America in 20 years under republican control, under democrat control?

[JellyBaby]

In talking politic, I someimtes hear "if only my party held power long enough they could really make a difference".

What would the country be like in twenty years if the republicans held the presidency and congress for that span? Likewise, how would we fare if the democrats called the shots during that period?

Which would you prefer, R or D, a continued "balance" between them or some other party?

 

[Zebo]

Until money is out of politics I see no hope. Both sides are working for the top 1%. The other 99% are SOL and will continue to pay higher taxes and get less in return both in freedoms and return on the investment.

 

[LilBlinbBlahIce]

Originally posted by: Carbonyl
Until money is out of politics I see no hope. Both sides are working for the top 1%. The other 99% are SOL and will continue to pay higher taxes and get less in return both in freedoms and return on the investment.

I agree with that to some point. However, if the Bush administration is an example, 20 years of Ashcroft and Rummy would probably mean more restrictions, more "police state" type laws, and possibly more adventures in the ME and elsewhere. God forbid if another terrorist attack should happen. It would probably lead to all the Muslims in the US being put in internment camps for national security. Citizenship irrelevant.

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: LilBlinbBlahIce

Originally posted by: Carbonyl
Until money is out of politics I see no hope. Both sides are working for the top 1%. The other 99% are SOL and will continue to pay higher taxes and get less in return both in freedoms and return on the investment.

I agree with that to some point. However, if the Bush administration is an example, 20 years of Ashcroft and Rummy would probably mean more restrictions, more "police state" type laws, and possibly more adventures in the ME and elsewhere. God forbid if another terrorist attack should happen. It would probably lead to all the Muslims in the US being put in internment camps for national security. Citizenship irrelevant.

Ya but the dems would take all the guns away and make it almost impossible to use public lands for recreation.

Tit-for-tat

They all verify thier legitmacy by passing more laws. We need revolution!!!

 

[JellyBaby]

Money and politics seem to be one in the same. Corporations, apparently, are individuals because they're business entities made up of individuals and campaign contributions are free speech.

If the federal government is indeed working for the top 1% what might happen if that top 1% weren't taxed to death? Would they then stop trying to influence politics to get a "return" on their "tax" investment?

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: JellyBaby
Money and politics seem to be one in the same. Corporations, apparently, are individuals because they're business entities made up of individuals and campaign contributions are free speech.

If the federal government is indeed working for the top 1% what might happen if that top 1% weren't taxed to death? Would they then stop trying to influence politics to get a "return" on their "tax" investment?

I am pretty certain taxes on them was much higher like 80% bracket in the 50-60s and they did'nt have as much influence. Difficult to say. But I feel the bulk public does'nt understand anymore greasing the right palms gets you're legislation passed and has become immune to it's infestation. Pretty good deal how it works today. Politians/generals get "speaking" fees to come talk at your company picknics SOC address for modivation etc. Next thing you know a certain appropraition gets approved which they have voting power over and you company or lobby group just happens to benefit from.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

20 years of Republicans would mean the war on abortion, destruction of the constitution, a government agency for everything from grocery shopping to picking your nose, and 'pre-emptive' strikes on France, Canada and California.

 

[JellyBaby]

Carbonyl, so what changed to make political corruption and special interests so damaging today? A few decades ago citizens were better educated and took more of an active role in politics. Today voter turnouts are abyssmal, broadcast news is turning into entertainment, and healthy nuclear families (and the values gained therein) are becoming scarce. Could it be the final check in our checks and balances system, the people, aren't holding up their end of the bargain?

Also, I would argue we're further away from the Constitution than ever. As government decides to become involved in more and more aspects of our lives, sometimes at the behest of special interests, its actions directly affect more of us and don't always benefit us.

 

[Ornery]

Best way to answer that would be to look at past performance. Dems gave us the wonderful Social Security System. Thank you SO much!

They gave us the abortion of a welfare system, that was only recently revised because the GOP took control of Congress. Thank God! They brought us the Willie Hortons running amok through our cities, thanks to their soft on crime position.

The Dems have been moving to the right for the last 20 years. Clinton was so far removed from what the Dems used to stand for, that he's been regarded as "one of the best Republican Presidents (the US) has ever had".

Whether we have Republicans or Democrats controlling the government for the next twenty years will not be bad, so long as neither supports the Democrat platform as we (used to) know it.

 

[SuperTool]

20 years of Republicans and this country would go bankrupt.

 

[NightTrain]

Originally posted by: SuperTool
20 years of Republicans and this country would go bankrupt.

Republicans wrote all those spending bills in '97 that made up the first balanced budget in 30 years.

 

[JellyBaby]

Originally posted by: SuperTool
20 years of Republicans and this country would go bankrupt.

I believe what ST is talking about is the large deficits and huge debt accumulated during R-controlled periods. The Rs often respond, "yeah but look at the gains (RIO) that debt gives us". Also I hear "when compared to GDP, it's not too bad".

I'm fairly sure if you look at the debt charts from, say, FDR to today you'll notice our debt has risen sharply during both R and D control. In my time, the only period I saw the feds actually produce a balanced budget was when the Ds had the White House and the Rs had Congress. The country also enjoyed a good economy during that time, making it an easier task.

With 20 years of either Ds or Rs I believe you'd get ever-increasing debt. They can't seem to help themselves anymore. U.S. citizens can't manage their own debt so it follows they're not too interested in how their government manages the nation's debt.

 

[NightTrain]

Originally posted by: JellyBaby

Originally posted by: SuperTool
20 years of Republicans and this country would go bankrupt.

I believe what ST is talking about is the large deficits and huge debt accumulated during R-controlled periods.

The democrats held the House (where every spending bill originates) for 40 years and the Senate for all but 12 of 60 years. The republicans took control of both in 1994 and the budget was balanced in 1998. I'm not simple-minded enough to say that is the only reason the budget was balanced but neither am I simple-minded enough to say that republican = bankruptcy.

 

[SuperTool]

Ahh, yes, we have the republicans to thank for balancing the budget.
They are all for cutting spending when Bill Clinton has to take political heat for it, but when their boy is in the White House, it's spend spend spend time. If GOP controlled all branches of government, it would run deficits till this country went bankrupt. No deficit too high, and no tax too low for the GOP.

 

[ConclamoLudus]

This is why I am glad there are checks & balances, and swing voters. Power shifts around enough every couple of terms to keep either party from wreaking havoc on the country. I think either party could easily make this country much worse if left in power for too long.

As for that whole top 1% problem, I hope it doesn't keep you from being happy that you aren't in that top 1%. I'm not there but I don't really care. I don't know if anybody should want to be there, it makes you the target of everyone else.

 

[BarneyFife]

Originally posted by: Carbonyl
Until money is out of politics I see no hope. Both sides are working for the top 1%. The other 99% are SOL and will continue to pay higher taxes and get less in return both in freedoms and return on the investment.

Agreed.

 

[NightTrain]

Originally posted by: SuperTool
Ahh, yes, we have the republicans to thank for balancing the budget.

I never said that. But to suggest that they = bankruptcy is simplistic and ignores reality.

They are all for cutting spending when Bill Clinton has to take political heat for it,

They didn't cut spending. The economy outgrew the deficit. Right now the economy is weak and we suffer through it.

If GOP controlled all branches of government, it would run deficits till this country went bankrupt. No deficit too high, and no tax too low for the GOP.

Clinton held both houses of Congress during his first two years and didnt submit a balanced budget...but not because no one thought it would be a good idea.

 

[SuperTool]

Clinton cut spending, and got plenty of heat for it. Not a day goes by that you don't hear a right winger bash Clinton for cutting defense spending. Supposedly a 300 ship Navy is not enough, and we need a 600 ship one.
Clinton also signed welfare reform, which didn't play too well with the Democrat base. But he took the heat because it was important to balance the budget, even if with a Republican congress.
No such moves from Bush. It's all pandering to the far right wing of his party. Even if the rest of the nation thinks the deficits are too high for another taxcut, he is ramming it through. And spending is not even on his radar. This guy just blew 100Billion on an unnecesary war like it's pocket change.

 

[SuperTool]

Oh, and what's the return we get for all that deficit spending and taxcuts? Zippo. The economy is still in the gutter.

 

[Zebo]

As for that whole top 1% problem, I hope it doesn't keep you from being happy that you aren't in that top 1%. I'm not there but I don't really care. I don't know if anybody should want to be there, it makes you the target of everyone else.

I don't want to get into where I'm at but I'm very happy. It's not the money it's my family/community and keeping them from need which makes me happy. (and an occational fragfest or hunting trip, no women) But the burden I feel has shifted from the rich to the middle class the last 25 years. I can always spot a middle class person because all they do is bitch about the so-called caddilac welfare queens wallking away with thier paycheck when in fact that was BS created by their party for someone to blame for thier high taxes. AFDC is less than 5% of the budget and SS runs a surplus but they never blame the other 95%. They have been hoodwinked, the bait and switch was executed perfectly. You do bring up something I've said before in the past about being a target. It's true with lots of money you need a lawyer on retainer year round to defend you from people. Its a mixed blessing.


Jelly I agree 100% good post.

 

[ConclamoLudus]

Originally posted by: SuperTool
Oh, and what's the return we get for all that deficit spending and taxcuts? Zippo. The economy is still in the gutter.

Correct me if I'm wrong but have the tax cuts really had much time yet? Of course there isn't a return on them. It is still April. Aren't the tax cuts over a period of like ten years? I don't know much about this but I don't think there had been time for it to rebound yet.

 

[NightTrain]

Originally posted by: SuperTool
Clinton cut spending, and got plenty of heat for it.

Clinton also vetoed Reublican spending bills for not spending enough on "health education and the environment" the democrat mantra for the past 10-15 years. To some it equates to priorities...to others the pork-barrel. It's a matter of whose ox is being gored. But make not mistake, after 1994, Clinton's only input on the budget was to veto the bills and blame the republicans for shutting down the government.

Not a day goes by that you don't hear a right winger bash Clinton for cutting defense spending. Supposedly a 300 ship Navy is not enough, and we need a 600 ship one.

The peace dividend played a big part in balancing budget there's no doubt. For that he should certainly get credit. Whether or not it did any damage to our military is also another argument.

No such moves from Bush. It's all pandering to the far right wing of his party. Even if the rest of the nation thinks the deficits are too high for another taxcut, he is ramming it through. And spending is not even on his radar. This guy just blew 100Billion on an unnecesary war like it's pocket change.

Your disagreement with the war is irrelevant to this discussion.

 

[NightTrain]

Originally posted by: SuperTool
Oh, and what's the return we get for all that deficit spending and taxcuts? Zippo. The economy is still in the gutter.

Bush took office in 2001. His first budget was for FY2002. The economy is a cyclical behemoth that doesn't turn on a dime. Deficit spending is a function of the economy and many other factors including the war, 9-11 etc. Taxcuts likewise don't instantly have an effect either. The discretionary part of the budget shrinks every year and the power that government has to affect much change shrinks right along with it. Things just aren't as black and white or as simple as you would have them.

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: NightTrain

Originally posted by: SuperTool
Oh, and what's the return we get for all that deficit spending and taxcuts? Zippo. The economy is still in the gutter.

Bush took office in 2001. His first budget was for FY2002. The economy is a cyclical behemoth that doesn't turn on a dime. Deficit spending is a function of the economy and many other factors including the war, 9-11 etc. Taxcuts likewise don't instantly have an effect either. The discretionary part of the budget shrinks every year and the power that government has to affect much change shrinks right along with it. Things just aren't as black and white or as simple as you would have them.

What is concering me right nowText the cost of capital exceeds the return on capital "So where is the incentive to embark on a capital investment spree right now -- or in the near future?"

Without capital spending where are the jobs? How can there be capital spending at a time of overcapacity, deflation from China and others, exportation of jobs to India and China, and to top the entire mess off an overall environment where "the cost of capital exceeds the return on capital".

Is the economic rebuild of Iraq going to save the US? Is that what we are banking on here. More contracts for HAL, Betchel, etc, etc. Isn't that a drop in the bucket compared to the overall economy? Will those jobs be local or in Iraq, or perhaps even China (where stuff is made)?

Can greenspan lower rates any lower to spark things?

I am pretty doomsday right now unless we just call it quits and start over. Bankrupcy.

 

[Zebo]

Some say consumer demand will get the economy rolling again. But with Americans is record debt and record underemployment (unable to buy things) coupled with deflation from China we will end up buying from them first. How does this help stimulate our capital markets and encourage capital expenditure for more jobs here?