US Democratic program

[doc_bean]

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 ?

[Don Corleone]

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.

[Kanamori]

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.

[PanzerJaeger]

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.

[Red Harvest]

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.

[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.

[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.

[PanzerJaeger]

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.

[Red Harvest]

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.

[Red Harvest]

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.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

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.

[Red Harvest]

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.

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.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

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.

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.

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

I dont think hes doing the calculations so dont worry.

[Xiahou]

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.

[Red Harvest]

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.

[Don Corleone]

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.

[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.

[Xiahou]

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.

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.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

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

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?

"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.

[bmolsson]

Democrats are only Republican-wannabe's.....

[PanzerJaeger]

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!

[PanzerJaeger]

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.

[Red Harvest]

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.

[Red Harvest]

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.

[Xiahou]

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.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Yes, you are.

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

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.

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.

[doc_bean]

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 ?

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

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.

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.

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...

[PanzerJaeger]

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.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

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.

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.

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.

[doc_bean]

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 ?