Actually I think you might be on to something...direct democracy simply doesn't work because it's not stable enough. However, the kind of democracy we have right now isn't really the answer either. George Washington had it right for the first and last time, individuals and not parties should hold office. Perhaps it's a step too far to outlaw political parties totally, but party based democracy goes a little too far in the other direction from direct democracy, IMHO.
Actually I think you might be on to something...direct democracy simply doesn't work because it's not stable enough. However, the kind of democracy we have right now isn't really the answer either. George Washington had it right for the first and last time, individuals and not parties should hold office. Perhaps it's a step too far to outlaw political parties totally, but party based democracy goes a little too far in the other direction from direct democracy, IMHO.
Originally posted by: screech
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Craig my friend, as they say the truth will set you free
Go here and move to page 173 Clinton's 1996 Budget
This budget was presented on February 6, 1995 (page 6)
Now the good stuff.
Page 173 has a table called "Outlays, Receipts, and Deficit Summary" on it.
There are the budget deficits that Bill Clinton proposed in February of 1995.
1994 (actual deficit) $203 billion
1995 $192 billion
1996 $196 billion
1997 $213 billion
1998 $196 billion
1999 $197 billion
2000 $194 billion
See any attempted to balance the budget in there? Had Democrats kept congress would there have been any effort to reduce Clinton's spending in order to balance the budget? They didn't do it in his first two years, what makes you think they would have done it then?
Now go to the 2007 budget, and go to page 26 for a historic overview of budgets.
2007 FY Budget
Here you will see the actual budget and spending for 2000.
Compare the actual figures to what Clinton was proposing way back in 1995 and you will see that the actual spending was $1,789 billion compared to the $1,905 billion that Clinton wanted to spend. Actual revenue was also $315 billion more than what was expected in 1995, which leads up to our $236 billion surplus.
If you want to see the true impact of the Republican congress go look at Clinton's 1997 FY budget
1997 FY budget
Page 145.
From the 1996 budget to the 1997 budget he went from $190+ billion deficits as far as the eye could see to a balanced budget by 2001, we actual balanced it in 1998.
Summary, in 1996 Clinton proposes a budget plan that would see a FY 2000 deficit of $194 billion, in 1997 his budget plan sees a $27 billion deficit. The difference in the two figures? $156 billion less in spending in the 1997 plan with only an increase in revenue of $23 billion. What changed between the two plans? Republicans took over congress.
Any questions?
When one party controls both congress and the executive, you end up with insane spending, ie, now.
When opposing parties control the respective branches, there is the possibility of not-quite-so-much drunken-sailor spending. Which is what we need right now.
Sad but true.
I'm actually more curious about the gubernatorial races than Congress at the moment--regardless of what happens I think Congress will be a razor-thin margin one way or the other, so pretty meaningless. Watching races like the Michigan race (go Granholm!) are far more interesting IMO.
Well stated. :thumbsup: Here's hoping our long national nightmare of Republican rule will end ASAP.
WRONG. Look how much money they have wasted in Iraq. Tax cuts for the very wealthiest and huge deficits hardly represent good fiscal policy. Republicans spend like crazy on all the wrong things.
ProfJohn
Lifer
- Jul 28, 2006
- 18,161
- 7
- 0
You and your attack on tax cutes.... we cut taxes, and revenue is at an ALL time high. Prior to this year the all time high was 2000 during the Tech bubble. After that burst and 9-11 revenue went down and it is just now that tax revenue has returned to the 2000 level.
Explain to me why we are seeing RECORD tax revenue if the tax cuts were suppose to result in loss of money as you seem to state.
Explain to me why we are seeing RECORD tax revenue if the tax cuts were suppose to result in loss of money as you seem to state.
Link comparing 2000 and 2005 in real terms?
In any case, revenue doesn't exist in a bubble, it's how it matches up to spending that's important.
I could see it going either way. I have not seen any Democrats with an actual platform designed to solve any problems. You cant get on a platform saying vote for me because my opponent is a Republican and I hate him.
I think voters are getting smarter. The media seems to be losing its ability to brainwash the public to its Liberal Agenda!
I think voters are getting smarter. The media seems to be losing its ability to brainwash the public to its Liberal Agenda!
That is all thanks to the rise of the "New Media". You know, things like Fox News and blogging. If it weren't for them, Dan Rather would have gotten away with his attempted October surprise, and god knows what else.
Who ever implied these are mutually exclusive? In fact, I would think impeaching Bush would be a pre-requisite for any hope of achieving a balanced budget.
ebaycj
Diamond Member
- Mar 9, 2002
- 5,418
- 0
- 0
Originally posted by: FelixDeKat
I think the Republicans will maintain their iron grip on government and guide it to a brighter and more prosperous future as planned.
They sure will if we continue to use Diebold voting machines with "patched" software and no paper trail.
Vic
Elite Member
- Jun 12, 2001
- 50,422
- 14,333
- 136
I have a hard time with this "America is moving to the right" BS when GW's policies are anything but conservative (and in fact, greatly resemble FDR's). Perhaps I'm too fixated on the economic side. Socially though, the right is just the same old same old. It's not that they have moved farther right insofar as they have just refused to move at all. In the meantime, the left has come a long way since William Jennings Bryan prosecuted the Scopes trial (edit: although it still continues to fight social darwinism).
Name three stories Fox corrected the 'mainstream media' on.
As for Rather - the story was correct, and based on very solid evidence apart from the controversial memo. You cannot disprove the evidence and I'm pretty sure you cannot even say what it was. You just yell 'memo memo memo' as if that were the whole story.
You just can't face the facts, it seems.
Rarely is something less accurate posted. For a start, you confuse big government for the good of the nation and the bulk of its citizens, especially the poor but for all, even the rich, with big government which is disastrous for the nation, a radical transfer of wealth to the top, running the nation into bankruptcy and oligarchy.
Vic
Elite Member
- Jun 12, 2001
- 50,422
- 14,333
- 136
Really? So the largest and most expensive government health care plan in US history wasn't for the good of its citizens, especially the elderly poor? The multi-trillion dollar defense industry that GW's government funds doesn't employ millions of average Americans? And these policies aren't almost the exact same way that FDR funded the US out of the depression? And (regarding wealth transfer to the top), multi-billionaire industrialist J. Paul Getty didn't call FDR's administration the "bargain days"?
I'd say if anyone needs to face facts, it's a partisan fanboi like you.
You don't see a difference between FDR's taxing the rich to employ the unemployed in public works projects and GWB's taxing the middle class to support the high tech military expenditures (the ones Eisenhower himself warned us about)?
Although similar, I see a distinct difference.
1. I find it funny people thinking if we had a democratic controlled house and senate we would have contiunued on the surplus side of the budget. Their proof is 1 term, 1 term is not long enough to determine anything. Look further back, democratic senate + house with a republican president. There is ample points in time to show this theory is wrong.
2. Democracy requires an educated voter to work. This country has anything but truely educated voters. Politics gets in the way of a democracy as you have two versions of the same story and people blindly believe the side they have always sided with. I think in the end this requirement of an educated voter will be one of the reasons why our experiment fails.
3. We spent 50 years fighting the cold war and the socialism it represented only to have a party within our own country fight the war for the losing side after it was over.
We spent 4 years and nearly 500,000 mens lives fighting fascism and nazism only to have a political party erect state regulated industries that funnel tax dollars into the hands of private corporations.
I think the above scenario will eventually also ruin this great nation.
Now do I think the democrats have a chance to take both? Yes I do, will it happen? I give them a 50/50 shot. Will it micraculously balance the budget or silence the screaming from the baby left in this country? No.
2. Democracy requires an educated voter to work. This country has anything but truely educated voters. Politics gets in the way of a democracy as you have two versions of the same story and people blindly believe the side they have always sided with. I think in the end this requirement of an educated voter will be one of the reasons why our experiment fails.
3. We spent 50 years fighting the cold war and the socialism it represented only to have a party within our own country fight the war for the losing side after it was over.
We spent 4 years and nearly 500,000 mens lives fighting fascism and nazism only to have a political party erect state regulated industries that funnel tax dollars into the hands of private corporations.
I think the above scenario will eventually also ruin this great nation.
Now do I think the democrats have a chance to take both? Yes I do, will it happen? I give them a 50/50 shot. Will it micraculously balance the budget or silence the screaming from the baby left in this country? No.
I think the hope is that we'll have some form of accountability with the opposition party in control of congress, instead of a rubber stamp congress who looks the other way while the president rewards the people responsible for the cluster**** known as Iraq with medals of freedom.
personally, I feel like it should be a law that the executive and legislative branches can never be controlled by the same party
Vic
Elite Member
- Jun 12, 2001
- 50,422
- 14,333
- 136
WWII?
Eisenhower warned us about the dangers of the military-industrial complex and yet he was a what? And LBJ was a what and yet he gave that same military-industrial complex the Vietnam War?
The South now votes for the Party of Lincoln?
Tied up in your little partisan zealotry, I don't think you people are able to see the big picture of politics and government in America. People say that the Democrats only complain and don't actually present solutions for the current problems caused by the Republicans, and (if you step back for a moment) it's easy to see why. The Democrats wouldn't have done things any differently. Read the Congressional Record.
First, it was hardly the largest government health care plan in US history. Ever hear of Medicare, for example?
Second, it is a corrupt program - for example, the republicans *demanded* the bill add a clause saying the government is barred from using its huge buying power to negotiate any discounts on the drugs (which the VA does, for example), leading to $150B+ directly in windfall profits for the drugmakers at taxpayer expense.
You have to realize that crooks like these see the government as a tool for extracting money from the suckers, the public, into the pockets of their donor cronies, and they do it under the guise of good causes - drug programs, war, etc.
Thirdly, the program sucks compared to what it should be for seniors, for the cost. For many seniors it makes drugs more expensive.
Fourth, the process by which the republicans committed this crime was a scandal, for example, threatening the person who calculated the real cost of the bill to silence him, and threatening the son of one of the members who was voting no in the son's upcoming election, and reportedly promising $100,000 aid for the son with a yes vote.
The republicans did something unprecedented in the history of congress when, after losing the vote, they just kept it open all night for hours while they arm-twisted the votes.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 20K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 12K
-
Discussion Speculation: Zen 4 (EPYC 4 "Genoa", Ryzen 7000, etc.)- Started by Vattila
- Replies: 13K
-
Facebook
Twitter