What We Democrats Need To Do

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What the Democrats need to do is get with the times.

The welfare state has long been discredited, along with a lot of the Democrats' other cherished ideals and programs that simply don't work in the real world. Most people want to own a home, pay less taxes, and be left alone to build their own lives with a minimum of interference and hindrance from the government.

Lose the socialism and get back to real liberalism: that's what the Democrats need to do--or slowly go extinct.

[/ QUOTE ]If you think that's what we did with our 8 years in the White House, you are far removed from reality.

Cutting taxes is great. I wish we never had to pay taxes. However, there's this pesky thing called a record deficit that Bush needs to deal with somehow.

Name a specific program that Democrats are pushing which has been discredited.

I'll check back tommorrow afternoon.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why don't you take a trip to Massachusetts and try to smoke a cig in a bar, light a bonfire on a beach you own, build a house(or a [censored] WALMART!!!!) that isn't sided with cedar shake.....

[benfranklin]

[ QUOTE ]
.... and be left alone to build their own lives with a minimum of interference and hindrance from the government.

[/ QUOTE ]

This was once the cornerstone of the Republican Party. But as the Democrats moved farther to the left, the Republicans have been usurping their position in the center.

An over-riding question of political philosophy is small vs. large government. The Democrats have gone much too far towards the "large" end of the spectrum. The Republicans are moving away from the "small" end of the spectrum, and away from their traditional core. When the GOP gets big and bloated and starts internal bickering on issues like this, the Dems can move back toward the center, and pick up a lot of ground in the middle of the spectrum. Right now, the Democrats are far out of the mainstream on this issue.

[Losing all]

You make good points in that someone like myself, most likely voting gop in 08 will label whoever you throw out there as a lib. OTOH if the republican choice isn't one that I care for, I could see myself backing someone like Byah. If you run yet another Jimmy Carter clone out there (Hillary comes to mind) expect a repeat of these results.

[Spladle Master]

[ QUOTE ]
What the Democrats need to do is get with the times.

The welfare state has long been discredited, along with a lot of the Democrats' other cherished ideals and programs that simply don't work in the real world. Most people want to own a home, pay less taxes, and be left alone to build their own lives with a minimum of interference and hindrance from the government.

Lose the socialism and get back to real liberalism: that's what the Democrats need to do--or slowly go extinct.

[/ QUOTE ]

Man, right-[censored]'-on! Hooray for common sense!

Seriously, great post. I'm not a democrat for the reasons you just mentioned. I favor smaller government, less taxes, etc.

[MMMMMM]

I'm not saying the Republicans have it down just right, either. They have been sliding too much towards big government and socialistic programs lately too.

As for naming one program the Democrats support that has been discredited, I think a better question would be to name one program they support that has actually worked well and as hoped for. I can't think of any off the top of my head anyways. Of course the Republicans have been making this error too, just not to as large an extent.

[ACPlayer]

Slick willie started with an objective to bring down the national debt, put in place a program and achieved it. Grate A for planning A for execution. But he is really a touch more conservative fiscally than the Republicans as a whole.

He put in place the ability to have portable health insurance, so I cannot be denied health insurance for pre-existing conditions. Not a socialist program.

I am sure I could come up with others.

[Nate Finch]

Bush - Record Deficit
Clinton - Turned a record deficit left by W's father into a surplus

Bush - 4 years of debt, unemployment, and war
Clinton - 8 years of peace and prosperity

What more can I say?

Republicans try to make people happy by cutting taxes, but then they run up huge deficits and a bad economy. Democrats raise taxes a little, and end up with a balanced budget and a good economy.

Thank you, but I'd rather have a job and slightly higher taxes, than no job and lower taxes.

-Nate

[BobH42]

First of all, a trained monkey could have balanced the budget in the economy of the late 90's. NO ONE could balance the budget in the post-9/11.

That said, both Republicans and Democrats are fundamentally flawed when it comes to balancing the budget. Republicans cut taxes (which is GOOD for the economy) but usually won't cut spending (and as GWB showed will occassionally spend more). Democrats raise spending but are loathe to cut taxes and afraid to raise taxes to fund their programs because raising taxes isn't popular and is a short-term fix for budget shortfalls anyway (since raising taxes slows economic growth). I vote libertarian for this reason, except when a Democrat that's VERY fond of raising taxes/spending money runs for president...then I'm forced to vote Republican just to make sure that the Democrat doesn't win.

If the Democrats would just run a fiscal conservative for president, at the VERY least my vote wouldn't be cast against them. This election was my first Republican vote, because whatever you want to say about Clinton/Gore, neither one of them were fiscally irresponsible (and I was therefore able to vote 3rd party). It could be argued that Bush AND Kerry are fiscally irresponsible, but I hope that Bush has only been so due to 9/11 and the war in Iraq...Kerry has a MUCH longer track record of poor economic policy.

I don't think I'm alone either. People on both sides of the political aisle are fiscal conservatives but social liberals. Granted, there's alot of social conservatives out there that will vote against a Democrat for social reasons, but I think this is a MUCH smaller number than the number of fiscal conservatives that are socially liberal (but vote their pocketbook first) that you could gain. So if a Democrat was to run as a fiscal conservative (running close to but not quite with a libertarian economic policy) but keep all of the Democrat's social views (environment, pro-choice, etc) I really believe that we'd see a HUGE cross-over from Republicans to vote for them and an even larger number (like me) that would feel comfortable in voting for 3rd party candidates.

[texaspimp]

[ QUOTE ]
Bush - Record Deficit
Clinton - Turned a record deficit left by W's father into a surplus

Bush - 4 years of debt, unemployment, and war
Clinton - 8 years of peace and prosperity

What more can I say?

Republicans try to make people happy by cutting taxes, but then they run up huge deficits and a bad economy. Democrats raise taxes a little, and end up with a balanced budget and a good economy.

Thank you, but I'd rather have a job and slightly higher taxes, than no job and lower taxes.

-Nate

[/ QUOTE ]

If I would have known that terrorists loved us before November 2000, and they would attack us if Bush was elected, I might not have voted for Bush.

The statement by Nate says it all! Clinton was singularly responsible for everything good in the 90's and Bush is singularly responsible for everything bad in 00's.

I am truly concerned for any of you who agree with Nate. I guess being fair and objective is an arcane philosophy to the Democratic sophisticates.

Here are a few things that I know to be 100% fact:

1) There are idiots in all political parties.
2) All Presidents make some bad decisions.
3) Ronald Reagan's tax policy had more to do with the 90's economy than Clinton did. (Note that I did not state Clinton had nothing to do with the 90's economy. He certainly contributed)
4) The Republican's winning control of the House in 94 had a positive impact on the 90's economy.
5) It is intellectually dishonest to not give credit to your opponent and to blame your loss on "lower IQ" Americans.
6) If we all work together in a postive, non-vitrolic manner, America will prosper like never before!


Sorry about #6. Got a little pollyanna there.

[MMMMMM]

Your post shows a commonly held misconception. The President does not control the budget; Congress does. So compare deficit years with the majority party in power, not with the President, if you want to get a more meaningful correlation over the terms and decades.