US Democratic program

It has occurred to me that while most people here either bash or support the US Republicans, no one really talks about what the Democrats' program is.

The Republicans want to reform social security and medicare, they want a smaller and cheaper government, some amongst them support an aggressive foreign policy, some want more states' rights (I noticed this with the posters here, the politicians don't seem that concerned with it) and most seem to be pro-life and pro-christian (if there is such a thing).

But what's the Democrats' vision of the US ? To me it just seems their main point is 'We're not like those scary Christians in the Republican party'. Surely there must be more to them than that ?

Well, this was one of the principal complaints against the Democrats during the election:

-Okay, okay, you hate Bush. We got that. Loud and clear. Now what else?

The problem is the Democratic party isn't idea driven. It's a loose confederation of special interest groups: like ELF (Enivironmental Liberation Front) NARAL (Nataional Abortion Rights Action League), the NAACP and other groups. Frequently, other than their particular issue, the members have nothing in agreement. For example, most black religious leaders in the NAACP are opposed to abortion, but they have to keep quiet about that.

(Edit: aside...before anyone goes claiming Democrats represent blacks & Republicans don't, we do deal with the Urban League and the UNCF. We just don't deal with the NAACP specifically, as it has a pretty radically left agenda and fired it's president, Kwisei Mfume (no Republican stooge by any stretch) recently for not attacking Republicans enough. Not much ground to gain there).

You could argue that Republicans are also just a loose confederation of special interest groups, except there's one difference. No one interest group get's carte blanche on their issue.

Example: anti-gun people (The Brady Lobby) join the Democrats. All Democrats are now required to toe the line on outlawing personal firearm ownership. The pro-gun people (NRA) would love to have that kind of clout with it's fellow members of the Republican party, but they can't even get Republicans to guarantee no background checks. With the Republicans, the few are subordinate to the many, so we can actually put together coherent policies.

Quote:

---

To me it just seems their main point is 'We're not like those scary Christians in the Republican party'. Surely there must be more to them than that ?

---

Just barely. That is why they fail.

Quote:

---

It has occurred to me that while most people here either bash or support the US Republicans, no one really talks about what the Democrats' program is.

---

They dont have a coherent agenda or and organized party.

Take a look at their national leader, Howard Dean. All he can say is how bad republicans are and how much he hates them (his exact words), yet hes raised less than half of what the RNC has raised this year.

To me, it comes down to this: Mainstream Republicans feel good about giving their support/money to their party. Mainstream Democrats have to choose the lesser of two evils in their mind these days. When your party is the lesser of two evils to its main base, something is seriously wrong.

Not to mention the party is still suffering the massive shift that happened in the 60s. The republicans are still basking in the Reagan light, while the democrats are struggling with their identity. It wasnt too long ago they represented the far right, now they represent the very far left and many of the core are just waking up to that and arent sure if they like it.

Thats the most objective answer you'll get out of the likes of me. ~;)

Has anything the democrats have offered even been considered by Dubya? Without any control over the house, senate or executive branch is there really any point? Hell, no! He doesn't listen to voices of dissent in his own party, and he sure as heck isn't listening to anyone else. He is the most divisive leader the country has had in this century. His administration has analysts canned who don't provide the conclusion that they know is expected of them. (And he nominates folks like Bolton who follow this very pattern too...)

Democrats actually have had an agenda of dealing with the budget problems (you know the ones they fixed before Dubya wrecked it again) for dealing with Social Security and Medicare issues. More importantly, they have had ideas about fixing the very broken medical/insurance system with its 13% annual inflation rate. Unfortunately, the right wingers start the "liberal, liberal, liberal, nyya, nyyya, nyyya, nyyy, nyyaa" and it degenerates from there. Bush actually borrowed quite a few issues to take as his own...but of course with some screwed up approach that won't work as its centerpiece.

Has Bush done anything that has really worked? I've yet to see it. Has he been even within 50% on any number he has projected? Again, I have yet to see it. There is the Midas touch, and then there is its opposite, the "merde" touch. Dubya has the latter.

What the democrats have lacked (post Clinton) is a strong charismatic moderate leader to unite the base and put forward a plan. The democrats have long had a rather diverse base. The Republicans have been regimented with a Borg like approach to govt where everyone is required to vote the party line. Personally, I have more respect for independent thought than blind obedience.

So what can they do at the moment? Resist the more inept appointments and proposals, and wait. Anything they propose is going to be warped into something that none of them would support. It's not like an admin that can fabricate WMD evidence to go to war is going to give any opposing view a fair hearing. Eventually the delirium of the country's conservative fever is going to break and folks will realize we have an economy adrift with no course set for the future, that we have a runaway Republican budget, we have runaway healthcare costs, an overstretched military that has been poorly supported by the administration, and a deficit that is growing by $500 billion or so each year. I hope that the fever breaks on its own, rather than from some new trauma.

I've always gotten a hearty laugh at watching conservatives huddle together, cult-like, reinforcing one anothers views. ~:grouphug:

Out of a 26 line post replying to the idea that the Democrats don't have a message other than "Bush sucks", Red Harvest has chosen to spend 23 bashing Bush and the Republicans. In the other 3 lines, he alludes to a 'plan' to balance the budget, enhance Social Security and Medicare, yet offers not one detail. I have a plan to make $10million US a year by the time I'm 40. Just don't ask me for any details.

This, in a nutshell, is what is wrong with the Democratic party. They hate the opposition more than they like their own ideas.

Well, since Dubya's the only President this century, it's a safe bet he's both the most divisive and the most unifying presence. ~;)

Quote:

---

Has anything the democrats have offered even been considered by Dubya?

---

The question at hand is: What have they offered at all?

The last major democratic new initiative was Hillary's socialized healthcare system. That was shot down by public opinion, not the Republicans.

Besides that they havent done anything at all. Simply saying that they want to fix the budget, fix healthcare, ect. doesnt mean they have any real plans. (And dont get so full of yourself, Newt fixed the budget during the Clinton years.)

Take a look at Social Security. Ok, so the dems dont want privatized accounts - whats their solution? Deny theres even a problem! They act so righteous and scream about Bush leaving deficits to our children, yet they are leaving a much bigger problem with them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Black Ship

Well, since Dubya's the only President this century, it's a safe bet he's both the most divisive and the most unifying presence. ~;)

---

True, I should have said in the last 100 years...oh well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

Out of a 26 line post replying to the idea that the Democrats don't have a message other than "Bush sucks", Red Harvest has chosen to spend 23 bashing Bush and the Republicans. In the other 3 lines, he alludes to a 'plan' to balance the budget, enhance Social Security and Medicare, yet offers not one detail. I have a plan to make $10million US a year by the time I'm 40. Just don't ask me for any details.

This, in a nutshell, is what is wrong with the Democratic party. They hate the opposition more than they like their own ideas.

---

What a misrepresentation, only a portion of that was directed at his failed policies. It's not "hatred" of the opposition. It is hatred of bad ideas and particularly ones that have failed. Plans have been offered from the Democrats, selective hearing is an issue... Does it do any good to put anything forward when nobody is listening. No.

I'm an independent by the way. I've never been that happy with what has been offered by either side. The best initiatives I've seen were: 1. Balancing the budget. 2. Doing something about healthcare cost and coverage. Clinton succeeded on #1, and got the healthcare industry concerned enough about #2 that it was in check for a few years. My suggestion is to go back to those two things first. Fix what Dubya broke. The problem is, Dubya used the irresponsible "free candy" approach of tax breaks to get elected.

If you want to continue with "my plan": 1. Balance the budget by reversing much of Dubya's tax cut. 2. Provide universal coverage or true availability, burden shared by all. 3. Greatly simplify medical/insurance rules to a nationwide system--cut out much of the overhead now built into the system. 4. I believe priming the pump in key sectors with incentives for future markets is the way to actually jump start the economy and keep our competitive technology edge 5. I believe in dismantling/restricting monopolies/barriers that inhibit overall growth (Microsoft and some of the extensions on pharmaceutical patents.). 6. Reform the governance of the U.S. financial markets--so that I can get a decent return on my investments. 7. Reform the way earnings are reported to provide a true picture of financial health, and reform how boards and execs report to shareholders--execs seem to be carrying away the lions share of my investment profits. 8. Stiffer penalties, easier prosecution (lower the burden of proof for the obvious gross misconduct), and tigher regulation to reduce fleecing of companies by execs. 9. A real energy policy, with investment for the future. 10. Revise tax code slightly to adjust interest taxes by subtracting out inflation for a "net" income--other measures to encourage saving, discourage over leveraged borrowing. 11. Take the draconian aspects out of DMCA--they are a drag on competitiveness. 12. Make medical pricing fair--no more billing based on who your insurer is. The current range of that is several hundred percent.

As I said, its not gonna matter until there is someone charismatic to present other plans, and have an audience to present it to.

Yhe democrats agenda is to create a new Vietnam generation. They hope by harping on how the war is wrong and how we are committing war crimes they will get the same boost from the younger generation as they did from Nam. It seems they are the party of Europe.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJager

The last major democratic new initiative was Hillary's socialized healthcare system. That was shot down by public opinion, not the Republicans.

---

That and the balanced budget... both shot down by Republicans, one after Clinton was out of office. ~D

And it is a lie that it was shot down by public opinion itself. There was a major redirect effort by the right wing, and they used "gays in the military" as their major distraction tool to sidetrack issues that actually mattered. And there was the use of "socialized healthcare" to label it. That's not what it was. It was striving for universal coverage. You have to hand it to the Republicans though, they are great at tagging derisive nicknames to anything from the Democrats.

I would embrace socialized healthcare compared to what I've seen and experienced in our own bloated mess (and some limited experience with socialized healthcare.) It is rapidly becoming unaffordable--no surprise since it carries a double digit inflation rate. Companies are trying to eliminate it altogether from benefits and have been for a number of years.

Even Frist recognizes that the problem is spinning out of control.

It is the height of hypocrisy that the Schiavo conservatives are so opposed to extending healthcare to the uninsured. I see healthcare as being like basic education--something that we as a nation should try to provide. It is part of *my* christian values. ~;)

The private accounts plan would be great if there was indication that the U.S. economy would be in good long term health...(rather than trading sideways) and if it wasn't so expensive to get started. Trouble is, U.S. markets can and do stay in ruts for extended periods of time. It is not something you can afford to do when already running a massive deficit, Dubya dipped into the till too much already. The other problem is that if not very well considered and regulated, most investors would get fleeced, leaving no retiriment funds for them. With the problems in both corporate governance/reporting and in mutual fund regulation, I don't see how this is going to be anything but an expensive disaster. Dubya is not a good planner (see post war Iraq and our growing casualty count), and his numbers don't ever work out. Better for Dubya to leave SS alone, rather than touch it. He lacks the basic math skills and honesty for the job.

Quote:

---

That and the balanced budget... both shot down by Republicans, one after Clinton was out of office.

---

Oh please. This is the bifggest lie probagated by the democratic maybe in its history. The balanced budget was proposed in the republicans contract with America. Clinton said it couldnt be done and in fact used up all his vetoes on the matter and was finally forced to sign it. When it worked the democrats took credit for it. You also left out welfare reform . Another of Clintons greatest achiements that was also passed over his objections.

Quote:

---

It is the height of hypocrisy that the Schiavo conservatives are so opposed to extending healthcare to the uninsured.

---

What dose Schiavo have to do with health insurance? In reality there are very few uninsured people in the US certainly there arent any poor who dont have it. Its only people like me who work for themselves or make too much to get government assistance who dont have it. Or the young who dont see a need for it.

Quote:

---

He lacks the basic math skills and honesty for the job.

---

I dont think hes doing the calculations so dont worry.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Red Harvest

I would embrace socialized healthcare compared to what I've seen and experienced in our own bloated mess (and some limited experience with socialized healthcare.) It is rapidly becoming unaffordable--no surprise since it carries a double digit inflation rate.

---

I agree that our healthcare is becoming a bloated mess- but I think that expecting further government control/funding to fix the problem a bit unreasonable. Sadly, I think its almost grown into a catch 22 situation. The federal government is causing healthcare to be ineffecient and overpriced, but its too overpriced to be able to deal with it without government interference.

I think maybe a step in the right direction would be to make people have a more vested interest in their own health. Such as allowing insurance companies to charge higher premiums to those that live unhealthy lifestyles- smokers, obese, ect.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny

What dose Schiavo have to do with health insurance? In reality there are very few uninsured people in the US certainly there arent any poor who dont have it. Its only people like me who work for themselves or make too much to get government assistance who dont have it. Or the young who dont see a need for it.

---

The contract with America fixed the budget deficit? Yeah...righhhhhhhhhhhhhttttttt.

With regards to healthcare, what country do you live in? You sure as heck don't live in the U.S. I grew up without health insurance, except when my dad was in the navy. The working poor often can't afford health insurance. I know many without it. Their numbers have grown tremendously under Dubya.

Heck, it takes a considerable bite out of my own budget and doesn't even cover that much. With a medical inflation rate that is 10% greater than inflation I'll run into a crunch in a few years. Plus, my family is healthy and it is mostly catastrophic coverage.

And good luck trying to find maternity coverage.

Schiavo has a lot to do with it, exposes the basic hypocrisy.

But here is the clincher: If you were correct, and the uninsured or underinsured were virtually non-existent, then it would cost almost nothing to have it. So deciding it shouldn't be made available doesn't make much sense. Try to squirm your way out of that one.

Quicky stat for you:

"In 2003, approximately 45 million Americans were without health insurance. That is roughly 15 percent of the population of the U.S. Ginsburg contends that the figure would be even higher if not for the recent expansion of Medicaid and the State Children's Health Insurance Program, both of which are government sponsored."

Now this was just the uninsured, not the underinsured.

In America, it is illegal to deny health care coverage to somebody based on their ability (or lack thereof) to pay. If you have insurance, a benefit offered by many companies, you negotiate with your employer and your insurer over what is covered and to what extent. If you do not, you pay out of pocket, except if your pocket is empty, the hospital is legally required to extend you a credit line.

What is your problem Red Harvest? That you have to pay for the services you receive? If you are moaning about the entitlements you think you deserve are not available, and you actually have to pay for the services you consume, perhaps you should choose another country to reside in, one that takes your money up front and gives you your medical services later. You cannot have your cake and eat it too.

And if health care is really and truly your #1 issue, do what the doctors and hospitals, never mind the insurance companies are telling you to do. Stop the predatory, destructive practices of the American Trial Lawyers association. It's a get rich quick scheme that drives health care costs up so that lawyers and the occassional unfortunate get rich off.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Red Harvest

Quicky stat for you:

"In 2003, approximately 45 million Americans were without health insurance. That is roughly 15 percent of the population of the U.S. Ginsburg contends that the figure would be even higher if not for the recent expansion of Medicaid and the State Children's Health Insurance Program, both of which are government sponsored."

Now this was just the uninsured, not the underinsured.

---

From here.

Quote:

---

Even the most extreme estimate (the Current Population Survey) contains some positive news. One is the fact that one-third of the uninsured, nearly 15 million people, live in households with annual incomes of $50,000 or above. Half of those earn more than $75,000. Moreover, (as noted earlier) 10 to 14 million uninsured people may be eligible to enroll in Medicaid and CHIPs but simply have not done so.

Why is this good news? These data suggest about 60 percent of the uninsured already have access to government health insurance programs or have enough income to afford private coverage.

When these individuals are subtracted from the total, the actual number of uninsured truly lacking access to coverage may be as low as 18 million people, or about 6 percent of the U.S. population. If we further subtract those who are not uninsured for an entire year or more, the number is likely even less.

It is completely plausible that many people willingly choose not to purchase health insurance. For instance, people who qualify for Medicaid can always enroll after they become sick. In addition, the uninsured receive a substantial amount of free medical care and physician services--by some estimates, more than $1,000 worth every year--by government-run, for-profit, and nonprofit health care providers. The availability of free care inadvertently creates an incentive for persons to drop insurance coverage.

---

That's just an excerpt- anyone that's interested should read the entire article as it looks more closely at how many people are really uninsured, why, and what the term really means.

Quote:

---

The contract with America fixed the budget deficit? Yeah...righhhhhhhhhhhhhttttttt.

---

Quote:

---

On the first day of the 104th Congress, the new Republican majority will immediately pass the following major reforms, aimed at restoring the faith and trust of the American people in their government:

* FIRST, require all laws that apply to the rest of the country also apply equally to the Congress;
* SECOND, select a major, independent auditing firm to conduct a comprehensive audit of Congress for waste, fraud or abuse;
* THIRD, cut the number of House committees, and cut committee staff by one-third;
* FOURTH, limit the terms of all committee chairs;
* FIFTH, ban the casting of proxy votes in committee;
* SIXTH, require committee meetings to be open to the public;
* SEVENTH, require a three-fifths majority vote to pass a tax increase;
* EIGHTH, guarantee an honest accounting of our Federal Budget by implementing zero base-line budgeting.

---

Clinton vetoed it or am I making that up?

Quote:

---

"In 2003, approximately 45 million Americans were without health insurance. That is roughly 15 percent of the population of the U.S. Ginsburg contends that the figure would be even higher if not for the recent expansion of Medicaid and the State Children's Health Insurance Program, both of which are government sponsored."

---

Those figures have been shown to be bloated. Did it ever occur to you that some people dont want health insurance? Again if your poor you get free health insurance. Ask anyone whos been in the service how great free healthcare is or go to some hopital thats also used to teach doctors and nurses and be their guinea pig if you like. If it werent for lawyers and taxes as has been said you could afford to pay for most healthcare out of pocket like in the old days. Heck the doctor would even come to your house.

Democrats are only Republican-wannabe's..... ~;)

Quote:

---

What is your problem Red Harvest? That you have to pay for the services you receive? If you are moaning about the entitlements you think you deserve are not available, and you actually have to pay for the services you consume, perhaps you should choose another country to reside in, one that takes your money up front and gives you your medical services later. You cannot have your cake and eat it too.

---

Well Written! ~:cheers:

Oh and it would be very Democratic-like to bash them without giving examples of what Bush has done good.

Heres a personal example:

My family's company got a large tax break directly due to Bush and weve expanded into several different cities and have been able to hire more people than we did during all the Clinton years because many of the taxes associated with expansion have been reduced or lifted.

I cannot stand the democratic propaganda. They show commercials trying to convince people the economy is in the trash the same day we hire 3 new people! Its completely idiotic.

In any event, Bush's policies have been very beneficial to small and medium businesses and made the recession one of the smallest ever. Any democrat who tells you otherwise probably has never run a company and is most likely a complete jackass - pardon the pun. ~D

On the contrary, I don't mind paying for my services, but I can do math. And it doesn't take long to figure out that the historical medical inflation rate is far from sustainable. Companies have done the math, that's why fewer and fewer jobs actually offer health coverage. By the way, when I couldn't afford it, I didn't get medical treatment. Neither did my siblings. Shoots a big hole in your free lunch concept.

Only a fool can't see that the Emergency room is being used like a doctor's office for the uninsured and underinsured. When they can't pay the costs get spread around. Actually from what I've seen of bills, they shift it to those who DON'T have an agreement. I particularly enjoy getting a bill with 100% overcharge, then watching as the overcharges are removed over the course of 6 months as the parties negotiate. That's not the exception, it is the rule. If you are on your own paying it, then you get stuck with the overcharges, with no recourse except to walk away from the bill. I've seen it with several different health care plans now.

And about those crowded emergency rooms...if the people in there were instead able to go to a regular doctor, then those of us with insurance could get through quicker, with better treatment, and prognosis. We also would be exposed to fewer emergency room contagions.

It isn't govt. regulation adding to the cost structure. It is the way billing and insurance is done. You want to improve efficiency? Develop a standardized federal system for this, cut out 90% of the useless crap in the middle. It is a huge waste of resources for a level of bureaucracy that is unnecessary. Every year it seems to be more convoluted than it was the year before.

And the quality of this overpriced care? On average, it stinks. We've had to hunt around carefully to find good doctors (and often they get moved "out of network.") We are OK when we can pick the physician, but get burned when it is any sort of emergency. I've got one bill right now I refuse to pay because the doctor was so grossly incompetent, that I had to seek care elsewhere for my daughter. Fluke? No, another one killed my great aunt during a routine check up. My mother wouldn't be alive today, if I hadn't done some careful research into the treatment of side effects of a drug allergic reaction she had to from a prescription error. The doctor had no clue of the severity or treatment until I got involved. I could run a long list of these incidents.

And for a society so concerned about the unborn, we sure have a strange way of showing it when it comes to pre-natal and maternity care...

Cadillac prices for Yugo care.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny

Clinton vetoed it or am I making that up?

---

Yes, you are. Those things didn't balance the budget.

Or one could ask...if they require a balanced budget...why has the current president been unable to do so? No need to answer, it is a rhetorical question.

Quote:

---

It isn't govt. regulation adding to the cost structure. It is the way billing and insurance is done. You want to improve efficiency? Develop a standardized federal system for this, cut out 90% of the useless crap in the middle.

---

Medicare/Medicaid are hardly models of efficiency- Id wager those programs are regularly gouged as much or more than insurance. I'd be hard pressed to think of any area where expanded federal control/beaurocracy made something more efficient.

At least when I go to a network doctor for my insurance, prices are pre-negotiated. If they try to overbill (gouge) me, I don't have to pay it.

Quote:

---

Yes, you are.

---

Would you like to place a wager on that? Better be careful before calling someone a liar.

Quote:

---

Those things didn't balance the budget.

---

Yopu do realise who authorizes the Budget dont you or did we have a democratic led congress when these budgets were passed. Again Clinton ran out of vetoes. He said it couldnt be done.

Quote:

---

In 1995, the House Republicans pass the Balanced Budget Act of 1995 followed by passage by the Senate Republicans. On November 13, Bill Clinton closes the government with the stroke of his veto pen to avoid agreeing to a balanced budget—costing taxpayers an estimated $750 million over the next six days. Clinton finally says he agrees to seven-year balanced budget using the most recent CBO numbers, re-opening the government on November 19th.

---

Wasn't the balanced budget and the surplus of the late 90s mostly due to the economic boom ?

Don't forget that the republican wanted tax cuts, if they had passed the US would have run an even larger deficit after the .com stockmarket crash.
I really don't understand why Bush is handing out tax cuts to individuals when the budget is far from balanced and you are running a record deficit, why does Congress (and the Republicans in it) approve this ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Red Harvest

Cadillac prices for Yugo care.

---

A worldwide problem, check the evolution of doctors' income and compare it to the average workers' income, they rise much much faster. It will get even worse with the rising average age. There doesn't seem to be anyway to stop this. I'd suggest creating more scholarships for people studying medicine, but I doubt it will be sufficient.

The government here tried to do something about the gap and the doctors went on strike :furious3:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJager

My family's company got a large tax break directly due to Bush and weve expanded into several different cities and have been able to hire more people than we did during all the Clinton years because many of the taxes associated with expansion have been reduced or lifted.

---

Different presidents concentrate on different sectors, I don't think you can take one company as a way to judge an Administration.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

And if health care is really and truly your #1 issue, do what the doctors and hospitals, never mind the insurance companies are telling you to do. Stop the predatory, destructive practices of the American Trial Lawyers association. It's a get rich quick scheme that drives health care costs up so that lawyers and the occassional unfortunate get rich off.

---

We're just starting to be able to break 'medical secret'. I almost died because of a doctors negligence and had to spent a month in the hospital. There was nothing I could do about it. Now this might have been an honest mistake, but some doctors just make too many of them. Cap the amounts patient can demand/receive, but don't destroy the system entirely.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJager

They dont have a coherent agenda or and organized party.

---

Well, the republican party has the same problem to a degree doesn't it ? There seem to be 3 big subparties: the libertarians (no taxes !), the neo-cons (no dictators !) and Christian right (no fun!). I'd say the interest of the libertarians go against the interest of the other two. A strong foreign policy takes up a lot of money, and enforcing a christian morality (or enforcing anything) requires government action, which doesn't fit well with the 'minimal government' principle imho. Republicans also seem to have a thing for states rights, but I don't see this as a separate, major group.

The Democrats seem to have similar but opposite groups, the socialists (no poverty !), the environmentalists (no pollution !) and the liberals (no limits !). The interests also collide. socialism requires a strong economic backing, which doesn't go well with the environmentalists, the ideology (work together) is also completely different from the liberals (live for yourself). I was actually hesitant to include the environmentalists as a separate group, I think most of them probably left with Nader. There's also the idea of 'worker rights' but i'm not sure how powerful it is, and whether it should be considered separate from the socialists.

Both parties seem to get dragged down by their ideologic extremists, the Christian Right and the radical liberals. Although the Christian right might have a bigger support base nowadays, mostly because you can get away with anything these days, except for marrying someone of the same sex, and really, that's just symbolic, so the extreme liberals that are left are just that, scary extremists. Not too different from the Christian Right people from the American Taliban website (or their quotes at least).

What surprise me is that their is no 'moderate' liberal-libertarian party around. Both ideologies support the rights and duties of the individual. By moderate I mean that they don't need to push a liberal agenda even further, they just protect the freedoms that exist now. Okay, I'd just like to see the Republicans without the Christian Right I guess. Of course a moderate party, certainly in a two-party system, is probably just a nice dream...

Quote:

---

Well, the republican party has the same problem to a degree doesn't it ? There seem to be 3 big subparties: the libertarians (no taxes !), the neo-cons (no dictators !) and Christian right (no fun!). I'd say the interest of the libertarians go against the interest of the other two. A strong foreign policy takes up a lot of money, and enforcing a christian morality (or enforcing anything) requires government action, which doesn't fit well with the 'minimal government' principle imho. Republicans also seem to have a thing for states rights, but I don't see this as a separate, major group.

---

No, the Republicans are much more unified. Policy disagreements are hashed out behind closed doors for the most part as the 3 distinct groups you talk about arent really that distinct.

Most Republicans like low taxes, are for a strong defense policy, and are Christians. So while there are small disagreements - there is no huge ideological split.

Quote:

---

Wasn't the balanced budget and the surplus of the late 90s mostly due to the economic boom ?

---

No again Clinton said it couldnt be done. It was a direct result of te republicans budget.

Quote:

---

Don't forget that the republican wanted tax cuts, if they had passed the US would have run an even larger deficit after the .com stockmarket crash.

---

This has been proven false once again. Reducing taxes actually increases federal tax income. You get a smaller piece but of a much bigger pie.

Quote:

---

I really don't understand why Bush is handing out tax cuts to individuals when the budget is far from balanced and you are running a record deficit, why does Congress (and the Republicans in it) approve this ?

---

Again it stimulates the economy and actually increases revenue.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny

This has been proven false once again. Reducing taxes actually increases federal tax income. You get a smaller piece but of a much bigger pie.


Again it stimulates the economy and actually increases revenue.

---

.

Well, I have two problems with his tax policiy. The First is actually not about cuts but about the refund he did, this has proven to be ineffective when it comes to stimulating the economy. I saw it as nothing but a publicity stunt.

The problem with the tax cuts is that they are targeted at the rich (you' re welcome to disprove this if you can). Wouldn't tax cuts for the middle class stimulate the economy more ? Or even better, tax cuts for companies ?

three letters to prove that government run health services descend into expensive, inefficient piles of poo:
NHS

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny

Would you like to place a wager on that? Better be careful before calling someone a liar.

---

I realize from your posts that you have difficulty with reading comprehension at times. If you actually read what I wrote you will find I didn't call you a liar. Let me spell it out more clearly: your idea of how the budget was balanced is fantasy.

I leave the namecalling to my Republican friends, they are so much better at it than I am--practice I suppose.

Quote:

---

Let me spell it out more clearly: your idea of how the budget was balanced is fantasy.

---

I dont think so. Accusssing someone of making things up is calling them a liar in my book. Bush has been called a liar for far less. It is you who need to study reading comprehension. Are you still denying Clinton vetoed the bill?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny

This has been proven false once again. Reducing taxes actually increases federal tax income. You get a smaller piece but of a much bigger pie.

Again it stimulates the economy and actually increases revenue.

---

Ah yes, more bogus economic theory stated as proven fact. These fantasies haven't worked. Take a look at the budget deficit. Did it shrink? No, it took off. Economic growth has remained weak. There are ~2 trillion reasons the theory has proven wrong, far more than enough evidence for me.

You stimulate an economy by encouraging wise investment. Encourage growth into new markets, research and development. This isn't done by cutting taxes. Simply throwing money at the consumer and hoping for the best doesn't work. Far better to use the taxes to actually build something or to support research etc. It is 100% certain that money put into those two will actually produce more jobs, and economic growth. Which would you rather have, a new job? or a pink slip and tax rebate?

At the same time another conflicting theory that I've seen touted (and often by the same folks, lol) is that when there is recession and govt. receipts fall, federal spending should pull back as well. Fortunately, that is not what we typically do. Oh sure it sounds entirely logical and has an easy to understand appeal, but what does cutting govt spending do in the middle of a recession? It tanks the economy. Why? Because govt spending serves as somewhat of a moderator to dampen the economic cycles. When business gets soft, the layoffs hit hard, hiring ends, major equipment investment ends. It is often very abrupt. Now By the same token, in an economic boom it is bad if the govt. goes on a spending spree...or decides it has room to cut taxes dramatically counting on future growth...

What should you really want the govt to focus on during a recession? Govt spending on projects that produce things that we will use in the future is one. Encouraging targeted investment is another. Spend the money while the labor is cheaper, you get more for less. It creates jobs when they are needed most and it puts infrastructure in place for when the recovery occurs. One thing is certain, employees have to pay taxes. Companies don't if they are not making a profit, but employees provide steady Federal revenue.

Quote:

---

Ah yes, more bogus economic theory stated as proven fact. These fantasies haven't worked. Take a look at the budget deficit. Did it shrink? No, it took off. Economic growth has remained weak. There are ~2 trillion reasons the theory has proven wrong, far more than enough evidence for me.

---

Talk about fantasy...
http://www.bea.doc.gov/bea/newsrel/gdp_large.gif

Google for any legitimate news story on the subject. Even in light of unusually high energy prices, economists predict steady, sustainable economic growth will continue. I can't understand for the life of me how the Dems have been able to perpetuate the myth that the economy is in bad shape- lots of help from the media helps I guess.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny

I dont think so. Accusssing someone of making things up is calling them a liar in my book. Bush has been called a liar for far less. It is you who need to study reading comprehension. Are you still denying Clinton vetoed the bill?

---

Well if you insist on calling yourself a liar, I can't stop you, but leave me out of it. I don't think you are a liar, delusional perhaps. I don't care what Clinton did with the Contract on America. That didn't balance the budget.

The whole idea the Republicans had (and have) is that we cut out any social programs. The Contract on America was one of the weapons with which to try to achieve it.

It's no surprise really, these same corporate minded types are the ones busily eliminating health care plans and pension plans from business. The old 3 legged stool of work pensions, social security, and private savings/investment is missing a few legs...or at least they keep getting sawed off shorter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

Talk about fantasy...
http://www.bea.doc.gov/bea/newsrel/gdp_large.gif

Google for any legitimate news story on the subject. Even in light of unusually high energy prices, economists predict steady, sustainable economic growth will continue. I can't understand for the life of me how the Dems have been able to perpetuate the myth that the economy is in bad shape- lots of help from the media helps I guess.

---

Actually, if you look at a chart going back farther, this neatly proves my point as well. Growth was higher on averge before, the current level is anemic and not the sort of return on investment that we are accustomed to in the US. If the tax refund theory was accurate, growth would need to be far higher to increase profits and offset the loss in tax revenue. Most federal revenue actually comes from employment taxes which are less variable. (The federal budget can be an interesting read at times.)

This link might prove helpful (has lots of charts.) http://www.thechartstore.com/html/Economic%20Samples.pdf Take a look at capacity utilization. That number is as real as it gets. You can also see GDP running ~5% throughout most of Clinton's administration.

The current oil/energy price rises weren't unforseen. They were discounted as a possibility by those in industry and govt, but not unforseen. I hear the same sort of denial about the possibility of a rise above $60 at the moment. Wish I could find a clear indicator of when, I could easily make good money off ot it. I failed to follow my instinct last time around, and that was a mistake.

Quote:

---

Tax Cut Facts and Fantasies

By: Richard Rahn
Washington Times
April 4, 2003


In 1980, President Carter and his supporters in the Congress and news media asked, "how can we afford" presidential candidate Ronald Reagan's proposed tax cuts?

Mr. Reagan's critics claimed the tax cuts would lead to more inflation and higher interest rates, while Mr. Reagan said tax cuts would lead to more economic growth and higher living standards. What happened? Inflation fell from 12.5 percent in 1980 to 3.9 percent in 1984, interest rates fell, and economic growth went from minus 0.2 percent in 1980 to plus 7.3 percent in 1984, and Mr. Reagan was re-elected in a landslide.

Now a quarter-century later, the same debate is being replayed, with the opponents demonstrating collective amnesia and ignorance. Those opposed to President Bush's tax proposals make two major arguments: the tax cuts will increase the deficit and benefit the rich. Those who support the tax cuts argue that such tax cuts will increase economic growth and liberty, and reduce poverty.

To have an honest debate, it is important to know the facts. Claims are made that a tax cut will "cost" $700 billion or so, over 10 years. Such numbers are almost meaningless. First, they tend to be static revenue estimates, which assume no change in behavior because of the tax cut, which is totally unrealistic. Second, gross domestic product (GDP) is expected to be approximately $140 trillion over the next 10 years, which means the proposed tax cut is approximately one-half of 1 percent of total national product (in static terms). Even though political commentators, like David Broder of The Washington Post, refer to the tax cut as "massive" (March 30, 2003), it is almost too small to be meaningfully measured.

The correct way to measure tax revenues and government outlays is as a percentage of gross domestic product, in the same way the burden of your home mortgage is directly related to your income. You may be shocked to learn that even though federal government tax revenues and spending have increased almost twentyfold in the last 40 years, they have barely budged as a percent of GDP.

For instance, federal tax revenues were 17.5 percent of GDP in 1962 and were an almost identical 17.9 percent of GDP last year. Over this 40-year period federal tax revenues have never been lower than 17 percent (1965) or higher than 20.8 percent (2000) of GDP. Likewise, federal expenditures have ranged from a low of 17.2 percent (1965) to a high of 23.5 percent (1983) of GDP over this same 40-year period.

Despite the fact that federal revenues have varied little (as a percentage of GDP) over the last 40 years, there has been an enormous variation in top tax rates. When Ronald Reagan took office, the top individual tax rate was 70 percent and by 1986 it was down to only 28 percent. All Americans received at least a 30 percent tax rate cut; yet federal tax revenues as a percent of GDP were almost unchanged during the Reagan presidency (from 18.9 percent in 1980 to 18.1 percent in 1988).

What did change, however, was the rate of economic growth, which was more than 50 percent higher for the seven years after the Reagan tax cuts compared with the previous seven years. This increase in economic growth, plus some reductions in tax credits and deductions, almost entirely offset the effect of the rate reductions. Rapid economic growth, unlike government spending programs, proved to be the most effective way to reduce unemployment and poverty, and create opportunity for the disadvantaged.

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has just released its analysis of the effects of the President Bush's tax and spending package. They found that without the president's tax cut, federal tax revenues will rise to 20.6 percent of GDP, up from last year's 17.9 percent; but even with the president's tax cut, taxes will still rise as a percentage of GDP to 18.8 percent in 2012. As we get wealthier, tax revenues increase as a percentage of GDP because of our progressive tax system. In order to keep the tax burden constant, we need to have periodic tax cuts even larger than the ones the president has proposed.

Some of the critics of the proposed tax cut claim the planned deficit spending will increase interest rates. Here again, the facts do not support the criticism. What is important is the total federal debt burden, not year-to-year changes in the deficit.

If the total debt burden rises as a percentage of GDP, it can crowd out private investment thus causing a reduction in investment or a rise in interest rates. However, again according to CBO, the total debt burden will actually shrink as a percent of GDP under the president's plan (from 34.3 percent in 2002 to 33.1 percent of GDP in 2012). The fact is the U.S. could run a small deficit forever and still reduce the debt burden, in the same way as an individual can take on more debt each year provided that the cost of servicing this additional debt is smaller than the rise in the individual's income.

At current levels, the debt is not a problem. At the end of WW II it was more than 100 percent of GDP and as late as 1995 is was almost 50 percent of GDP, and we did just fine. Ironically, the only time our debt burden was less than 30 percent in the last 60 years was in the 1970s, which were characterized by high inflation and interest rates and low growth.

What kind of tax cut should we have? Nobel Prize-winning economist Robert Lucas presented an important paper in January of this year, in which he says: "There remain important gains in welfare from better fiscal policies, but I argue that these are gains from providing people with better incentives to work and to save, not from better fine tuning of spending flows." Mr. Lucas found that reducing capital income taxation from its current level to zero (using other taxes to support an unchanged rate of government spending) would result in overall welfare gains of "perhaps 2 to 4 percent of annual consumption, in perpetuity."

President Bush's proposal to eliminate the double tax on dividends is a good first step but, if we would remove all taxes from productive savings and investment, such as taxes on interest and capital gains, almost all Americans including the poorest would see their real incomes grow at roughly twice the present rate ? forever. Those who oppose tax cuts on savings and investment because they think the rich would benefit are in fact punishing the poor.

President Reagan understood that one wins a war, the Cold War, by being resolute; and he understood that one strengthens the economy not only by having good policies, but also by educating the press and the American people every day as to why those policies are right and necessary. President Bush is being resolute on the war on terrorism, but he also should create an army of knowledgeable supporters to educate the press and people about the needed growth-enhancing tax policy to avoid losing the economic war.

---

You dont improve the economy by giving money to the poor.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny

You dont improve the economy by giving money to the poor.

---

Actually, to some extent you do. You see, if you give money to the poor, they put it right back into the economy--nearly immediately. Plus they have less need for other subsidy (on the lowest end of the scale.) You don't improve the economy by giving to the wealthy, they have no need to spend it right away.

That article has to be one of the most incorrect loads of propaganda I have ever read. I could spend many hours just exploring and debunking that nonsense. Love stuff like the '45 deficit comparison--can an author be more dishonest with his reader? Post war America/Canada was the only major developed economy that had not been wrecked. It was a no lose proposition after that since we were helping rebuild the world.

In short:
Reagan was great, won the cold war, got the country thinking positively again after a decade or self-doubt and a country reeling from one crisis to the next. Reagan's economic policy did not work as advertised or as "conveniently" remembered. Volker's monetary policy fixed stagflation. Reagan's deficits shot through the roof as revenues did not keep up. So after the tax cut...there was a tax increase. And there was also a big Social Security tax rate increase (perhaps 2) in there somewhere in the Reagan/Bush era if memory serves...I've seen some tabular data that supports it. I do remember it was a substantial issue for me at the time. Hanky panky with the books...


An essay I came across that is much more accurate:

Quote:

---

Reaganomics

Excerpt from Commanding Heights by Daniel Yergin and Joseph Stanislaw, 1998 ed., pp. 341-342

It took three years. By the summer of 1982, the conquest of inflation was in sight. In fact, inflation that year would fall below 4 percent. [The] singular achievement [of Federal Reserve Chairman, Paul Volcker] was to conquer inflation at a time when defeatism was rampant. He set the United States on a new economic course. The risks of not succeeding were often on his mind. So was history. Once confronted with the accusation that he was behaving like a German central banker, he replied, "I don't take that as criticism. That's a compliment. I'm in pretty good company there."

Thanks to Volcker's efforts, monetary restraint was obtained quite early in the course of the Reagan administration. And Reagan's unwavering stance in the air traffic controllers' strike of 1981 helped change the tone of labor relations, indirectly contributing to the muting of inflationary psychology. But there was still fiscal policy to be dealt with -- the ways that government raised its revenues and the ways that it chose to spend them. The rise of welfare demands, entitlements, and obligations toward the middle class, the poor, and especially the elderly made spending politically necessary as a source of votes. The problem, of course, was how to finance the outlays.

Ronald Reagan's advisors came to office with the intention of cutting both taxes and spending. But they soon found out that it was easier to achieve the first of these objectives than the second. The reason was simple: politics. It was popular to cut taxes. And taxes did come down substantially. The top marginal rate was reduced from 70 percent to 28 percent; the tax base was broadened; and many deductions and loopholes were eliminated. But it was unpopular to cut spending, and the Democratic Congress bridled at the extent of the cuts that the president proposed. Reagan did not take on middle-class entitlements. He also spared the Defense Department from the ax, and indeed initiated, over the course of his two terms, major increases in defense expenditures, including the "Star Wars" space defense program.

Some in the Reagan camp were optimistic, despite the failure to cut total government spending. They were the advocates of what traditional Republican economist Herbert Stein -- echoing the music of the day -- called "punk" supply-side economics, which made sweeping assertions that reductions in tax revenues resulting from tax cuts would be more than made Up for by higher tax revenues generated by economic growth. It did not turn out that way. Because spending did not come down with taxes -- and indeed defense spending went up sharply -- and because the tax cuts did not feed back into the economy to the extent hoped, both the federal debt and the annual deficit ballooned; and in 1981-82, the economy was in a deep recession.

In September 1982, in its first effort to repair the damage, the Reagan administration followed the "largest tax cut in history" with the "largest tax increase in history." But there was no catching up. By the end of Reagan's first term, the supply-side logic was discredited in the eyes of many, and the inability to bring taxes and spending down together stood in marked contrast to Volcker's victory over inflation. David Stockman, Reagan's first director of the Office of Management and Budget, left the administration dejected, disillusioned with supply-side economics, and chastened by the realities of the political process. Failure to achieve fiscal-policy change, he argued, was a clear vindication of the "triumph of politics" -- of entitlements over austerity, and of the enduring pork-barrel tradition of American legislation over any cold economic logic. "I joined the Reagan Revolution as a radical ideologue," he wrote. "I learned the traumatic lesson that no such revolution is possible."

The triumph of politics and what Stockman called the "fiscal error" that went with it spawned a new monster, which would come to occupy center stage in policy debate: the deficit and the federal debt. Between the beginning and the end of the Reagan presidency, the annual deficit almost tripled. So did the gross national debt -- from $995 billion to $2.9 trillion. Or, as Reagan and Bush administration official Richard Darman put it, "In the Reagan years, more federal debt was added than in the entire prior history of the United States."

There simply was no quick cure to the scale of spending. In the minds of some, however, there was another logic to tax cuts: Reduce taxes and government revenue, and eventually the pain and scale of deficits -- and the threat of national bankruptcy -- would force a retrenchment of government spending. That thought was not restricted to fervent supply-siders, and ultimately it would end up true. But not for some years, and certainly not during the Reagan years.

When George Bush took office in 1989, the annual deficit stood at $152 billion. Taxes could not be raised substantially for devastatingly powerful political reasons -- as Bush found out when his retreat from his solemn "read my lips" campaign promise of "no new taxes" became his most damaging political liability. There was no choice but to contain spending. And luckily, international events afforded a good opportunity to start tackling the problem. The fall of the Berlin Wall and the crumbling of the Soviet empire made possible a tapering-off in defense spending. Still, this was not enough. Owing to the recession of the early 1990s, tax revenues fell, and in 1992, as Bush was ending his term, the deficit peaked at $290 billion"

---

At any rate it is rather easy to see what has happened in the past few years as we have added $2 trillion dollars of debt in spite of this supposedly "robust" economy. Bush's Iraq expenditures are off budget, so a post Reagan peace dividend is not going to propel the economy either.

The same thing is happening to Bush that happened to Reagan. For every nre dollar Reagan brought in the democratic congress spent two. Bush has actually cut much un needed spending but we are fighting a war and it costs money. We have had far larger deficits in the past.

Quote:

---

Actually, to some extent you do. You see, if you give money to the poor, they put it right back into the economy--nearly immediately. Plus they have less need for other subsidy (on the lowest end of the scale.) You don't improve the economy by giving to the wealthy, they have no need to spend it right away.

---

Yes to a small extent but they tend to spend it on perishable items and not invest it in the economy. Its been proven not to work.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny

The same thing is happening to Bush that happened to Reagan. For every nre dollar Reagan brought in the democratic congress spent two. Bush has actually cut much un needed spending but we are fighting a war and it costs money. We have had far larger deficits in the past.

---

More fantasy. Reagan had to pay for his defense build up--it was a necessary evil from a financial standpoint but it was expensive. Also, the interest payments shot through the roof as a result. In 8 years domestic govt spending rose from 581 to 615 billion dollars/yr, now how is that a big increase? Defense went from 198 to 285, interest from 88 to 156.

Unless I'm sorely mistaken, the Bush wars are off the budget as seperate emergency appropriations. Bush himself submitted far larger budget increases than any previous administration as admitted by fiscal conservatives. Dubya has zero fiscal restraint. The democrats have had little power while he's been in office. Trying to blame it on them is like trying to make a lead turkey fly.

Quote:

---

Yes to a small extent but they tend to spend it on perishable items and not invest it in the economy. Its been proven not to work.

---

No it hasn't! They spend it on things they must have anyway--I've seen it first hand as a kid when things were very tight. They will spend 100% of it in the economy because they need goods.

Where you don't get the return is on the top end. I've seen the studies of that. It's called hoarding. Their pile gets bigger, but it isn't necessily helping the economy. Even Buffet and many other billionaires will tell you that.

Quote:

---

Bush himself submitted far larger budget increases than any previous administration as admitted by fiscal conservatives. Dubya has zero fiscal restraint. The democrats have had little power while he's been in office. Trying to blame it on them is like trying to make a lead turkey fly.

---

You won't find me defending Bush's lack of fiscal restraint, particularly on new entitlements. But, I view that as a seperate issue from tax cuts which do stimulate economic growth- you can't blame the tax cuts for Bush spending like a drunken sailor and driving up deficits. I'd much prefer to see tax cuts coupled with some fiscal restraint, but given the choice between tax cuts with poor spending discipline or no tax cuts at all, I'll still take the tax cuts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

You won't find me defending Bush's lack of fiscal restraint, particularly on new entitlements. But, I view that as a seperate issue from tax cuts which do stimulate economic growth- you can't blame the tax cuts for Bush spending like a drunken sailor and driving up deficits. I'd much prefer to see tax cuts coupled with some fiscal restraint, but given the choice between tax cuts with poor spending discipline or no tax cuts at all, I'll still take the tax cuts.

---

Well, my problem was never as much with the tax cuts as it was with the lack of a balanced budget, if you are going to cut taxes (that won't clearly improve the economy) you should cut expenses.

But tax cuts are probably a better way to stimulate the economy than subsidies, so if he wants to be a Keynesian he's doing a fine job, but this kind of deficit 'spending' is hardly what Republicans (and Reagan with them) usually stand for.

And I wouldn't have recommended it :bow:

Hehe, this thread is the essense of what is wrong with the modern democratic party.

No plans except to bash Bush. Out of all the posts in this thread very few have been about democrats at all.

They'll never win elections by simply not being someone else, theyve got to stand for something besides late-term abortion. ~;)

Amen, brother Panzer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJager

Hehe, this thread is the essense of what is wrong with the modern democratic party.

No plans except to bash Bush. Out of all the posts in this thread very few have been about democrats at all.

They'll never win elections by simply not being someone else, theyve got to stand for something besides late-term abortion. ~;)

---

On the contrary, the thread was a "bash democrats" thread from the outset. From the bashing of democrats I read "what's wrong with the Republican party" instead of "what's wrong with the democratic party." After all, the Republicans control the House, Senate, and Whitehouse yet they still want to blame their massive deficits on the democrats. Looks like another of many conservative self flagellation threads to me...

It would help alot if the Republicans would try some intellectual honesty for a change. The economic theories being thrown about are disproven by the facts. I have to give them credit for a masterful job of manipulation. They have certainly convinced themselves.

Hmmm, I wasn't aware that the democrats were a one issue "late term abortion" party. Not sure what the relevance was of that statement. :dizzy2: Looks more like a case of..."gee, this discussion is not going the way I would like so I'll drag something else into it...let's try to drag in something emotional but irrelevant, that might work."

The biggest problem the Democrats have is that they have been allowing the Republicans to define them. They are going to need to find a charismatic leader to break the cycle of the Republican snake oil salesmen. In the first 5 minutes any democratic proposal is misrepresented and given some inaccurate catchy label that fails to match reality. No need to actually look at it in any detail, just use your political dogma stamp and be done with it. The GOP is terrific in using creative name calling. Masters of deception par excellence. Compassionate conservative...what a howler that one is. Or how about "Mission Accomplished?"

The truth is neither party has all the answers (yes, blasphemy.)

This thread was started by a Dutch man I believe - and you know how they hate democrats. ~:rolleyes:

In any event, thank you for proving my point. Opponents of Republicans are devoid of any ideas of their own and can only hope throw enough mud to get elected. It didnt work the last two elections, but maybe the third time's a charm.

Intellectual honestly, heh, give me a break. :laugh4: