would soon be as choked with beggars and homeless people as Calcutta. In case you haven't noticed, they were wrong.

 

If you really think there is no difference between the parties, then don't bother to vote. The people who took that position in 2000 helped elect a president who attacked a country that, as we now know, was no threat to us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RE: No, it isn't time.

 

>If you really think there is no difference between the

>parties, then don't bother to vote. The people who took that

>position in 2000 helped elect a president who attacked a

>country that, as we now know, was no threat to us.

 

 

You're suggesting a vote for John Kerry, who never saw a war he didn't like?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RE: No, it isn't time.

 

>>Clinton vastly expanded the EIC.<<

 

No he didn't. EIC has always been the darling of conservatives, who never quite realized that it's like dropping $100 bills from a helicopter over a city where poor people live. Most of the money doesn't reach its intended target.

 

"The EIC was enacted in 1975, and expanded in 1986, 1990, and 1993. It has had strong support from Presidents Reagan, Bush, and Clinton."

 

http://mdchildcare.org/mdcfc/public_policy/whatiseic.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Merlin

RE: No, it isn't time.

 

It is still more accurate to say that the Republican party is and has always been pro-business, and pro-private property. For good reason. Our great affluence is the result of the free enterprise system, and it is beyond question that it has and does help the people at all levels of income. Conversly history clearly shows that socialism does not work. The Democrats have never been able to deal honestly with this basic issues, and you will never hear a Democrat politician say a good word for free enterprise. Thus any law which is favorable to business and business growth will be condemned by the Dems as "helping the rich". The Dem politicians believe that the way to political power is to encourage class hatred, i.e. hatred of the rich and a desire to hurt the rich. And they don't much care how much damage they do to the economy. They pretend to want to help the poor, and low wage earners. But then they damand massive, almost unlimited immigration--because of course, by increasing the number of poor people they get more votes. If they really cared about low wages would they want a massive influx of people eager to work for lower wages? Obviously not. If they cared about the environment would they demand the importation of 2 million more people a year, another city the size of Los Angeles every 5 year? If they cared about the number of people without healh insurance would they want to import millions more? Of course not.

Of course not. Democrat politician want to be elected and nothing else matters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RE: No, it isn't time.

 

>>If you really think there is no difference between the

>>parties, then don't bother to vote. The people who took

>that

>>position in 2000 helped elect a president who attacked a

>>country that, as we now know, was no threat to us.

 

>You're suggesting a vote for John Kerry, who never saw a war

>he didn't like?

 

So far as I know, Kerry has never signed on to Bush's doctrine of "pre-emptive war," perhaps the most dangerous foreign policy doctrine in recent history. It is a doctrine in which we are to start a war against a country that has not attacked us or threatened to attack us, solely on the basis that intelligence tells us the country is a threat to us. You see what has happened thus far as a result of this doctrine. If you like what you see, support Bush.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RE: No, it isn't time.

 

>>But then they demand massive, almost unlimited immigration--because of course, by increasing the number of poor people they get more votes. If they really cared about low wages would they want a massive influx of people eager to work for lower wages? Obviously not.<<

 

You have to admit they're pretty smart, though, to smuggle in all those illegal immigrants under the nose of a Republican administration -- and then find them jobs in wholly-owned and operated Democratic businesses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RE: No, it isn't time.

 

>>>Clinton vastly expanded the EIC.<<

 

>No he didn't.

 

Yes, he did. Clinton submitted budgets that expanded EIC at a time when he was proposing cuts in many other programs to deal with the $300 billion deficit he inherited from Reagan and Bush.

 

>EIC has always been the darling of

>conservatives,

 

Then how is it that Clinton's 1993 budget did not get a single Republican vote?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RE: No, it isn't time.

 

> The

>Democrats have never been able to deal honestly with this

>basic issues, and you will never hear a Democrat politician

>say a good word for free enterprise. Thus any law which is

>favorable to business and business growth will be condemned by

>the Dems as "helping the rich".

 

That is a crock of shit. Clinton had a long history of aggressively bringing business to his state long before he became president, and he continued those efforts in the White House. Kerry's record as senator shows that he has done many favors for industries that are big employers in his state as well. That is true of almost every senator from either party.

 

 

>The Dem politicians believe

>that the way to political power is to encourage class hatred,

 

More shit. It is the Republicans who encourage class hatred with their constant talk of the "elite media" and "limousine liberals." Republican rhetoric attempts to persuade people that there is a secret conspiracy of wealthy liberals to control the media and prevent "ordinary people" from learning the truth, while subverting our "traditional institutions." In fact, this rhetoric is just an edited version of the "world Jewish conspiracy" rhetoric that the Nazis used. Watch conservative pundits like Joe Scarborough any night of the week and you will hear them accuse the "elite media" of deliberately suppressing news stories that are favorable to the conservative cause.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RE: No, it isn't time.

 

> Conversly

>history clearly shows that socialism does not work.

 

The history of this country shows that there are a lot of big corporations that want to hold on to their profits when business is good, but "socialize" their losses when business is bad -- the airline industry bailout of 2001 being an excellent example. Big corporations also like to "socialize" their costs by imposing them on the public rather than paying the costs themselves; that is what happens when business demands that taxpayers foot the bill for cleaning up industrial pollution in the air and water, which is really a cost of doing business for the industries that pollute. In America, socialism is more popular with the rich than it is with the poor.

 

>They pretend to want to help the poor, and low wage earners.

>But then they damand massive, almost unlimited

>immigration--because of course, by increasing the number of

>poor people they get more votes. If they really cared about

>low wages would they want a massive influx of people eager to

>work for lower wages? Obviously not.

 

Still more shit. Immigrants who work at entry-level jobs may well expand the pool of people willing to work for minimum wage, but that pool happens to be a small percentage of the work force as it is. And another effect of increasing the number of people willing to work for low wages is to slow inflation, one of the greatest threats to middle class prosperity. The trade deals and immigration policies of the Clinton years may well have put downward pressure on wages at the lower end of the wage scale, but they also put downward pressure on prices of goods and services that working families need to buy.

 

 

> If they cared about the number of people without healh

>insurance would they want to import millions more? Of course

>not.

 

By that logic we should adopt China's policy of one child per family, since every addition to the population whether by birth or immigration increases the cost of providing health care. What nonsense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RE: No, it isn't time.

 

>Big corporations also like to "socialize"

>their costs by imposing them on the public rather than paying

>the costs themselves...

 

Or to give another example, one I heard on the radio just today, in the last decade the State of Alabama has conceded $700 million in tax incentives to car manufacurers, to lure them to build plants there. According to the piece, that works out to about $100K per job created.

 

I'm not saying it's bad in the long run, but "socialized" manufacturing did run through my head.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RE: No, it isn't time.

 

>Clinton submitted budgets that expanded EIC at a

>time when he was proposing cuts in many other programs to deal

>with the $300 billion deficit he inherited from Reagan and

>Bush.

 

The actual increase in 1993 legislation was about $4 billion a year -- the cost of an aircraft carrier.

 

>how is it that Clinton's 1993 budget did not get a single

>Republican vote?

 

 

Clinton did not have a 1993 budget, because he wasn't even elected at the start of that fiscal year. If you mean the 1994 budget, you're playing the same game as Bush when he says Kerry voted for a nuclear dump in Nevada. When there are 100 provisions in a bill, a vote against it does not mean a vote against all 100 items.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest rohale

There was a time in this country's history when a political movement began and had a chance to be successful if their leader had listened to his advisers. In 1992, H. Ross Perot went on the Larry King Show and announced his candidacy for the presidency of the United States. Almost overnight, an unknown Texan business man suddenly had 38% of the public responding to his candicacy. He eclipsed both then Governor Clinton and then President Bush in favorable ratings.

 

He had a simple message, the government was spending more money than it was taking in revenues. He coined the phrase " Spending Our Children's Money ". He had charisma, he was no-nonsense, he was the CEO of his own company. At the time there was a general feeling within the press corps that Ross Perot had a grudge against President Bush. His message seemed to resonate with the voters. Mr Perot even had two masterful political tacticians, Ed Rollins and Hamilton Jordan. Mr Rollins had worked on Ronald Reagan's presidential bid of 1980 and Reagan's re-election bid of 1984. Mr Jordan worked on Jimmy Carter's presidential bid in 1976 and re-election bid in 1980. They were both considered the best in their respective field at the time. It seemed like a match made in heavan. He definitely had the Bush White House in panic mode, whilst the Clinton camp remained silent and watched from a distance as the Bush campaign began their assault on the Ross Perot and his presidential bid.

 

In mid 1992, some how everything went wrong in the Perot camp. Mr Rollins quit the team citing the arrogance of Ross Perot. He stated that Perot wasn't listening to expert advice on handling the Bush attacks. After a while as Perot's numbers started to sink, then came the political shock in the summer of 1992. Mr Perot bowed out of the presidential race in the middle of the Democratic Convention, just as the Democrats were underway to nominate Bill Clinton as their presidential nominee. It caught the country by suprise. Even more suprisng was at the end of that week, most of Ross Perot's support went to then Governor Clinton whose ratings shot up overnight surpassing President Bush, in the process Mr Clinton never looked back as he stayed ahead of Mr Bush right up to election day. Even though Mr Perot made a comeback of sorts by announcing his presidential bid for a second time and garnered 19% of the vote.

 

Ross Perot made one fundamental mistake. Newt Gingrich a master of politics sensed that Perot's movement were not going to go away overnight and started courting Perot and tried to entice as many Perot supporters as he possibly could for the Republican cause which beared fruit in 1994 with the wallup of the Democrats in the House and the Senate and brought the Republicans into the legislative power game. Had Mr Perot invested money in the Reform Party in those critical years between 1992 and 1995. They might have had a fighting chance. In 1996, the Reform Party had Mr Lamb and Mr Perot fighting for the nomination, the outcome proved that the general public didn't really care about Mr Perot anymore and he soon faded away from public grace.

 

Teddy Roosevelt ran as an independant, John Anderson also ran as an independant in 1980. Neither of these two candidates came close to what Ross Perot almost achieved in 1992. Could there be another third political party in the future, the possibilities are always there, but it takes a huge financial commitment to do so. It probably won't happen for a long time to come.

 

Rohale

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest rohale

>Ross Perot, Teddy Roosevelt, John Anderson, and George

>Wallace were a lot of things -- a new party, was not one of

>them. Political parties do not disappear when one man ceases

>to lead a collection of followers.

 

 

I disagree with you, Ross Perot did form a political party called the Reform Party. The problem is without financial backing a political party can cease to exist. That is precisely what happened to the Reform Party. Mr Perot promised to commit money to keep the party functioning. Around 1999, he had a change of heart and the Reform Party collapsed due to lack of money. The end result was that it became part of the history books as another failed politcal party in world of democracy.

 

Rohale

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Big Master,

What a great post!! Indeed, the european concept that you refered to is almost what I've always fondly called a "benign dictatorship", the government of my dreams. I'm not 100% convinced that "democracy" works... at least, certainly not when government must admit it's made a big mistake, and "the people" must reign in their conveniences. You are an optimist, believing that a capitalist system will change it's priorities in the nick of time. However, I think that capitalism has been playing a form of "russian roulette" for quite a while now. The powers that be will not switch gears until too many wars have been played out, too many enviroments have been destroyed, too many debts have piled up. The american capitalist system will continue to advertise the "good life" to the american public well after the possibility of a good life has evaporated for good.

Then, we will live in a country where the rich live behind walls, and the rest of us will be trying to cross "la frontera" into Canada to find a decent job.

I believe, in this age of democracy and global economy, our government should take on a greater role in advising people in what they should NOT do. For instance (and this is heresy in California), they SHOULD NOT commute more than 20 miles to work each day, as such unnecessary driving a) wastes tax dollars on highway maintenence, b) further pollutes an already heavily polluted enviroment, c) wastes our natural- and unrenewable- resources, and d) keeps our nation reliant on foreign oil, which in turn keeps us servile to unseemly ideals.

Personally, I would think the above reasons would be more than enough to instigate change, if the soltions are already available. But then again, I don't stand to profit from the status quo.

 

Trix

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RE: No, it isn't time.

 

>The actual increase in 1993 legislation was about $4 billion a

>year -- the cost of an aircraft carrier.

 

If you are referring to legislation passed in 1993, that would be passed by a Congress controlled by Democrats, yes?

 

 

>>how is it that Clinton's 1993 budget did not get a single

>>Republican vote?

 

>Clinton did not have a 1993 budget, because he wasn't even

>elected at the start of that fiscal year.

 

I am referring to the budget Clinton passed in 1993, the first budget of his presidency which was the occasion of an epic struggle because it contained a package of tax increases and budget cuts to deal with the deficit he inherited.

 

> If you mean the

>1994 budget, you're playing the same game as Bush when he says

>Kerry voted for a nuclear dump in Nevada. When there are 100

>provisions in a bill, a vote against it does not mean a vote

>against all 100 items.

 

If you are voting for or against final legislation, then you are voting for or against whatever that legislation contains. If it contains items you support and items you don't, your vote for or against shows what trade-offs you are willing to make. That is a legitimate political issue. If Kerry voted for a bill to dump nuclear waste, that is something he was willing to trade for whatever else was in the bill. The Repubs who failed to support Clinton's budget clearly did not care enough about EIC that they were willing to trade something else to pass it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

In order to post in the Political Issues forum, all members are required to acknowledge that their post is in compliance with our Community Guidelines.  In addition, you acknowledge that it meets the following requirements: 

  • No personal attacks: Attack the issue not the person
  • No hijacking: Stay on the subject of the thread 

  • No bullying, hate speech or offensive terms/expressions

In addition, if the moderators feel someone is reporting content simply because if it’s political stance (such as but not limited to reporting it as off topic but not other off topic replies by those that agree with your stance), the reporting person may receive a warning as well.

Content that does not comply with the above requirements will be removed.  Multiple violations may result in a loss of access to this forum.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...