as for some of the substance that I could gleen . . .
you seem to be under the misperception that your pet peeve is the result of 'Liberals'
In fact I think that the idea that women should take care of the kids in all circumstancces is usually reserved for conservatives . . . I know that where i live (I mean in the neighborhood) there are MEN who take care of the kids (I sure take care of my daughter during the day more than my wife) and they are 'Liberals' . . .
it is the socially conservative mindset that believes that women=home=child-rearer=whole grain goodness
This attitude is a residue of the fantasy land known as "family values" . . . which really is a cartoon where every cookie is still warm and the floors are clean, the lawn is soft and wood-smoke lofts from the nieghboors chimney etc etc
in other words: your basic TV conservative's notions of what is right for women and what is right for men
I never said anything about taking care of the kids. I said custody. I assure you that I fully understand the difference and I know you do as well. A mother who has say 75-80% of the custody can move away with a child and not have the father be able to do anything about it. She can also use the distance to prevent his visitation, claim him a bad father as a result, and demand even more support.
I have no delusions that mother is home making cookies, etc. We are talking about philisophical realignments. There is an alignment between victim feminists who wish to claim women are powerless victims, while simultaniously being fully empowered equals of men, and some religious conservatives. Both see men in only one respect and that is a paycheck. I believe I have spent enough words on this around here that you don't think I would endorse this view no matter WHO espouses it.
However I don't believe it is only pushed by those conservatives either. I've posted links from NOW in California where they argued that primary physical and legal custody should be granted exclusively to the woman. That is wrong.
But the issue really isn't who is pushing it is it? I mean the thread is examining how the Democrats could basically adjust a few positions and spring back into full mainstream majority status. If my issue is one that would slap down a few far right religious conservatives and a few far left radical victim feminists while yielding a 15-25% swing in male voters, isn't that the point? It would also show that social justice is something that helps and applies to everyone, not just women, and minorities. Why fight for rights if you are going to be the only one without any at the end of the day?
I never said anything about taking care of the kids. I said custody. I assure you that I fully understand the difference and I know you do as well. A mother who has say 75-80% of the custody can move away with a child and not have the father be able to do anything about it. She can also use the distance to prevent his visitation, claim him a bad father as a result, and demand even more support.
I have no delusions that mother is home making cookies, etc. We are talking about philisophical realignments. There is an alignment between victim feminists who wish to claim women are powerless victims, while simultaniously being fully empowered equals of men, and some religious conservatives. Both see men in only one respect and that is a paycheck. I believe I have spent enough words on this around here that you don't think I would endorse this view no matter WHO espouses it.
However I don't believe it is only pushed by those conservatives either. I've posted links from NOW in California where they argued that primary physical and legal custody should be granted exclusively to the woman. That is wrong.
But the issue really isn't who is pushing it is it? I mean the thread is examining how the Democrats could basically adjust a few positions and spring back into full mainstream majority status. If my issue is one that would slap down a few far right religious conservatives and a few far left radical victim feminists while yielding a 15-25% swing in male voters, isn't that the point? It would also show that social justice is something that helps and applies to everyone, not just women, and minorities. Why fight for rights if you are going to be the only one without any at the end of the day?
Sure, men are just as capable of being evil as women.
However women get at 800% more likely chance at being evil. (They are awarded primary custody 800% more often than men) Statistically very few men seek primary custody. Most seek joint custody since it is very rare they even get that.
But sure men are capable of move aways as well. There are laws in some states against it, but they are selectively enforced. Much like there are laws that can create "deadbeat" moms, but we very seldom here about them. In fact the first federal case was just finally done against a woman.
But back on topic, bunge, don't you think it would help social justice to have default joint physical and legal custody in divorce proceedings? It is just the default, that doesn't forgo the court determining issues. I am just saying it should start from joint. If the Democratic party pursued a few of the issues like that, they might win back some male voters.
I never said anything about taking care of the kids. I said custody. I assure you that I fully understand the difference and I know you do as well. A mother who has say 75-80% of the custody can move away with a child and not have the father be able to do anything about it. She can also use the distance to prevent his visitation, claim him a bad father as a result, and demand even more support.
I have no delusions that mother is home making cookies, etc. We are talking about philisophical realignments. There is an alignment between victim feminists who wish to claim women are powerless victims, while simultaniously being fully empowered equals of men, and some religious conservatives. Both see men in only one respect and that is a paycheck. I believe I have spent enough words on this around here that you don't think I would endorse this view no matter WHO espouses it.
However I don't believe it is only pushed by those conservatives either. I've posted links from NOW in California where they argued that primary physical and legal custody should be granted exclusively to the woman. That is wrong.
But the issue really isn't who is pushing it is it? I mean the thread is examining how the Democrats could basically adjust a few positions and spring back into full mainstream majority status. If my issue is one that would slap down a few far right religious conservatives and a few far left radical victim feminists while yielding a 15-25% swing in male voters, isn't that the point? It would also show that social justice is something that helps and applies to everyone, not just women, and minorities. Why fight for rights if you are going to be the only one without any at the end of the day?
Nick
your wrong:
"radical victim feminists" don't want the kids!
Custody being rewarded automatically to the women despite decent dads is the residue of "family values" . . . a vision of women in the kitchen
Feminists fight for equality . . . if the courts wanted to address things equally, without a vision of "preggy-barefoot-woman is good for baby" then they would seek for what is best . . . meaning that the father would get the nod if it is apparent that he would do the job better
It is part of the feminist ethos that stereotypes and the qualities attached to them are not true and should be assailed for being false
One of teh first stereotype that needs attacking is that the women is always the best care-giver
If someone opperates on thse stereotypes then they are not being "feminist" they are being closer to the conservative notion of "family values"
By the way, default joint custody sounds good to me and moving away should be difficult for women just as it should be for men . . . believe me, I acknowledge that there are inequalities in the percentages that probably have meant a bad shrift for children and men
I read a story where teh father got along very well with teh child while the mother and child did not do so well together, teh mother was very jeaulous and managed to get a divorce and now she has custody . . . . . it was in the fiction section of Harper's (not Bazaar)
Fiscally conservative doesnt mean simply balancing the budget in most people's minds. It means decreasing the size of government and operating it on a showstring budget. Niether party can claim that as their ideal and a socially liberal party cannot ever operate a government on a shoestring budget nor should it be expected to.
You make a good point. But before we even get to talking about the size of gov't, we first have to acknowledge that we have to pay for what we spend. In that respect, Dems have Republicans beat in a big way.
But then even if you look at the size of gov't, the Republicans under Bush have spent more than the Dems under Clinton or Carter. So in every sense the Dems are more fiscally conservative than Repubs.
Quote:
Originally posted by billybobsky
Libertarian socially liberal and socially liberal are different. Libertarians follow more or less strictly the constitution and the rights it defends. No where mentioned in the constitution is welfare or medical insurance for all or funding of the arts/sciences or anything that a modern socially liberal government would support. Social liberality moves beyond what is defined in the constitution and in fact need not be based upon concepts in that document at all where as it is the basis of a libertarian concept of freedoms.
Mainly, my point is this -- a government which supports an extended set of liberal principles including social welfare and improvement/education cannot operate on a downsized budget.
Never read the preamble, huh? You know, that business about promoting the general welfare and securing the blessings of liberty?
I do think it's possible to have health and welfare and education on a downsized budget, or at least one that's not growing any more. There's plenty of "conservative" spending in the budget, too. Corporate subsidies and military, for example. Not to mention interest on the debt, which is a form of conservative spending, because they run up the deficits.
But more generally, those can be state issues, beyond a minimum provided by the feds.
One point I'd like to make is my take on Bill Clinton's "balanced budget"
I often hear of it referred to as this, but wasn't the government pulling in huge tax surpluses? While this is certainly better than overspending, it's still not a balanced budget because the government was severely overtaxing the public.
It's all well and good to take the extra cash and dole it out, but I for one would be far happier with a government that came close to a true balanced budget and kept as much money in the hands of its citizens as possible.
I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. He didn't really balance the budget? (I just saw shetline's response.)
Quote:
As far as staying on-topic is concerned, I like the ideas laid out, but I don't see the current culture in the democratic party as being one that is ready for a philosophical shift in the way it operates. I think Clinton was doing a good job of redirecting the focus of democrats, but due in no small part to a lot of the anti-Bush feelings within a large part of the democratic community, they've taken a few steps back insofar as I can tell. But that's just my opinion, and it could very well be wrong.
You're probably right. But in some ways, the Dems don't have to do much. The Repubs have made this happen already, and the libertarian-leaning conservatives don't like it. I'd just like to see the Dems take advantage of it. But I doubt they will.
Will made some very good points. Basically there are three big issues where we all want strong/big government. Education, elderly, and health care. When you see where lots of big spending by Bush has gone, it is in these areas.
The real issue is that in these three areas, the Democrats aren?t going to have any credibility about spending less because all the Bush proposals have been declared underfunded. We have a prescription drug benefit, that the cost has already gone up over $100 billion. We have No Child Left Behind spending more federally than we have ever spent before. We have a deficit rushing up toward 500 billion and the Democratic complaint in these areas are that they are underfunded.
That's true, and I don't like to see the Dems simply saying "we're going to spend more."
Quote:
Even Clinton didn't balance the budget. He had two years of true balance, but if you look at historical numbers for stock market gains, it is clear it was in a bubble. He reaped the bubble, but neither he nor the Republican Congress made any real cuts.
The only party that is truly going to gain on this issue is the one who is willing to take everyone on who has their hand in the cookie jar. Neither party has shown the backbone to do this.
This again. I don't understand it. Look at your first two sentences. 1. He didn't balance the budget. 2. He did balance the budget.
Clinton kept spending down, along with the Republican Congress nipping at his heels. He ran on reducing the size of the federal workforce. But he also raised taxes. It wasn't just an accident or a bubble that the deficit went down. The centerpiece of his first years in office was reducing the deficit so interest rates would stay low and the economy would do well. I'd say it worked.
Quote:
It would be much easier for everyone to be socially liberal if Democrats would get out of the blame game. It is the blame game that has driven the white male voter out of their party when as Dean mentions, they actually have many similar interests they could share as a voting block with other groups. But while the race and gender baiters are advancing the socially liberal agenda basically by advancing blame the white guy. They aren?t going to be credible. Lastly socially liberal means acknowledging that men have needs as well and pressing for true equality. That might mean coughing up race based affirmative action for need based affirmative action for example. It might mean we stop making divorced dad ponder being a paycheck away from jail time. In otherwords you have to return the social agenda to everyone instead of making it a game of blame the white guy.
I don't disagree that the "blame game" is a bad thing, but I just don't see Democrats doing it. Yeah, they generally support affirmative action. Is that really a "blame game?"
Quote:
I would love to see a return to states rights. However I doubt the left could truly tolerate this. You for example will say states should be able to decide who should marry, but I don?t recall any tears about Texas not being able to decide who can commit sodomy.
Both parties have resorted to the fed since one fight gains the prize. Abortion was a states rights issue before Roe v. Wade and would be again if the imaginary right to privacy were overturned. But the real point is that you want YOUR issues federalized and other people?s issues left to the states.
Yes, I was wondering if someone would get after me about that.
It's true. To me, states's rights means they can go more liberal than the minimums, but not more conservative. They can provide more individual rights, not less than the minimum. No, states shouldn't be allowed to cancel the 6th amendment, for example. To conservatives, "states' rights" always seems to mean less individual rights: no sex between you two, no abortion for you. So that's right, states can go more liberal, if by that you mean more civil liberties, but they can't go more socially conservative, if that means passing laws that would reduce civil liberties.
I hate guns and think they're a destructive force in our country. But it doesn't bother me in the least if Montana has less gun control than DC or NYC. I might fight for more gun control in my own state, but I wouldn't think it has to be federalized.
Quote:
First the Dems are far from there. The disagreement = hate, bigotry, etc. crowd is in full control.
Well I just don't see it. I never really saw all the political correctness that people said was so pervasive either, so maybe I'm just not looking in the right place. Remember, it was Repubs who claimed that opposing a Catholic for the bench was anti-Catholic bigotry, and criticizing the President during war was political hate speech.
I won't vote libertarian because I don't like a Dickensian jungle of a civilization
That's right. Libertarianism in the US, I think because of its link to social conservatism, seems to have a very dog-eat-dog, screw-the-poor and underprivileged tone to it. I'm sure the French royals in the early 1700s were libertarians too.
I'm not at all sure that turning over our society to corporate control like in the industrial turn-of-the-century would increase liberty. Do people in poverty have liberty? Do people without health care have liberty? Why do conservatives define "libertarian" simply as low taxes? Surely there's more to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness than simply more money?
I'd like to see a socially progressive libertarianism. We have expanded civil liberties, and yet we "promote the general welfare" with some aid for basic human rights' issues such as education and health care and care for the elderly. Not expanded social programs - we could probably cut the federal gov't below what it is now. But let's get off this idea that we have to lower the top rate in order to pursue liberty.
And of course, until the rise of the Dixiecrats, the Democrats were the solid party of the South, since the Republicans were identified as the party of Lincoln and Johnson (Andrew Johnson, not Lyndon) and the whole Civil War/Reconstruction era. Now the only time a democrat candidate has even a remote chance of winning the south is if they are from there. So anyway, it'll be interesting to see if this is just another bump in the road or if this will signal yet another major shift in the political spectrum.
The regional differences are interesting. The social conservatives are mainly dominant in the "Bible belt" south. Instead of two parties, we basically have two regions of the country. But perhaps the West would be more in play if the Dems took advantage of the current Repub weaknesses.
Bush has alienated his core supporters and moderate independents like myself for a few reasons:
He's spending like a drunken sailor and doesnt seem to care about deficits
He has let corporations run amok and ship jobs, even white collar, overseas.
Last and most important, his illegal alien amnesty plan.
Bush lost my vote on the last item. Democrats are supposed to pander, not Republicans.
However, if Kerry ever picked up on the fact that immigration is a very important topic to the largest States that suffer the most under the burden he would win easily.
Just be against an amnesty and in favor of reducing immigration levels to save the environment, reduce housing costs, and save jobs and he would win easily.
I know it will never happen because neither putz has a spine.
Would this work? Stupid idea? Did anyone actually read this whole thing?
The democratic party you speak of is Libertarian by nature. I'd have to be convinced that they were going to abide by Friedman-esque policy before I vote for 'em, though.
Clinton did not.
The bottom-line here is that social liberalism (ie no state bounds on morals, abortion, etc) is going to stay. I'll tell you that much. But there's also a large body of people I know who haven't given up on the fiscal ideals of libertarianism, or for that matter the freedom part. . . . and a ton of them are little overachieving ivy leaguers who are going to law school next year.
Granted I know plenty of centrist people. . . an apathetic, generally disinterested bunch.
I've said it for a while: the Republican party as we knew it is dead. Bush's party will die too. Within the next 20 years there will be candidates, some who win positions, with varying degrees of Libertarian ideals. However I don't think the Green party, or anything like it, has much of a chance.
I would like most to see a 3 or 4 party system develop. More likely, though, is that one of the major parties will change. Though if the Libertarians pull off the free-state thing, which in all honesty is a bit looney, something of the sort might take root.
In the end, I don't think anyone really expects to see a purely anarcho-capitalist system. It's something of an ideal that requires perfection. But throw in a few taxes here and there and things are still stable, and I'm not dumping 25% of my pay check to old people who in most cases don't need it.
Quote:
That's right. Libertarianism in the US, I think because of its link to social conservatism, seems to have a very dog-eat-dog, screw-the-poor and underprivileged tone to it. I'm sure the French royals in the early 1700s were libertarians too.
Strongly disagree, but I'll save that for later. You're smart enough to figure this out yourself.
Strongly disagree, but I'll save that for later. You're smart enough to figure this out yourself.
It's relevant now. In fact, I would like to hear a good defense of the claim that BRussell and Pfflam make. Not because I disagree with them- in fact I strongly agree- but because I don't think it's possible.
Comments
Originally posted by trumptman
Actually, if you looked at the number of typos in that post, the answer would be, not very well.
Also as Shawn loves to point out, I am infamous for forgetting commas.
Nick
Those commas add up fast.
Originally posted by pfflam
as for some of the substance that I could gleen . . .
you seem to be under the misperception that your pet peeve is the result of 'Liberals'
In fact I think that the idea that women should take care of the kids in all circumstancces is usually reserved for conservatives . . . I know that where i live (I mean in the neighborhood) there are MEN who take care of the kids (I sure take care of my daughter during the day more than my wife) and they are 'Liberals' . . .
it is the socially conservative mindset that believes that women=home=child-rearer=whole grain goodness
This attitude is a residue of the fantasy land known as "family values" . . . which really is a cartoon where every cookie is still warm and the floors are clean, the lawn is soft and wood-smoke lofts from the nieghboors chimney etc etc
in other words: your basic TV conservative's notions of what is right for women and what is right for men
I never said anything about taking care of the kids. I said custody. I assure you that I fully understand the difference and I know you do as well. A mother who has say 75-80% of the custody can move away with a child and not have the father be able to do anything about it. She can also use the distance to prevent his visitation, claim him a bad father as a result, and demand even more support.
I have no delusions that mother is home making cookies, etc. We are talking about philisophical realignments. There is an alignment between victim feminists who wish to claim women are powerless victims, while simultaniously being fully empowered equals of men, and some religious conservatives. Both see men in only one respect and that is a paycheck. I believe I have spent enough words on this around here that you don't think I would endorse this view no matter WHO espouses it.
However I don't believe it is only pushed by those conservatives either. I've posted links from NOW in California where they argued that primary physical and legal custody should be granted exclusively to the woman. That is wrong.
But the issue really isn't who is pushing it is it? I mean the thread is examining how the Democrats could basically adjust a few positions and spring back into full mainstream majority status. If my issue is one that would slap down a few far right religious conservatives and a few far left radical victim feminists while yielding a 15-25% swing in male voters, isn't that the point? It would also show that social justice is something that helps and applies to everyone, not just women, and minorities. Why fight for rights if you are going to be the only one without any at the end of the day?
Nick
Originally posted by ShawnJ
Those commas add up fast.
I've got one word for you buddy.
Likewise...
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
I never said anything about taking care of the kids. I said custody. I assure you that I fully understand the difference and I know you do as well. A mother who has say 75-80% of the custody can move away with a child and not have the father be able to do anything about it. She can also use the distance to prevent his visitation, claim him a bad father as a result, and demand even more support.
I have no delusions that mother is home making cookies, etc. We are talking about philisophical realignments. There is an alignment between victim feminists who wish to claim women are powerless victims, while simultaniously being fully empowered equals of men, and some religious conservatives. Both see men in only one respect and that is a paycheck. I believe I have spent enough words on this around here that you don't think I would endorse this view no matter WHO espouses it.
However I don't believe it is only pushed by those conservatives either. I've posted links from NOW in California where they argued that primary physical and legal custody should be granted exclusively to the woman. That is wrong.
But the issue really isn't who is pushing it is it? I mean the thread is examining how the Democrats could basically adjust a few positions and spring back into full mainstream majority status. If my issue is one that would slap down a few far right religious conservatives and a few far left radical victim feminists while yielding a 15-25% swing in male voters, isn't that the point? It would also show that social justice is something that helps and applies to everyone, not just women, and minorities. Why fight for rights if you are going to be the only one without any at the end of the day?
Nick
Amen.
Originally posted by trumptman
A mother who has say 75-80% of the custody can move away with a child and not have the father be able to do anything about it.
Can a father do the same?
Originally posted by bunge
Can a father do the same?
Sure, men are just as capable of being evil as women.
However women get at 800% more likely chance at being evil. (They are awarded primary custody 800% more often than men) Statistically very few men seek primary custody. Most seek joint custody since it is very rare they even get that.
But sure men are capable of move aways as well. There are laws in some states against it, but they are selectively enforced. Much like there are laws that can create "deadbeat" moms, but we very seldom here about them. In fact the first federal case was just finally done against a woman.
But back on topic, bunge, don't you think it would help social justice to have default joint physical and legal custody in divorce proceedings? It is just the default, that doesn't forgo the court determining issues. I am just saying it should start from joint. If the Democratic party pursued a few of the issues like that, they might win back some male voters.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
I never said anything about taking care of the kids. I said custody. I assure you that I fully understand the difference and I know you do as well. A mother who has say 75-80% of the custody can move away with a child and not have the father be able to do anything about it. She can also use the distance to prevent his visitation, claim him a bad father as a result, and demand even more support.
I have no delusions that mother is home making cookies, etc. We are talking about philisophical realignments. There is an alignment between victim feminists who wish to claim women are powerless victims, while simultaniously being fully empowered equals of men, and some religious conservatives. Both see men in only one respect and that is a paycheck. I believe I have spent enough words on this around here that you don't think I would endorse this view no matter WHO espouses it.
However I don't believe it is only pushed by those conservatives either. I've posted links from NOW in California where they argued that primary physical and legal custody should be granted exclusively to the woman. That is wrong.
But the issue really isn't who is pushing it is it? I mean the thread is examining how the Democrats could basically adjust a few positions and spring back into full mainstream majority status. If my issue is one that would slap down a few far right religious conservatives and a few far left radical victim feminists while yielding a 15-25% swing in male voters, isn't that the point? It would also show that social justice is something that helps and applies to everyone, not just women, and minorities. Why fight for rights if you are going to be the only one without any at the end of the day?
Nick
your wrong:
"radical victim feminists" don't want the kids!
Custody being rewarded automatically to the women despite decent dads is the residue of "family values" . . . a vision of women in the kitchen
Feminists fight for equality . . . if the courts wanted to address things equally, without a vision of "preggy-barefoot-woman is good for baby" then they would seek for what is best . . . meaning that the father would get the nod if it is apparent that he would do the job better
It is part of the feminist ethos that stereotypes and the qualities attached to them are not true and should be assailed for being false
One of teh first stereotype that needs attacking is that the women is always the best care-giver
If someone opperates on thse stereotypes then they are not being "feminist" they are being closer to the conservative notion of "family values"
By the way, default joint custody sounds good to me and moving away should be difficult for women just as it should be for men . . . believe me, I acknowledge that there are inequalities in the percentages that probably have meant a bad shrift for children and men
I read a story where teh father got along very well with teh child while the mother and child did not do so well together, teh mother was very jeaulous and managed to get a divorce and now she has custody . . .
Originally posted by billybobsky
Fiscally conservative doesnt mean simply balancing the budget in most people's minds. It means decreasing the size of government and operating it on a showstring budget. Niether party can claim that as their ideal and a socially liberal party cannot ever operate a government on a shoestring budget nor should it be expected to.
You make a good point. But before we even get to talking about the size of gov't, we first have to acknowledge that we have to pay for what we spend. In that respect, Dems have Republicans beat in a big way.
But then even if you look at the size of gov't, the Republicans under Bush have spent more than the Dems under Clinton or Carter. So in every sense the Dems are more fiscally conservative than Repubs.
Originally posted by billybobsky
Libertarian socially liberal and socially liberal are different. Libertarians follow more or less strictly the constitution and the rights it defends. No where mentioned in the constitution is welfare or medical insurance for all or funding of the arts/sciences or anything that a modern socially liberal government would support. Social liberality moves beyond what is defined in the constitution and in fact need not be based upon concepts in that document at all where as it is the basis of a libertarian concept of freedoms.
Mainly, my point is this -- a government which supports an extended set of liberal principles including social welfare and improvement/education cannot operate on a downsized budget.
Never read the preamble, huh? You know, that business about promoting the general welfare and securing the blessings of liberty?
I do think it's possible to have health and welfare and education on a downsized budget, or at least one that's not growing any more. There's plenty of "conservative" spending in the budget, too. Corporate subsidies and military, for example. Not to mention interest on the debt, which is a form of conservative spending, because they run up the deficits.
But more generally, those can be state issues, beyond a minimum provided by the feds.
Originally posted by rageous
One point I'd like to make is my take on Bill Clinton's "balanced budget"
I often hear of it referred to as this, but wasn't the government pulling in huge tax surpluses? While this is certainly better than overspending, it's still not a balanced budget because the government was severely overtaxing the public.
It's all well and good to take the extra cash and dole it out, but I for one would be far happier with a government that came close to a true balanced budget and kept as much money in the hands of its citizens as possible.
I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. He didn't really balance the budget? (I just saw shetline's response.)
As far as staying on-topic is concerned, I like the ideas laid out, but I don't see the current culture in the democratic party as being one that is ready for a philosophical shift in the way it operates. I think Clinton was doing a good job of redirecting the focus of democrats, but due in no small part to a lot of the anti-Bush feelings within a large part of the democratic community, they've taken a few steps back insofar as I can tell. But that's just my opinion, and it could very well be wrong.
You're probably right. But in some ways, the Dems don't have to do much. The Repubs have made this happen already, and the libertarian-leaning conservatives don't like it. I'd just like to see the Dems take advantage of it. But I doubt they will.
Originally posted by trumptman
George Will hit this about a week ago.
Will made some very good points. Basically there are three big issues where we all want strong/big government. Education, elderly, and health care. When you see where lots of big spending by Bush has gone, it is in these areas.
The real issue is that in these three areas, the Democrats aren?t going to have any credibility about spending less because all the Bush proposals have been declared underfunded. We have a prescription drug benefit, that the cost has already gone up over $100 billion. We have No Child Left Behind spending more federally than we have ever spent before. We have a deficit rushing up toward 500 billion and the Democratic complaint in these areas are that they are underfunded.
That's true, and I don't like to see the Dems simply saying "we're going to spend more."
Even Clinton didn't balance the budget. He had two years of true balance, but if you look at historical numbers for stock market gains, it is clear it was in a bubble. He reaped the bubble, but neither he nor the Republican Congress made any real cuts.
The only party that is truly going to gain on this issue is the one who is willing to take everyone on who has their hand in the cookie jar. Neither party has shown the backbone to do this.
This again. I don't understand it. Look at your first two sentences. 1. He didn't balance the budget. 2. He did balance the budget.
Clinton kept spending down, along with the Republican Congress nipping at his heels. He ran on reducing the size of the federal workforce. But he also raised taxes. It wasn't just an accident or a bubble that the deficit went down. The centerpiece of his first years in office was reducing the deficit so interest rates would stay low and the economy would do well. I'd say it worked.
It would be much easier for everyone to be socially liberal if Democrats would get out of the blame game. It is the blame game that has driven the white male voter out of their party when as Dean mentions, they actually have many similar interests they could share as a voting block with other groups. But while the race and gender baiters are advancing the socially liberal agenda basically by advancing blame the white guy. They aren?t going to be credible. Lastly socially liberal means acknowledging that men have needs as well and pressing for true equality. That might mean coughing up race based affirmative action for need based affirmative action for example. It might mean we stop making divorced dad ponder being a paycheck away from jail time. In otherwords you have to return the social agenda to everyone instead of making it a game of blame the white guy.
I don't disagree that the "blame game" is a bad thing, but I just don't see Democrats doing it. Yeah, they generally support affirmative action. Is that really a "blame game?"
I would love to see a return to states rights. However I doubt the left could truly tolerate this. You for example will say states should be able to decide who should marry, but I don?t recall any tears about Texas not being able to decide who can commit sodomy.
Both parties have resorted to the fed since one fight gains the prize. Abortion was a states rights issue before Roe v. Wade and would be again if the imaginary right to privacy were overturned. But the real point is that you want YOUR issues federalized and other people?s issues left to the states.
Yes, I was wondering if someone would get after me about that.
It's true. To me, states's rights means they can go more liberal than the minimums, but not more conservative. They can provide more individual rights, not less than the minimum. No, states shouldn't be allowed to cancel the 6th amendment, for example. To conservatives, "states' rights" always seems to mean less individual rights: no sex between you two, no abortion for you. So that's right, states can go more liberal, if by that you mean more civil liberties, but they can't go more socially conservative, if that means passing laws that would reduce civil liberties.
I hate guns and think they're a destructive force in our country. But it doesn't bother me in the least if Montana has less gun control than DC or NYC. I might fight for more gun control in my own state, but I wouldn't think it has to be federalized.
First the Dems are far from there. The disagreement = hate, bigotry, etc. crowd is in full control.
Well I just don't see it. I never really saw all the political correctness that people said was so pervasive either, so maybe I'm just not looking in the right place. Remember, it was Repubs who claimed that opposing a Catholic for the bench was anti-Catholic bigotry, and criticizing the President during war was political hate speech.
Originally posted by pfflam
I won't vote libertarian because I don't like a Dickensian jungle of a civilization
That's right. Libertarianism in the US, I think because of its link to social conservatism, seems to have a very dog-eat-dog, screw-the-poor and underprivileged tone to it. I'm sure the French royals in the early 1700s were libertarians too.
I'm not at all sure that turning over our society to corporate control like in the industrial turn-of-the-century would increase liberty. Do people in poverty have liberty? Do people without health care have liberty? Why do conservatives define "libertarian" simply as low taxes? Surely there's more to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness than simply more money?
I'd like to see a socially progressive libertarianism. We have expanded civil liberties, and yet we "promote the general welfare" with some aid for basic human rights' issues such as education and health care and care for the elderly. Not expanded social programs - we could probably cut the federal gov't below what it is now. But let's get off this idea that we have to lower the top rate in order to pursue liberty.
Originally posted by Naderfan
And of course, until the rise of the Dixiecrats, the Democrats were the solid party of the South, since the Republicans were identified as the party of Lincoln and Johnson (Andrew Johnson, not Lyndon) and the whole Civil War/Reconstruction era. Now the only time a democrat candidate has even a remote chance of winning the south is if they are from there. So anyway, it'll be interesting to see if this is just another bump in the road or if this will signal yet another major shift in the political spectrum.
The regional differences are interesting. The social conservatives are mainly dominant in the "Bible belt" south. Instead of two parties, we basically have two regions of the country. But perhaps the West would be more in play if the Dems took advantage of the current Repub weaknesses.
He's spending like a drunken sailor and doesnt seem to care about deficits
He has let corporations run amok and ship jobs, even white collar, overseas.
Last and most important, his illegal alien amnesty plan.
Bush lost my vote on the last item. Democrats are supposed to pander, not Republicans.
However, if Kerry ever picked up on the fact that immigration is a very important topic to the largest States that suffer the most under the burden he would win easily.
Just be against an amnesty and in favor of reducing immigration levels to save the environment, reduce housing costs, and save jobs and he would win easily.
I know it will never happen because neither putz has a spine.
Originally posted by BRussell
Would this work? Stupid idea? Did anyone actually read this whole thing?
The democratic party you speak of is Libertarian by nature. I'd have to be convinced that they were going to abide by Friedman-esque policy before I vote for 'em, though.
Clinton did not.
The bottom-line here is that social liberalism (ie no state bounds on morals, abortion, etc) is going to stay. I'll tell you that much. But there's also a large body of people I know who haven't given up on the fiscal ideals of libertarianism, or for that matter the freedom part. . . . and a ton of them are little overachieving ivy leaguers who are going to law school next year.
Granted I know plenty of centrist people. . . an apathetic, generally disinterested bunch.
I've said it for a while: the Republican party as we knew it is dead. Bush's party will die too. Within the next 20 years there will be candidates, some who win positions, with varying degrees of Libertarian ideals. However I don't think the Green party, or anything like it, has much of a chance.
I would like most to see a 3 or 4 party system develop. More likely, though, is that one of the major parties will change. Though if the Libertarians pull off the free-state thing, which in all honesty is a bit looney, something of the sort might take root.
In the end, I don't think anyone really expects to see a purely anarcho-capitalist system. It's something of an ideal that requires perfection. But throw in a few taxes here and there and things are still stable, and I'm not dumping 25% of my pay check to old people who in most cases don't need it.
That's right. Libertarianism in the US, I think because of its link to social conservatism, seems to have a very dog-eat-dog, screw-the-poor and underprivileged tone to it. I'm sure the French royals in the early 1700s were libertarians too.
Strongly disagree, but I'll save that for later. You're smart enough to figure this out yourself.
Originally posted by Splinemodel
Strongly disagree, but I'll save that for later. You're smart enough to figure this out yourself.
It's relevant now. In fact, I would like to hear a good defense of the claim that BRussell and Pfflam make. Not because I disagree with them- in fact I strongly agree- but because I don't think it's possible.