The "Implosion" of the Democratic Party

[Ham Murabi]

Clinton was never convincted of breaking any laws, and our Constitution enshires the presumption of innocence. Prove it in a court of law, or it ain't true.

Plea bargain Bill was never convicted? No, I suppose not in court. He copped a plea that came with a massive fine and disbarment.
Not what you'd expect from an innocent man, is it?
Perjurors still go to jail in Nevada.

 

[Ishmael]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The "Implosion" of the Democratic Party

Not true. I've offered reasons for my opinions in this thread. Yeah, I know I unfairly trolled you...it's just so damn easy to do with you Conservative blowhards. The average Liberal could give someone like Rush or Imus a heart attack just by hugging a tree in front of him.

I'm sorry for exploiting a weakness.



This doesn't sound like an answer to my question. Sounds more like a cop-out. I've already posed the question to you - there's no need for me to pose it again, or to refer to something I've written previously without proper framework (hint hint).

Bye. [/B]

LOL, I'm under no obligation to answer your question. Go start a thread if that's what you want to talk about.

The subject I'm interested in in this thread is clearly delineated in the opening post. You may address the subject or rattle on like your doing now.

Further, I have not labled you nor anyone else in this thread. No ad hominem attacks at all. That seems to be someone elses province. I can tell you that when provoked I will attack and viscioulsy so.

In the meantime, go start a thread on the subject. You'll get the benefit of my thoughts.

Ishmael

 

[RobDownSouth]

I have to agree with the poll. But you and I are both well aware that self-descripiton does not necessarily translate into voting patterns. It's the difference between perception and reality.

The other polls were more specific in nature dealing with issues. And of course we see the movement of the states and congress as the ultimate outward expression of the mood of the people.

For the time being the country is moving to the right. In time that too may change, but those are the facts as they are expressed today by results.

Ishmael

Very well, if you are talking about specific issues, yes, its obvious that this country is trending to the right.

But to what end? I think that at a macro level, issues as a whole eventually tack towards the center. You mention 1965 as the last year the Democratic party had a revolutionary idea.

Let's take that a step further...consider LBJ's well-intentioned "Great Society" as the leftmost swing of the political pendulum. You and I are both old enough to recall the "guns and butter" argument, the "have your cake and eat it too" rationale that was endemic in the sixties. When the Arab oil shock of 73 and the resulting inflation threw cold water on American faces, the country began tracking further rightward.

Fast forward now to the present day, to Bush's tax cuts. What if this is, in fact, the rightmost swing of the political pendulum? In my opinion it's like Yogi Berra said..deja vu all over again, i.e. "have your cake and eat it too redux". Only instead of inflation being the wakeup call, perhaps this time it will be the massive deficits that send the pendulum leftward.

 

[ubertroll]

Second, you mistake registration with voting records. You are correct in pointing out the Democrats lead in registered voters. Unfortunately for the Democrats that has not manifested itself in the elections.

As I recall, the last head to head match up between candidates of each major party was in 2000.

And the Democrats won, by hundreds of thousands of votes.

Indeed, even with the electoral college favoring small, rural [i.e. republican] areas, the democrats would have won, barring the egregious voter fraud by GOP officials in Florida.

The fact of the matter is that the Democrats haven't had a good idea in decades. 1965 was probably the last year they did.

Yeah, I think saving Albanians from slaughter by the Serbian power-majority group was stupid, too.

Inorder to secure election even Clinton had to run on Republican ideas. And was even forced into implementing a few.

Lets see--Clinton platform

Balanced budget
Equitable taxation
Properly funded and designed social programs
Environmental balance
Diplomatic support for strong US foreign policy
Increased anti-terror action and funding
Lie about sex on national TV


Bush platform

Massive deficit spending
Tax cuts for the wealthy brackets
Corporate welfare
Relaxed prosecution against corporate criminals
Church AS state
Do nothing about terror until after 9/11
Lie about national security under oath




No, I can't see I see much overlap.

Dean is going to lose big if nominated. If not nominated, it's likely he'll turn sour grapes and form a third party. It doesn't make a difference at all in the long run.

On what do you base YOUR figures? lol.... you're going to be convinced of more conspiricies than REDWAVE next December.

 

[miles]

As I recall, the last head to head match up between candidates of each major party was in 2000.

And the Democrats won, by hundreds of thousands of votes.

Indeed, even with the electoral college favoring small, rural [i.e. republican] areas, the democrats would have won, barring the egregious voter fraud by GOP officials in Florida.



[/b]

Yeah, I think saving Albanians from slaughter by the Serbian power-majority group was stupid, too.





Lets see--Clinton platform

Balanced budget
Equitable taxation
Properly funded and designed social programs
Environmental balance
Diplomatic support for strong US foreign policy
Increased anti-terror action and funding
Lie about sex on national TV


Bush platform

Massive deficit spending
Tax cuts for the wealthy brackets
Corporate welfare
Relaxed prosecution against corporate criminals
Church AS state
Do nothing about terror until after 9/11
Lie about national security under oath




No, I can't see I see much overlap.




On what do you base YOUR figures? lol.... you're going to be convinced of more conspiricies than REDWAVE next December. [/B]

Well, you didn't answer my first question a few posts back. I can only assume you can't back up your statement.

I'll give you another shot to explain yourself when you throw around rhetoric like "Tax cuts for the wealthy brackets" and
"Corporate welfare."

Define them for me. I can wait. Facts, please.

 

[Ishmael]

On what do you base YOUR figures? lol.... you're going to be convinced of more conspiricies than REDWAVE next December. [/B]

Ignoring the balance of your post, which was as ignorant as it was off topic.

The third party threat came from Deans own mouth. Been in touch with the news lately? Don't need a poll to quote the candidate himself do I? Or is it your contention that we should 'vote' on what someone said now too?

Ishmael

 

[HeavyStick]

Ignoring the balance of your post, which was as ignorant as it was off topic.

The third party threat came from Deans own mouth. Been in touch with the news lately? Don't need a poll to quote the candidate himself do I? Or is it your contention that we should 'vote' on what someone said now too?

Ishmael

He might do better with a visual aid.

 

[Ishmael]

Very well, if you are talking about specific issues, yes, its obvious that this country is trending to the right.

But to what end? I think that at a macro level, issues as a whole eventually tack towards the center. You mention 1965 as the last year the Democratic party had a revolutionary idea.

Let's take that a step further...consider LBJ's well-intentioned "Great Society" as the leftmost swing of the political pendulum. You and I are both old enough to recall the "guns and butter" argument, the "have your cake and eat it too" rationale that was endemic in the sixties. When the Arab oil shock of 73 and the resulting inflation threw cold water on American faces, the country began tracking further rightward.

Fast forward now to the present day, to Bush's tax cuts. What if this is, in fact, the rightmost swing of the political pendulum? In my opinion it's like Yogi Berra said..deja vu all over again, i.e. "have your cake and eat it too redux". Only instead of inflation being the wakeup call, perhaps this time it will be the massive deficits that send the pendulum leftward.

You have a point concerning the pendulum. I don't happen to agree. But that's what politics is about.

LBJ made a critical mistake with the "guns or butter" argument. The problem was the 'potential' to erase that difference wasn't present in the GDP at that time. We both know that it is now. The latest figure show that the revenues are climbing at a faster rate than expenditures. While that too could change, it doesn't appear likely in the short term.

Regardless, it does nothing to solve the problem the Democrats have in the coming election. They are deeply divided with the fringe energized base driving the primaries. (A fact that McAuliffe will undoubtedly live to regret.)

One of the more interesting scenarios I've read lately is the possibility of a Dean-Clinton (Hillary) ticket. It would help at the polls (albeit the Dems would probably still lose). Dean gets the blame, not Hillary, and Hillary gets the national exposure for 2008. Not a shabby idea when you think about it cold bloodedly.

Ishmael

 

[RobDownSouth]

Inorder to secure election even Clinton had to run on Republican ideas. And was even forced into implementing a few.

I've got to take issue with these statements. I think this is a common misperception among Republicans.

In the Republican party today, the extreme right wing of the party basically calls the shots regarding policy and direction, leaving moderate Republicans with basically two options: jumping on the bandwagon or opting not to participate in the political process.

Republicans tend to perceive the Democratic party as a true mirror image of themselves, with the extreme left wing of the party setting the direction and tone.

I disagree. Since the rout of George McGovern in 1972, Democrats have "led from the center". It has been the much larger center wing of the Democratic party setting the party's direction, with the much smaller extreme left wing given the option to partipate.

Bill Clinton was one of those centrists. Things like reforming welfare were more "centrist ideas" than "Republican ideas". I don't think he was "forced" into implementing anything he didn't believe in at all.

 

[Wrong Element]

OK WE, want to make a friendly wager? I'll wager that if Dean is nominated, Bush will carry at least 45 states and close to 60% of the popular vote. That is a landslide by any definition.

Ishmael

I'd definitely take that wager. I'm sure there are going to be issues popping up this fall that we don't even know about right now, but I don't think the dynamics are there for a landslide. I think something along the lines of Clinton's re-election numbers (379-159) are on the high side of what Bush might get.

 

[Ishmael]

I'd definitely take that wager. I'm sure there are going to be issues popping up this fall that we don't even know about right now, but I don't think the dynamics are there for a landslide. I think something along the lines of Clinton's re-election numbers (379-159) are on the high side of what Bush might get.

You're on.

Ishmael

 

[Ishmael]

I've got to take issue with these statements. I think this is a common misperception among Republicans.

In the Republican party today, the extreme right wing of the party basically calls the shots regarding policy and direction, leaving moderate Republicans with basically two options: jumping on the bandwagon or opting not to participate in the political process.

Republicans tend to perceive the Democratic party as a true mirror image of themselves, with the extreme left wing of the party setting the direction and tone.

I disagree. Since the rout of George McGovern in 1972, Democrats have "led from the center". It has been the much larger center wing of the Democratic party setting the party's direction, with the much smaller extreme left wing given the option to partipate.

Bill Clinton was one of those centrists. Things like reforming welfare were more "centrist ideas" than "Republican ideas". I don't think he was "forced" into implementing anything he didn't believe in at all.

Oh, you knew I'd have to disagree with that.

It was the DLC that 'led' from the center. The very organizatin that Dean is so threatening to. And you are entirely correct in assigning McGovern the role of catalyst. I see Dean in much the same role today.

Welfare reform is a good choice. He did veto the bill twice before signing a more stringent package based on voter preference. It was an issue that the Repubicans have run on for years. I won't argue that the centrist Dems didn't embrace the issue as well because quite obvioulsy they did. Moynihan, one of the leaders in the fight for the original welfare package, turned his back on it as a failure. Can't fault the man's honesty there.

Then, of course, there was 'Free Trade'.

And in a manner of speaking you make my point for me. There is an overlap of ideas in politics. The art of the possible and all that. Bush did the same thing Clinton did by embracing what have traditionally been Democratic positions. I don't agree with him for doing so but he's the president, not me.

You're right about the extremes. But a great deal of that is the press. Extremes make for good lead-ins. The fact of the matter though is that the Republicans, as a party, are more cohesive than the Democrats. They tend to pull together better. The fringes are the 'worker bee's'. That energized base that knocks on doors, stuffs envelopes, and watches the polls. Dean has that base, but not the center and it's my contention that he can't get the center. Bush will have the fringe and the center.

Ishmael

 

[p_p_man]

The Democratic party is poised to 'implode' in 2004 and it appears that there is little that little to be done in avoiding this implosion.

If you will insist in c&ping artcles please reference them so that we can check back for ourselves...

When you don't do that you are left defending words that you have passed off as your own and quite often you can't...

ppman

 

[Ishmael]

Re: Re: The "Implosion" of the Democratic Party

If you will insist in c&ping artcles please reference them so that we can check back for ourselves...

When you don't do that you are left defending words that you have passed off as your own and quite often you can't...

ppman

Why pp, no C&P. Damn, hate to start your New Year with such bad news.

Ishmael

 

[ubertroll]

Well, you didn't answer my first question a few posts back. I can only assume you can't back up your statement.

I'll give you another shot to explain yourself when you throw around rhetoric like "Tax cuts for the wealthy brackets" and
"Corporate welfare."

Define them for me. I can wait. Facts, please.

Defition of corporate welfare:

http://www.cato.org/pubs/handbook/hb105-9.html

As for tax cuts for the wealthy, Bush's tax cuts as Governor [I can't quote the ones from his Presidency, yet, since those are all PROJECTED values, not actual], you remember--the one he campaigned on, saying "By far the vast majority of my tax cuts go to the bottom". Well, of those cuts, the bottom 60% of wageearners got 14.7% of the tax cut.


Those are the numbers, and facts.

It's too bad you don't have any with which to counter them.


And I hat to break it to you, bub, but I didn't answer your earlier points because I didn't read them. I was speaking to Ishmael, not to you. If you would raise them again, please, [and this time, YOU present the facts] I would be happy to point out where you're wrong.

 

[miles]

Defition of corporate welfare:

http://www.cato.org/pubs/handbook/hb105-9.html

As for tax cuts for the wealthy, Bush's tax cuts as Governor [I can't quote the ones from his Presidency, yet, since those are all PROJECTED values, not actual], you remember--the one he campaigned on, saying "By far the vast majority of my tax cuts go to the bottom". Well, of those cuts, the bottom 60% of wageearners got 14.7% of the tax cut.


Those are the numbers, and facts.

It's too bad you don't have any with which to counter them.


And I hat to break it to you, bub, but I didn't answer your earlier points because I didn't read them. I was speaking to Ishmael, not to you. If you would raise them again, please, [and this time, YOU present the facts] I would be happy to point out where you're wrong.

You're full of shit.

You squeal Liberal rhetoric, then post a link from a Libertarian website. You said Bush increased corporate welfare, remember?

You're changing your tune, dude. Your post compared Bush with Clinton, but now you talk about what Bush did as governor!

When you don't have an answer, talk about something else. So typical.

 

[Ishmael]

You're full of shit.

You squeal Liberal rhetoric, then post a link from a Libertarian website. You said Bush increased corporate welfare, remember?

You're changing your tune, dude. Your post compared Bush with Clinton, but now you talk about what Bush did as governor!

When you don't have an answer, talk about something else. So typical.

I was waiting for you to post before I came back on that one.

The bottom 30% of wage earners pay no income tax at all. Can't deduct below zero uber. So what did the tax cut mean to the middle 30%?

Fun with statistics 101. Ever hear about the statistician who drowned in a lake whose mean depth was 6 inches?

Fucking idiots abound.

Ishmael

 

[ubertroll]

but now you talk about what Bush did as governor!

As I noted in my response, it's impossible to quote the figures of the Bush tax cuts, because they haven't been carried out yet! They're all projections, and, unlike the GOP, those of us who are mathematically responsible won't talk about what hasn't happened yet!



And by the way, I have nothing against libertarians. In this instance, they define, rather well, corporate welfare. You asked for a defitinion, I gave you one. Stop bitching--it's EXACTLY what you asked for.



Now, if you want to try to counter the evidence I have presented, present some evidence of your own. You may be slightly hampered by the fact that there is none [for the very valid reason that Bush is a corporate stooge], but that never seemed to stop you before.

 

[ubertroll]

The bottom 30% of wage earners pay no income tax at all. Can't deduct below zero uber. So what did the tax cut mean to the middle 30%?

Because even the bottom 30% pay payroll tax.

Indeed, the lower income brackets pay HIGHER payroll taxes, because above eighty-some thousand dollar annual salaries, no additional payroll tax is calculated.


It SOUNDED really nice, though, when you presented the factually false evidence! Almost like you were speaking a coherant thought!




By the way, for those of you, like Miles, who are evidently unable to read the written material he specifically requested, the Cato institute [which, as a libertarian organization, is in no way associated with the DNC, or with liberalism in general] defines corporate welfare as follows:

"
Corporate welfare should be carefully defined as any government spending program that provides unique benefits or advantages to specific companies or industries. That includes programs that provide direct grants to businesses, programs that provide research and other services for industries, and programs that provide subsidized loans or insurance to companies.

There are more than 100 such corporate subsidy programs in the federal budget today, with annual expenditures of roughly $75 billion. Terminating those programs could save taxpayers more than $400 billion over the next five years.
"

 

[Ishmael]

Because even the bottom 30% pay payroll tax.

"

They get it all back and if they fill out the w-4 correctly there will be no withholding. They pay NO taxes.

The top 10% of wage earners pay over 60% of the taxes. That's not enough for you?

Go back to school kid.

Ishmael

 

[ubertroll]

They get it all back and if they fill out the w-4 correctly there will be no withholding. They pay NO taxes.

I don't know how more plainly I can say this--that just ain't true, kid.

The top 10% of wage earners pay over 60% of the taxes. That's not enough for you?

Not at all.

Taxes, ideally, take from each citizen as much as can be taken without noticibly reducing quality of life [in other words, without significantly interfering with life, liberty, and the pursuit of hapiness/property].

Let's say that, to feed, house, clothe, educate, and care for a family of four takes $40,000. Okay, now compare two families of four. One makes $50,000 a year, the other makes $100,000 a year. I would expect the family making $100,000 annually to pay six times the taxes of the less wealthy family, because they have six times the discretionary income. That's just the way it works.

Look at it this way. If I make one hundred million dollars a year, even if the government were to tax 75 of those millions, I can buy everything I would ever need. The fact is the government doesn't tax more than about a third, even for the fantastically wealthy.

I don't see any millionaires going broke because of overtaxation. They might go broke because of whores, lawsuits, and needlessly constructed Ferris Wheels [glares at Michael Jackson], but never because of taxes.

 

[HeavyStick]

I don't see any millionaires going broke because of overtaxation. They might go broke because of whores, lawsuits, and needlessly constructed Ferris Wheels [glares at Michael Jackson], but never because of taxes.

Willie Nelson, Wayne Newton, MC Hammer all got burned by taxes.

Willie is still a burn out, MC found Christ, Wayne earned his all back and some.

Parrots do less squawking than you do and they are easier to understand.

I made just a tad understand 60K and I'm getting all my taxes back. I'm paying in for my state but my Federal return looks fuggin nice going back into my pocket.

How long have you been paying taxes?

I know of people who got more back than they paid in and you're saying corporations and mega-millionaires get all their cash back? Take a class in macro-economics and micro-economics and you'll have a better idea of who and how the money is brought into the government.

When a corporation gets tax-exemption, it's for a very limited time and it's usually when they bring thousands of jobs to a distressed area.

 

[Daedalus77]

Is corporate welfare unique to to Bush? I don't like it but I don't think you can assign it to one political party. It's been around for decades while both democrats and republicans have been in charge.

 

[HeavyStick]

Is corporate welfare unique to to Bush? I don't like it but I don't think you can assign it to one political party. It's been around for decades while both democrats and republicans have been in charge.

And they favor their particular interests.

 

[Guest]

Grasping at the media straw is the last refuge of the left. It's always someone elses fault.

didn't read the rest but i will after this.....

Yes because the right NEVER does this ish......When in doubt blame clinton......