2010 situation grows more difficult for Democrats
The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.
JAPAN NEWS AND DISCUSSION
-
U.N. observers warn of Syria civil war after massacre
( 7 )
-
Obama on the defensive over spending, debt
( 18 )
-
Egypt's top candidates try to broaden support
( 1 )
-
Queen marks diamond jubilee riding wave of popularity
( 0 )
-
Thousands take part in 'Slut Walks' in Brazil
( 10 )
-
- Business Teaching Positions - Part-time - Kanto Region
- Interac, Tokyo
- Salary: ¥3,000 ~ ¥5,000 / Hour
-
- National Relief/Substitute Teacher - summer start
- Interac, Tokyo
- Salary: ¥275,000 ~ ¥300,000 / Month
-
- 営業パーソン
- 加治金属工業株式会社, Tochigi
- Salary: ¥240,000 ~ ¥350,000 / Month Negotiable
Order by Time Order by Popularity
62 Comments
Login to comment
0
USAFdude
The most important sentence of this entire article:
The one thing that heartens Democrats is that voters also don’t think much of the Republican Party, which is bleeding backers, lacking a leader and facing a conservative revolt.
0
ProfJuanColePhd
An article like this one completely destroys the pernicious myth, apparently widely believed beyond the confines of the nation's university campuses, that the media has a liberal bias. It just makes me giggle sometimes. Prospects for 2010 are looking fine. In fact, simply attacking George Bush will be enough to carry the Democrats to historic victories.
0
Molenir
Heh, actually, its looking like 2010 will be a very good year for America, as Dem majorities are going to be wiped out. While its too early to know whether or not Republicans can recapture either house of congress, theres no question Dem majorities will shrink sizable, and they will at the very minimum need to reach out to their Republican colleagues in order to be able to pass legislation.
Still, I'm hoping that at the very least, we can start saying, former speaker of the house, Nancy Pelosi, this year, rather then waiting til 2012 when we get a new President.
0
USAFdude
Molenir - 2010 will be a very good for America; we Democrats will keep the majority of both houses of Congress. Of course, we'd prefer the Republicans act like Americans for once, and accept the hand we Democrats extend across the aisle, but it isn't likely, given the Republicans' inarguable corruption.
Still, the Honorable Nancy Pelosi will, thank God, retain her status as Speaker of the House until the end of President Obama's second term. You see, that's what happens with a party with strong leadership, like the Democratic Party.
0
RomeoRamenII
The most important sentence of this entire article:
Democrats are beginning to see the writing on the wall, and instead of choosing to fight in a difficult political environment, they are taking a pass and opting for retirement
0
USAFdude
Romeo - Don't forget this one: Democrats crowed after six Senate Republicans—four from swing states Florida, Ohio, Missouri and New Hampshire and two from Republican-leaning Kansas and Kentucky—announced retirements.
0
Badsey
Many people are upset with the spending and many are still out of work -change is needed it seems. We need to help Obama change because the Dems cannot do it and an intervention is needed.
Get rid of the 3rd party Federal Reserve -and give it back to the populace and you are my hero Obama. Real change -change we can believe in.
0
yabits
All that should be sufficient is a quick review of the decade: The Republicans controlled the Congress and White House for most of it, and staked their reputations on the massive tax cuts that Congress passed early in Bush's first term.
The result: the worst decade of economic performance and job creation since the Great Depression.
Republicans pushed for banking deregulation and defeated every measure related to regulating the accounting industry, hedge funds, deritative trading, etc.
The result: the near total-collapse of the financial system.
George Bush pushed hard for something he called "the ownership society," where every American who wanted one should be able to purchase a house.
The result: a housing bubble followed by the collapse of the market.
George Bush announced in his first term, a "strong dollar policy." (Anyone seen what has happened to the value of the dollar since then?)
The Republican-led Congress got pretty much everything they wanted, since Bush never vetoed anything until well into his second term.
When I read about the Republicans' political fortunes improving after their disastrous policies, I come to the conclusion that the Almighty is nowhere near finished exacting His punishment on America.
0
SuperLib
To think that the problems listed above were only the fault of half of the people in the US government and not the other half is just blind partisan rhetoric.
0
yabits
To think that some people actually believe that politics in the U.S. government is divided into "this half" or "that half" is something quite extraordinary in its simple-minded naivete.
It is equivalent to saying, for example, that just because a few Democrats supported banking deregulation, that it means that ALL Democrats -- the "other half" -- were responsible for it. It doesn't appear to matter to such simple-minded people that NONE of the voices warning of the dangers of deregulation were coming from the Republican side. ALL of those voices came from those opposed to the Republican view, be they Democrat or Independent.
Contrasted with the Republicans, who, over the past five decades, grew to accept all government regulation as something bad (as a matter of philosophy/ideology), the liberal view has always been much more nuanced.
Liberals tend to look at regulations on a case-by-case basis, accepting there can be over-regulation just as easily as there can be under-regulation. It is this kind of pragmatism that makes for better government policy.
0
Wolfpack
Electoral politics often comes down to the prevailing mood of the electorate influenced by the economy, unemployment levels, and how secure or insecure people feel about the country's direction and their own future prospects. As opposed to '06 and '08, the momentum has clearly turned and is now against Democrats. Due to a certain level of demoralization and disappointment in Obama on the part of Democrats and a continued weak economy, I expect a significant narrowing of Democrat majorities in Congress. Clearly, the fillabuster proof majority in the Senate will be gone. It would take a nearly historic "wave" election for power to change hands in the House. This isn't likely but possible should the economy stall and some unforeseen foreign event intercedes.
What is encouraging is that even in a very difficult economy, the American people are not clamoring for bigger government as reflected in polls showing a lack of support for Obama's health care reform, Wall Street bailouts, and his ineffective stimulous program. Democrats are scaring the American people with their deficit spending in the face of popular opposition and ballooning debt levels.
What is particularly disturbing to me is the effort by President Obama and his allies in Congress and the media to politicize everything to the extent that polarization in the country is as bad now as in any time in recent history. He never ceases to blame former-president Bush for his problems. No opposition to Obama's foreign or domestic agenda is met without charge of being 'un-American'. This way of thinking has come from high up in the Democratic party - specifically Speaker Pelsoi. President Obama and the Democrat party are pushing an extreme Leftist ideology which is not acceptable to a majority of Americans.
It will be interesting to see how Obama reacts after Democrats are chastised at the polls in November. I suspect that he will be unable to moderate his agenda and will continue to damage the nations economy and national security.
0
Wolfpack
yabits:
It is simplistic and erroneous to try to make the case that Conservatives think that all or even some government regulation is bad. Capitalism is not anarchy - it requires rules and regulations to function. Conservatives see regulation as a means to make Capitalism work efficiently. Liberals use regulation for social experimentation - which is not nuanced at all.
Presdient Obama's domestic agenda - especially health care reform - will increase the distortion in resource allocation already present in the current system. The result, an economy that functions poorly, high unemployment and significant losses for Democrats in the coming mid-term elections.
0
Surge2010
People ahve seen through Obama
s style over substance. With a civil war starting in Iraq, Afghanistan failing and Obamas recession destroying our finances, now is the time for the Republicans to dominate.0
yabits
Yeah, that's what a lot of conservatives are saying today.
Ten years ago, nearly all of them prostrated themselves before Alan Greenspan who believed that the market and the market alone would provide all the necessary regulation. Government regulation has always flown in the face of the belief in the so-called "free" market. That belief has been particularly pronounced among the Republicans and not among the people who know better.
Oh yeah, Greenspan finally came around to admitting he was wrong.
0
5SpeedRacer5
"When I read about the Republicans' political fortunes improving after their disastrous policies, I come to the conclusion that the Almighty is nowhere near finished exacting His punishment on America."
The best thing I have ever seen you write. If the Republicans can actually make a comeback, which I am optimistic (naive?) enough to doubt, then Americans will certainly have earned the "loser" tag for this century and beyond.
"What is particularly disturbing to me is the effort by President Obama and his allies in Congress and the media to politicize everything to the extent that polarization in the country is as bad now as in any time in recent history."
Gee. I see entirely the opposite. I fault Obama for his weak, nice-guy attempt at consensus. He should have squashed the opposition once and for all instead of letting them carp, evade, and wreck. Pelosi is an attack dog. He should have let her off the leash.
"Conservatives see regulation as a means to make Capitalism work efficiently."
Huh? What are you? Some kind of pinko? I can honestly say that I have NEVER met a conservative who could agree with your statement. Conservatives I have met, to a ONE, just love this joke: Hello, I am from the federal government and I am here to help you.
Your statements are a perfect example of how Obama has provided Republicans with too much wiggle room. He should have drawn the lines early and settled the issue of who caused this mess once and for all. Then he should have shut out Reps and discredited them for ruining the nation. We would be further along in fixing things now if he had settled that once and for all. Instead, we muddle through with Reps taking credit for the good news and socking Obama with the bad news.
Obama's desire to be bipartisan conflicts with his need to be a responsible leader, IMHO. But hey, I could be wrong. Maybe it all pays off in 2012 when the economy improves and the moderate Reps defect en masse to the Dems, leaving the Reps with the Limbaugh Palin ticket and a platform roughly matching that of Iran's imams. Maybe that is the way to crush the Republicans once and for all: let them do it themselves.
0
yabits
Here we see the real conservative starting to reveal himself. Let's go back to the self-contradictory statement of how "conservatives see regulation as a means to make capitalism work efficiently." (If someone believes in a free market, how can they say that it needs outside regulation by a government?)
Every form of regulation placed on a free market system can be seen as a "social experiment." Liberals are savvy enough to know this, and take the view that policies should be enacted that will bring about the greatest benefit for the most people.
0
Molenir
You have to be trolling in throwing out this nonsense comment. Its either that, or you're an idiot. Since I believe you are actually intelligent, I'm going to go with the trolling comment. Anarchy is not a free market. Free Market doesn't mean no regulation. Anyone with half a brain knows this.
Lets ignore the middle portion of the decade and just focus on the beginning and end, shall we. Also lets not think about anything else that happened. I mean surely 9-11 had no effect on the market or the economy or anything right? Just, wow, hard to credit an intelligent person saying stuff like this. Its so blindly partisan.
0
yabits
I am very well read and, unlike most of the conservatives on this board, have a very good memory. Staunch conservatives have always told us that "an unseen hand" regulates the market and therefore government regulation is to be avoided.
This has been thoroughly imbued in the Republican platform. When has a Republican in the past 50 years ever introduced legislation to establish or increase regulation in anything dealing with finance? When has a Republican in the last 50 years ever opposed legislation intruduced to relax or remove government regulation in the financial arena?
If you can't remember this being used as the conservative argument for decades, I feel regret for the state of what is left for your "half a brain."
0
yabits
That's a little bit like asking Mary Todd Lincoln, "Aside from that, how was the play?"
The country entered the decade with projected government surpluses to the level that Fed Chairman Greenspan expressed worry that our government might pay its debts down too quickly for the good of the country. As a result of that prognosis, the Fed took interest rates down to a level that ignited the housing boom.
The middle part of the decade you seem so proud of was fueled largely by consumer spending attained through low interest loans taken out on the equity of their homes that had inflated as part of the boom. It was most assuredly NOT due to increased incomes -- which had remained FLAT throughout the decade.
0
sailwind
You where saying something?
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s109-190
S. 190: Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005
Please note the three other CO-Sponsors of the bill to keep Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac solvent. You might have heard of that guy John McCain.
0
SuperLib
You might be very well read, but that doesn't mean you aren't taking all of your knowledge and skewing it by picking and choosing what fits your own personal ideals. The "hands off" approach is indeed a philosophy shared by conservatives, but obviously it's not some absolute statement that means anything negative that happens through deregulation or non-regulation is always on their head. That's like saying everything negative that occurs through regulation is instantly and always the fault of Democrats because they have the "liberal ideal" of regulation.
I'm a Democrat, I voted for Obama, but I think that overall the private sector performs better than the public sector, but I also think oversights is needed. I also support the Democrats on the Health Care bill but I'm a bit concerned that government bureaucracy might lead to reduced services at a higher cost. So how would you classify me?
http://www.nytimes.com/1999/09/30/business/fannie-mae-eases-credit-to-aid-mortgage-lending.html
"Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits."
Contributing the idea of "'the ownership society,' where every American who wanted one should be able to purchase a house." is not limited to George Bush, but I'm guessing your well read material either didn't include the above because you weren't searching for it or you were aware of the above referenced Democrat having the same policy and chose to exclude it, hoping that others weren't quite as well read.
Again, you're using broad strokes which will always lead to Republican guilt in any situation no matter what the specifics are. It's kind of what you do. I'm sure you believe in freedom of speech but don't believe that people should have the right to engage in hate speech. Saying that you support something doesn't mean you aren't reasonable with limitations. You're blaming an ideology, not specific steps taken by specific people.
I think both Democrats and Republicans as well as lenders and borrowers share the blame in the real estate crash, and I think Wall Street takes most of the blame for derivatives, something that both parties could have had more oversight on. Stop playing the partisan blame game for complex issues.
0
skipthesong
instead of this being my dems are better than your repubs kiddy talk, we aren't we getting on with another party to come crashing in. Face it, both of repubs and dems have let us down. Vote for an indy!
0
Molenir
To me, its not about party, but rather ideologies. I'm a conservative, I'm not a liberal like many dems, not a socialist like the President, but conservative. So, if a candidate is conservative as well, on most issues, then I'll support him. If he is more liberal, then I won't.
0
yabits
@sailwind:
Senate bill 190 (2005) was a bill that proposed to transfer government regulation of Fannie and Freddie from HUD to an "independent" agency, amending a 1992 law. It also removed a number of reporting requirments from Federal Home Loan Banks. This all adds up to LESS government regulation of a financial area, not more.
It never made it out of the Republican-led committee to which it was assigned. In other words, it never saw the light of day.
Try again, please.
0
yabits
SuperLib writes:
Anything negative that occurs through regulation will always be the fault of those who supported the regulation. It's called taking responsibility. Any regulation will always come with some negative effects, the way a speed governor on an engine will serve to prevent the theoretical top speed from being reached.
The philosophy of the Democratic Party since FDR has consistently been that good regulation via government oversight is, in the vast majority of cases, far better than regulation by "market forces" or self-regulation. When individual Democrats break with that philosophy and side with conservatives to remove regulation on something, it does not become a matter of "putting blame on BOTH sides," as you claim. (Especially when a majority of Democrats were opposed to the move, but happened to be in the minority in Congress.) When a Democrat sides with the Republicans on an issue, it is not the fault of the party.
Your equivocation in wanting to assign blame equally is nothing but a tactic to shirk responsibility.
0
yabits
As someone who would need to clearly explain how that scenario could possibly come about, as well as clearly stating why "reduced services" are always a bad thing.
That particular Clinton-era policy was designed to better ensure that any low or middle income person who qualified for a loan could get one. Simple as that. Redlining was still taking place when the policy was put in place. This is not to exonerate Clinton. For a Democrat, he often broke with the guiding philosophy of his party to side with Republicans. I do not put the blame on the Democratic Party for his doing so.
0
sailwind
Yabits,
You said:
This has been thoroughly imbued in the Republican platform. When has a Republican in the past 50 years ever introduced legislation to establish or increase regulation in anything dealing with finance? When has a Republican in the last 50 years ever opposed legislation introduced to relax or remove government regulation in the financial arena?
I showed you where you wrong.
You spin....The proposed bill as...
This all adds up to LESS government regulation of a financial area, not more.
When in fact it clearly stated......
Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005 - Amends the Federal Housing Enterprises Financial Safety and Soundness Act of 1992 to establish: (1) in lieu of the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight of the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), an independent Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Agency which shall have authority over the Federal Home Loan Bank Finance Corporation, the Federal Home Loan Banks, the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae), and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac); and (2) the Federal Housing Enterprise Board.
An independent board to make sure the HUD was doing it job properly. That is called regulatory over site. Hate to break that news to you.
You also clearly stated....
This has been thoroughly imbued in the Republican platform. When has a Republican in the past 50 years ever introduced legislation to establish or increase regulation in anything dealing with finance? When has a Republican in the last 50 years ever opposed legislation intruduced to relax or remove government regulation in the financial arena?
My post has proven wrong, you spin again to counter that point with:
It never made it out of the Republican-led committee to which it was assigned. In other words, it never saw the light of day.
You were wrong on both counts.
0
sailwind
My post has proven you wrong.... Yabits
Typo
0
yabits
sailwind writes:
Read the proposed bill. It clearly says the independent board is to be established in lieu of the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight of the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).
Most readers of English will interpret "in lieu of" to mean that the independent board would replace HUD, rather than provide additional regulatory oversight of HUD "to make sure they were doing the job properly," as you incorrectly assert.
There is nothing in the bill that suggests increased oversight by government.
0
yabits
Added to above:
In fact, the text of the bill -- in Title III, Subtitle A -- clearly spells out the "abolishment of the OFHEO." (As well as the abolishment of the Federal Housing Finance Board (Subtitle B).
This is less government regulation, which is par for the Republicans' philosphy.
0
goodDonkey
sailwind said:
Oops, the truth accidentally slipped out!
0
SuperLib
You really don't need bold or italics. It looks like you're becoming overly emotional.
At this point I really don't even know what your point is. The financial meltdown was a combination of a lot of different things from a lot of different people across both parties and all walks of life from the Wall Street executive to the person who couldn't afford to be buying a house. You seem content to mostly blame Republicans because of their ideology, but the more accurate explanation is that you simply don't like Republicans so you're doing whatever it takes to pin as much blame on them as possible, even if it comes in a very generalized way. And if a Democrat gets caught with his hand in the cookie jar then you just say that he's just not following proper Democratic principals, so you can't blame the party for that since he personally made the wrong choice.
Probably about 90% of your posts can be summed up as "Democrats good, Republicans bad," so why not just conserve the white space and make things easier on us and just begin and end with that.
0
amerijap
Agree. Things are not gonna be easy for Democrats. Republicans are aiming in the mid-election to seize the opportunities to prove that they are right. That's fine. If only they are able to depart from what they were until two years ago.
0
yabits
Wrong, I blame them because they were leading the parade.
You know what the word leadership means? Do you understand that when a leader and his party chooses a direction for the nation and it results in disaster, that the responsibility simply can't be placed on the minority who opposed them -- as you appear all too willing to do?
I don't know about the Democrats but the Republicans are far worse than merely bad. They're disastrous.
I maintain that by following sound policies based upon genuine, sound liberal principles, the United States has a shot at getting out of the many crises that Republican-led policies have led the nation into. Even though you claim to have voted Democratic, the vast majority of your posts on political topics chide and scold Democrats and liberals for not thinking like you do.
My first post in this thread gave a list of things that the American people should keep in mind as a growing percentage of them start to get stupid and really believe as you appear to that the mess we're in can't be pinned on one group over the other. Here's another example:
In the campaign of 2000, George W. Bush told the American people that we could maintain a surplus, leave Social Security intact, and give out massive tax cuts because he was going to make sure that discretionary federal spending would be held at or below the limits of the Clinton years. What does he and his party do? He vastly increases discretionary spending without seeking new revenues to pay for it!
0
yabits
As an append to the above:
I don't want to just blame Bush. Go back and look at the 90's and the Republican principles set forth in their Contract with America. Term limits, balanced budget amendment, etc. Once they got control of the government, did they even try to enact those things? (No way.)
So you've got one group that hasn't got the integrity to stand up for what they claim to believe in. And, when a president from their party leads the nation on a spending binge, won't stand up to him either.
And some people want to play the Republican game of distributing the blame to the party that wasn't in control. That's just plain dumb, if not suicidal. (But it -- dumbness -- may help to explain why 2010 might be more difficult for Democrats.)
0
adaydream
I know there might be some problems with this next election season, but I'm not too worried. I think once we get past some of these big congressional packages and get to normal issues the citizens will forget some of the rhetoric.
The republicans have stood on their soapboxes screaming "NO!!" for so long. Once all the lies like death panels and other divisive untruths are feltched out it won't be as bad as you imagine. Once Americans realize they have health care protection then the republicans won't be so dreamy.
For every congressman that drops out there are two or three ready to succeed them. So I'm not as worried as the republicans are excited.
Remember under the Obama realm the war in Iraq is waning down.
Democrats 2010. < :-)
0
yabits
Yes, and leopards will suddenly change their spots. And Lucy will finally let Charlie Brown kick that football.
The first part of the "departure" you are speaking of is the Republicans admitting they were dead wrong about a lot of things. I haven't seen that yet. Only more of their attempts to spin black into white.
0
Molenir
Interesting how you single out Republicans on this, Dems are just as guilty. Whats amusing to me, is that if we followed the contract with America, followed the Conservative principles it suggests, if Republicans hadn't run off course, the country would be better off. And hear you are spouting the liberal mantra of bigger government as the solution to all lifes problems. Sorry for disagreeing.
0
yabits
Are you blaming the Democrats for running the Republicans off course?
The liberal philosophy is not that big government will solve all of life's problems. And it is rather perverse for the enemies of liberals to state it that way. Liberals accept that government is necessary to establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and to secure the blessings of liberty for all who live under it.
Unlike the conservatives, we do not possess a knee-jerk hatred of government, or a fear of a government as large as it needs to be to fulfill the above-stated mission. Those who hate government should not be leading it.
0
Good_Jorb
Apparently many like the Republicans but are unwilling to pony up the money.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1209/31077.html
Democrats and Rupublicans should both be facing more difficulties, both parties are filled with career politicians, who have no clue as to what the meanings of fiscal conservatism and management are. Changing from one party to the other is like voting for the same wolf but in different sheeps clothing.
0
yabits
Recall Bill Clinton back in 1993-94 stating his goal to attain a balanced budget by the end of his second term. He achieved that goal which, admittedly, was easier with a Republican Congress that nonetheless had to be put in its place on a couple of occasions. Clinton kept the growth of the federal government down to a minimum and improved many of its functions. He was far from perfect but leagues better than what followed him.
Setting a worthy goal and working hard and honestly to achieve it. That's what separates folks like Clinton and Obama from the Republican leaders.
0
Molenir
No, Dems are Dems. I blame Republicans for abandoning conservative principles. Led by George Bush, they adopted a more liberal philosophy. However liberals at least were more honest. They are all tax and spend, the Republicans were just spend, and spend.
True, though to be fair, its only because of the Republicans in congress that he achieved the balanced budget. As for the congress being put in its place. When the Republicans flatly refused to spend any additional money, Clinton had very little choice. Any initiatives he wanted, were DOA in the House. Never even got a floor vote, so he had very little choice in the end. They gave a bit, and spent a bit more to avoid a complete black eye, he gave a lot, and spent a lot less and in the end, he gets credit for balancing the budget, and doing a lot of things right. Then Bush came in with his nonsense, and Republicans went right along with him, like sheep, most of them abandoning conservative principles, with a few rare exceptions who decried what they were doing.
My point is, that having been voted out of power, Republicans are being forced to confront the fact, that its conservatives who elected them. And if they want to get re-elected, to get back into power, then the conservative base they depend on, has to be satisfied. They aren't going to be satisfied by more huge government entitlements, and wasteful spending. And the majority of Americans, having seen which direction the Dems want to take us, are thinking, lets put the Republicans back into congress. Maybe now, they'll think twice about throwing money away. To be honest it will probably work too. If Republicans get back congress, while Obama is in the White House, they won't go along with his programs, they'll force him to moderate if he wants to accomplish anything, and he will likely end up like Clinton, looking good at the end of the day.
0
Molenir
I had to comment on this separately. The reason people refer to liberals in this way is obvious. When theres a problem, liberals always look to government to find the solution. I can't think of a single instance, apart from on an individual level, when a liberal thought, hey, we should cut this program, or do away with this. We should put the private sector in charge, cause they'll do a much better job then the government will. Can you think of an instance like that? Now think the other way. Every single problem today, a liberal will try to think of a way to get government involved.
What I don't understand is the reasoning. Why do people think this way? Do people think that unelected bureaucrats will do a better job, then someone who gets paid based on their results? Someone for whom its in their best interests to do a job as quickly, and efficiently as possible? When someone works for government, they are very nearly unaccountable for their actions, unless things go truly horribly wrong. If you work in the private sector, you are accountable at every level, eventually to the people who can choose not to buy your products in the end. For me, I view government as existing for 2 reasons. To provide for the defense of the country, and to ensure that the playing field is level. Not that everyone gets a fair shake, not that every one gets the same outcome, but rather that we all have a chance, even if only a small one to succeed.
0
WilliB
If the headline is true, they have only themselves to blame. Obviously, the country was not quite ready for such a radical agenda.
0
SuperLib
Uh, yeah, very reasonable argument...
I'm actually a moderate. People on the far Right tell me I'm a liberal and people on the far Left tell me I'm a conservative. My guess is you're so far left that moderates are seen as Republicans in your eyes.
Blah blah blah.... My guess is that you don't do research to learn the facts, you simply hate Republicans and keep notes on anything negative and ignore anything that's contrary to the opinion that you wanted to make from the start. Please skip the, "I'm only giving negative information because Republicans only do bad things" angle while we're at it. Remember that you're talking to a moderate, not an extremist like yourself.
Your first post was extremist propaganda. I'm sure members of the KKK can give you information that's probably somewhat truthful but obviously you wouldn't think they're giving you the entire picture. When the messenger gets on a hill and proclaims to the world that he's biased, it kind of kills the impact the message can have.
0
SuperLib
But what is their conservative base and how can they sell the message to moderates? Personally, I think the far right has hijacked the image of Republicans and the more moderate Republicans need to get back into the picture.
0
Molenir
Its a fair question. The conservative base has many facets, just like the liberal base does. Each with their own viewpoint an issue that drives them. For some its the issue of abortion. For others, its problem of government interference in... whatever. On some issues, conservatives want government intervention, on others they don't. Essentially though, I think you can break conservatives down into 2 catagories, though of course theres a lot of overlap between them. But essentially, theres social conservatives, and fiscal conservatives. Myself, I'm a fiscal conservative first, and a social conservative second. Meaning, while I'm ok with much of the social conservative agenda, I'm more moderate myself. My core values though, are with the fiscal conservatives. Thats why, like so many others, I didn't care for Bush. Not because of his policies in war, though he didn't exactly do a great job there either, not because of his social policies, but rather because he abandoned the fiscal conservative base that got him elected, choosing to push social programs and big government solutions to everything. Thats why so many of his initiatives got so much Dem support.
What few people seem to want to acknowledge, is that there are a lot more fiscal conservatives then there are social conservatives. They are the ones who felt betrayed by Bush and Company. They're the ones who stayed home or voted Democrat in the last election. They're the ones that Republicans lost, and that Republicans need to get back, if they want to regain power.
0
yabits
Taking a government budget and economy from where it was in 2000 and wanting to blame Democrats equally for where it ended up at the beginning of Obama's first term is equivalent to saying that Republicans were equally responsible for the New Deal and Social Security. Left-right-moderate: it's Looney Tunes.
The notes you keep hitting are wrong ones. I presented the facts about the Contract with America, and how the Republicans made no attempt to deliver on it once they had control of the White House and Congress. Instead of commenting on that, which you simply can't do, you choose to make your little personal attacks.
You want to pretend that it is because you can't respond to any of the facts presented in a way that would show others that you know how to practice what you preach.
0
yabits
Then you can't blame anyone for not trusting Republicans to live up to what they preach to others. The philosophy that they adopted was not liberal as seen through the eyes of this liberal. For one example, read up on Tom DeLay and his "K-Street project." Anything but liberal.
I disagree that a majority of Americans are thinking that way. The Republicans have been sniping and carping at President Obama since the day he took office. Handed the problems and challenges that he has, contributed to by the disastrous policies of the previous administration, one might have expected a bit more contrition from the party that was so soundly beaten. Today's Republicans are not made that way, however.
0
yabits
Molenir writes:
The liberal youngster who wants to change things for the better is often told by the conservative oldster to "work with the system to change things." That system is government, predominantly. And when liberals try to do just that, they are castigated by conservatives for doing so. Again, it is this two-faced, inconsistent nature of conservatives that presents a great challenge.
I can't speak for others, but I think that way as a result of many years working in private industry and being a small business owner now. Unless you genuinely have a basic understanding of what a quality system is, you would never know how destructive to people and organizations the private system of short-term results and management by the visible numbers alone ("results" or MBO) truly is.
0
Sarge
"expected ( Democrat ) losses in next fall's elections"
How can this be?
0
USAFdude
Molenir -
An excellent question, posed respectfully.
The key word in your question is "unelected". To me, the right to elect our government leaders, all the way to the President, is a dear one; I say this to underscore the point that it will always be better to be governed by those we choose (government leaders) than those we don't (business executives and corporate fat-cats). If we don't like the job our government leaders do, we vote them out; but if a business executive wants to lay off hard-working Americans and outsource jobs to foreign countries, we can't really do much about it. I can't speak for anyone else, but that's my honest take on it.
0
yabits
NPR reported this morning that Connecticut senator and Democratic presidential candidate, Chris Dodd, will not run for reelection. A popular Democrat in the state will likely run for his seat.
I believe that North Dakota Democratic senator, Byron Dorgan, is not runniing either.
0
yabits
A good reply. It sounds as though private organizations are less accountable, rather than more. We got a taste of this in the previous administration with all the secrecy brought into things that should have been transparent. (Especially via former Halliburton CEO, Cheney.)
0
USAFdude
Agreed, yabits. I just can't understand what all the shrieking about "big government" (whatever that is) is all about; after all, what do we pay our elected government leaders to do if not govern?
0
Molenir
There is a major difference though. The CEO is accountable as well, to his shareholders, and the consumers who buy his products. If his company gets a black eye from misbehavior, other companies will be less inclined to do business with them, fewer people will buy their products etc. Meaning private companies are if anything much more accountable. They're hit in the pocketbook by their actions. To say nothing of the potential legal implications as well.
Getting back to the point of this article. From some of the more recent polls, its looking even more dire for Dems then this article implies. There are at least 8 seats in play for Dems, 6 of them seats where polls show current incumbents behind potential challengers. 2 more where Dems are retiring. The Republican vacancies are currently trending Republican again, meaning Dems may well see a net loss of 8 or more seats in the Senate alone. The House, right now, Dems are looking at a potential loss of 38 or more seats. Though of course the election is still a long ways away, and it could still go either way. Anyway you look at it though, even if the Dems manage to retain control of both houses, it will be much more difficult to push through their legislation after losses next year.
0
zurcronium
No one wants a return to the dark days of the bush administration and republican control of the Congress. That is what lead to two failed wars and the collapse of the US economy.
Lets face it, the republicans can only accomplish failure. The democrats, not perfect of course, must always fix what the republicans break. Republicans cannot run government, period.
0
yabits
Holding CEO after CEO "accoutable" did nothing to help, say, General Motors and Chrysler from their current state.
The problem may be the Americans' fatal penchant for always seeking short term results. This is reflected in their current fickleness with President Obama, fueled by their own completely unrealistic expectations.
The 1996 campaign of Clinton-Gore was based on the theme of building a "bridge to the 21st century." And they turned over a federal budget in 2001 that promised large surpluses and the paydown of the national debt. A promising bridge it was. And the Republicans throughout the last decade ended up making it look like I-35 in Minneapolis.
And then they fault President Obama for not rebuilding the thing in a year.
0
Molenir
Zurc, I think you missed the point of this article. The point is, that a majority of people are now "wishing to return to the dark days of Republican control." The majority of Americans, very nearly 60%, are thinking that it was a mistake to put the Dems in power, at least in congress. Only a slight majority of people are thinking the same about the President. So saying no one wants that, is simply wrong. Most Americans would at this point, rather have the Republicans in charge, so they could say no to Obamas Health care bill, and other plans. Thats why Dems are looking at such massive losses in November. Though I doubt very much if people want Republicans to blow money the way they did through the first 6 years of the Bush Administration.
How do you define holding them accountable? Their companies are bankrupt, due to mismanagement, and failed policies. From my perspective, thats holding them accountable. Of course the government stepped in to prevent them from actually paying the price for their own stupidity, even still.
0
TheQuestion
My take on the two parties; both are old, neither are particularly bright, one sits to the left of common sense, the other to the right. Both have priorities, none of which are yours, they cater to their constituents, who inhabit Martha's Vineyard's shores. Color me suspicious, call me an independent twit, but if you voted split ticket, you're the cause of it.
In an ideal world this would pave the way for more indepentdents or, at the very least, a third party to muscle their way in. However, being a man of reasonable expectations, I can at least hope that this comming election denies both parties fillibuster proof status and forces them to work something out.
0
yabits
I do not define it. Holding people "accountable" is part of the problem, and a key component of the mismanagement you correctly point out. Yes, I agree that the electorate (or the market) ultimately makes its decision, but that does not answer the key question of how to correctly manage a company or nation.
Policies based upon inferior theory, myth, wishful thinking, exhortations, and demonstrated falsehood have no chance of success. They will leave the ship of state adrift or on the rocks.
As to what stands a chance of working, the following provides some insights:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ehMAwIHGN0Y
0
Molenir
For me, I'm rather hoping that Republicans take firm control of congress in 2010. I don't care about Obama, he's been a crappy President so far, but honestly, the country just seems to work better when 1 party controls congress, and the other the Presidency. Republicans did a good job under Clinton, mostly sticking to their principles. When Bush got in, they turned their backs on their core values, and it all hit the fan. Putting them back in charge of Congress, hopefully will result in things working again. Maybe Obama can get credit for balancing the budget, the same way Clinton did in the 90s.
Back to top