Republican/Democratic parties
We have to remember the Republican Party came into existence at the time of Abraham Lincoln, in part because the Whigs could not get past their denial about slavery, but also because the United States was about to be transformed from the agrian to industrial age. Through the presidency of Theodore Roosevelt it was a progressive party; then it flipped and began to represent the interests of large industrial age businesses centered in the Yankee north. The Democrats became the defenders of the poor, minorities and union workers.
I argue that as we enter the 21st century, the Republican Party will go the way of the Whigs. Each time it has come to power it has demonstrated an appalling inability to get the job done. Like the middle-aged male who just doesn’t get it, it’s leaders deny the existence of problems such as health care and the environment. Its solution to education is merely to dismantle the public school system and give vouchers to those now paying for private education. Its solution to immigration is just to load up the busses.
I grew up in a Democratic family, but have been Republican for thirty years since I went to college. I now see myself as an Independent, as do most of my friends. To Mr. Rosen, I would say, “sometimes the pendulum quits swinging and, shortly thereafter, there is an irreversible transformation". The industrial age and historical forces that perpetuated your political party are all but gone. Time to embrace the 21st Century and create a fusion party using intelligent design; time to get it!
This letter has not been edited.
Independents can go right ahead and waste thier votes -- as long as they don't vote Democrat.
This country was founded on traditional Christian family values, and there are still droves of people who want this country to be a nice place to raise children -- not a refuge for immorality and debauchery.
Liberal values are destroying our way of life. Gambling, drugs, homosexuality, promiscuity, pornography and contempt for societal rules have become the accepted norms.
We need a strong Republican party to help balance out the left. If Liberals gain complete control of government, then there won't be any checks and balances any more.
Without balance, Liberals will completely corrupt this nation. If that happens, even Liberals won't want to raise their kids here anymore.
Posted by Republican Guy on July 30, 2007 02:33 PM"Gambling, drugs, homosexuality, promiscuity, pornography and contempt for societal rules have become the accepted norms."
Sounds just like and IS the Republican norm.
Posted by conservative media on July 30, 2007 02:51 PMPardon me as I repeat an old mantra: Neither party has the best interests of the country as their primary concern. They only want to be the one "in power". They both cater to the well-heeled special interest groups and corporate money machines.
The best thing that has happened so far in Congress is the current balance of power between the two parties. Neither can run roughshod over the other. The next best thing would be removing (via elections) a lot of the ancient incumbents and under-performing run of the mill seat holders next election. It doesn't matter which party has the majority so long as the current tight ratio is maintained.
By removing a lot of the old guard from both parties it would send the message to the surviving and new members that the electorate expects them to work together for the countries benefit. Failure to do so based on partisanship or kowtowing to special interests, as is currently the case, will result in another wholesale change at the next election.
Take away the congressional assumption of "elected for life" based on a mythical sense of entitlement would force these clowns to work together in a manner beneficial to the country, not themselves.
Posted by Trinity on July 30, 2007 03:29 PMRepublican Guy,
Please provide real, factual, impartial evidence that the liberal movement indeed supports immorality, debauchery, and the corruption of the nation, instead of solely parroting Bill O'Reilly rhetoric. Providing links to billoreilly.com does not count.
Also, please explain the activities of staunch Republican representatives such as the aforementioned O'Reilly, Rush Limbaugh, Ted Haggard, Mark Foley, Tom DeLay, Randy "Duke" Cunningham, David Vitter, etc. (for recent examples) who have wantonly participated in your list of "liberal values" transgressions. If debauchery is a "liberal value", why are so many conservatives drinking the Kool-Aid?
I do notice however you've left out what many consider to be common Republican values, such as lying, killing, torture, deception, greed, bigotry, etc.... I guess those are okay, and fit in nicely with the "traditional family Christian values" of which you speak. Now I personally don't believe that the majority of conservatives are greedy bigoted liars, but if I had your limited perspective of the world, then maybe I would believe that. Fortunately I have more developed critical thinking skills than a partisan parrot such as yourself.
Mr. Republican Guy, instead of inventing a boogeyman (i.e. liberals) and blaming said boogeyman on everything from moral corruption to chapped lips, please do the world a favor and pressure your own party to clean up its act.
Posted by Dan on July 30, 2007 03:31 PMI am still hoping a common sense Third party is going to step forward and offer to represent the citizens in the middle of this political garbage. I am feed up with the Republicans and frighten as hell of the Democrats.
Both parties would sell their own mothers for votes
Posted by on July 30, 2007 04:07 PMTraditional Christian values do not include freedom of speech, press, assembly or to petition the government for grievances. In fact now where in the Bill of Rights does traditional Christian values come to play.
Did Jesus preach the "right to bear arms" on the mount? No.
Did Peter say "no troops shall be quartered in private residences"? Hardly.
Did Paul give Congress the right to regulate Interstate trade? I don't recall that from Sunday school.
Please inform me how traditional Christian values influenced the founding of the US. Apart from the slavery, bigotry and the suppression of womens' rights.
Stop voting for parties and start voting for philosophies.
There can be many factions of the parties. We can break it down this way:
Strong "moral" and "family values," Christian values, government mandates the way you should "act" (social conservatives)
Small government, small domestic spending, tax cuts (fiscal conservative)
Centralized government, larger domestic spending, social governmental programs, small national defense budget (fiscal liberal)
socially free to make up determinations that suit the individual, personal responsibility, small federal government, personal liberty (social libertarian)
large federal government, emotional response, social welfare centric, individual rights and liberties, reliance on centralized programs (social liberal)
Now pick which philosophies best represent who you are, and choose the candidate that best reflects your philosophy. This is VERY simplistic, but I too am TIRED of voting for the least offensive candidate, or having my vote wiped out because everyone else voted for their least offensive candidate.
I would call on every "politician" to step up and set limits on their own. The way I look at it, either 2 terms, or 8 years (if it was good enough for George Washington, it should be long enough for anyone else). I figure Senators and the President should serve for 2 terms max, and Representatives no more than 8 years. If you can't accomplish something in 8 - 12 years, in my mind it is time to be replaced anyway.
Posted by Dan2 on July 30, 2007 04:25 PMRepublican Guy, . gambling, drugs, homosexuality, promiscuity and pornography will all get you killed in Saudi Arabia. Perhaps you would be better off living there.
Posted by Sean on July 30, 2007 04:26 PMDan2,
Thank you for explaining that political philosophies break down into more than just the simplistic "liberal" and "conservative" factions. That often gets lost in this forum, and in most political discourse in general.
Thanks Dan,
It was still VERY simplistic, but there are a lot more than "republican" and "democrat" even within their own parties.
Posted by Dan2 on July 30, 2007 05:09 PManyone with any political affiliation is an absolute sellout sheep !
Posted by Fresh on July 30, 2007 05:12 PMDan2,
It's understood that the breakdown is simplistic. However, it's very refreshing to hear another share the point of view that political philosophies (and decision-making) do not have to fall solely into a neat little liberal or conservative framework, and that the world's issues are far too complex to be so conveniently pegged under the two labels.
And yet, even under the breakdown of philosophical viewpoints that you provided, there can still be overlap. My philosophies tend to fall under social libertarian, as you described it, but the descriptives of fiscal conservative fit my worldview as well. Yet despite my small government leanings, there are still times I may concede a social liberal solution to a problem may indeed be best (I have to admit I lean that way with healthcare, and only with healthcare).
The world and its issues are far too complex to fit under neat, descriptive labels. Like you said, Dan2, find who best represents your interests and vote for that person.
Posted by Dan on July 30, 2007 05:33 PMAh another day another Republican example of hypocrisy and corruption. Ted Stevens's, Senator-R of course from Alaska, home was just searched by the FBI and IRS.
I am going to have to make myself a spreadsheet to keep track of all the Republican scandals.
I should have a code as well. Let's see S will be for sex, P for prostitution PE for pedophilia, C for corruption TC for tax cheat, IC for incompetence. HO for homosexuals (not that there is anything wrong with that, unless you made gay-marriage a campaign issue, HY for hypocrisy and D for devil worship. I know no Republican was been accused of that - yet.
Sean,
Don't forget Harry Reid, and Feinstein in your list. And how could we forget the Clintons and Mr Jefferson, from Louisiana.
Ask Feinstein how her hubby made money. Ask Obama how well he did on his "real estate deal".
Yeah, no skeletons in those closets.
Posted by Dravur on July 30, 2007 09:23 PMDravur, your retort is so weak that if it was a human it could not bench press 10 pounds. Aside from Jefferson from Louisiana, where corruption seems to be the norm, you list names but no proof. Has the FBI raided Obama's house? Is Mr. Feinstein the subject of an IRS investigation?
Why don't you go to rightwing wacko.com and pull up some proof and enlighten the rest of us because I need a good laugh before I go to bed. That is right I go to bed early because I have a job something you might remember from your days of working at the drive-through.
Take a look at the Republican Presidential Canditates.
THREE times divorced!
Trophy wife!
Posted by rick on July 31, 2007 08:52 AMLets see gambling (Bennett) drugs (Rush) homosexuality (Haggard, Baker) promiscuity (Rudy) and porno ( too many to mention) contempt for societal norms, please define so I can find the appropriate Republicans.
Posted by Sharon B. on July 31, 2007 11:09 AMI didn't think that Liberals were religious -- but the ones here certainly act holier than thou.
I can make a laundry list of Democrats that are morally corrupt -- just as you can find a few Republicans who are the same.
My point is -- Republicans represent positive values and work harder to make the country a better place to live. Being fiscally responsible and socially respectable are traditional Republican characteristics.
In contrast, Democrats are the party of fiscal and moral excess. Their tax and spend philosophy and low morals would destory our country if left unchecked.
That's why, no matter how Democrats try to downplay things, it was a HUGE issue when Bill Clinton cheated on his wife.
George W. might not be the bnrightest crayon in the box -- but at least he's smart enough to keep it in his pants.
It's very difficult to form a successful Third Party because the Reps and Dems have conspired together to write laws which make it nearly impossible to seek office unless you belong to one of the two major parties. There are a few independents and I admire their courage but most of them came one of the mainstream parties and then became independent. James Abzug (I hope I spelled that right) quit before running again and called the Congress "the biggest bunce of chicken-sh**'s I've ever seen".
Amen!
Posted by Stan B on July 31, 2007 12:36 PMEarth to Republican Guy! Earth to Republican Guy!
What Univese are you posting from?
Republican fiscal responsibility?
How about Ronny Raygun's trillion+ dollar deficit?
How about the current trillion+ dollar deficit being run up by Bush every day of the week, as the Iraq fiasco gets worse and worse?
Democrats fiscal excess?
How about Clinton and a balanced budget, that Bush has wasted away?
Republicans as "socially respectable"?
Well, perhaps. At least up until they get caught committing felonies, that is.
Democrats and "moral excess"?
Whose "morals" are at issue here?
If Nixon and Company commit burglary, obstruction of justice, and other felonies that is not a "moral matter"?
If several current Republican political office holders are caught with their pants down in the wrong places - or caught trying to get their pants down with minors - that is not a "moral matter"?
Earth to Republican Guy!
What Universe are you posting from?
Posted by Old Grouch on July 31, 2007 01:02 PMAh yes those positive Republican values of hookers and creepy relations with underage Congressional pages, it is just not for Democrats anymore.
Democrats started and escalated a disastrous war in South East Asia, the Republicans started and escalated a disastrous war in South West Asia. The Democrats are labeled tax and spend, the Republicans are tax-cut and spend. The similarities are creepy.
Old Grouch,
How typical of a Democrat to blame the deficit during the Reagan administration on Reagan when it was Ronald Reagan that got us out of that deficit which was created by the Carter administration.
How typical of a Democrat to give praise to Clinton for balancing the budget when it was Ronald Reagan who implemented tax-rate cuts which balanced the budget through higher tax revenues during the Bush, Sr. and Clinton administrations. Then Clinton raised the tax-rate and yes, Bush, Jr. has gone nuts on spending and the deficit suffered.
But we now see that the deficit has started on a decline due to higher tax revenues resulting from lower tax rates implemented by Bush, Jr.
Do you see a pattern? High tax rates = lower tax revenues = higher deficit, and lower tax rates = higher tax revenues = lower deficit.
Posted by Mountain Cat on August 1, 2007 03:51 PMMountain Cat,
Yep. Takes a Republican to get something out of nothing, and more out of less. That's some magical fantasy you present there. "Lower tax rates equal higher tax revenues."
I have $10.00. You tax me at the rate of 10%; and the revenue from the tax is $1.00
I have $10.00. You tax me at the rate of 5%; and the revenue from the tax is 50 cents.
Is that the Hogwarts School of Voodo Economics, by any chance? I didn't know Ronnie Raygun and Dubbya tha Dimwit were students before Harry Potter got there.
Shure is wonderful arithmetic, old buddy. Bet you got high marks on your O.W.L.S. with that one.
Posted by Old Grouch on August 1, 2007 05:33 PMLower taxes means that the tax savings are reinvested in producing more income and therefore generating more taxable income in the immediate future.
That, OG, is how "voodoo" economics work. And I learned that from liberal economic instructors at Stanford. It was reinforced at Wharton. I missed the guest econ seminar from Hogwarts.
Your overly simplistic example of the taxation on the same $10.00 is fallacious to say the least.
Posted by carl on August 1, 2007 05:56 PMcarl, you said the following:
"That, OG, is how "voodoo" economics work. "
Give an example of when this theory has worked. Let's start with Reagan shall we?
Or should we just move on to daddy Bush's "read my lips" history with context.
OG slaps down a simplistic and, frankly, backwards equation and you call his statement simplistic?
I don't think anyone misunderstands the theory, it's just that "Voodoo" economics ultimately relies on wishful thinking
Posted by Charles B on August 1, 2007 07:00 PMcarl,
One Dollar ($1.00) today will still be one dollar ($1.00) in the "future", just as 50 cents will still be 50 cents. If you think that's "fallacious", you might perhaps set aside a dollar bill and a 50 cent piece - or 2 quarters, or whatever change you wish to use - in a nice safe place. Feel free to wave a wand over them, pray over them, chant incantations, or whatever turns you on and makes you think they will "grow".
Then - oh, say, about 6 months later - ask someone to be with you, and take a look and see just how much either, or both, have "increased" in the intervening period.
Theories of the future don't make simple arithmetic "fallacious" in the real world.
Posted by Old Grouch on August 1, 2007 07:59 PMOG - If you put the money in a mattress, or hide it in a coffee can, of course it's not going "grow". According to the theory of "voodoo" economics, instead of putting that money -- the tax savings -- in your coffee can, you invest it in a manner to generate additional, new taxable income.
Using your $10.00 example: instead of paying $1.00 in taxes, leaving you $9.00 to invest, you would now pay $.50 in taxes, leaving you $9.50 to invest. ASSUMING the same (or better) rate of return as realized on the first investment, you would have a higher taxable income derived off your reinvestment of after tax dollars.
My only argument with your examples is that you utilize a stagnant dollar base -- you assume all profits or income generated are withdrawn from economic activity (you invest in coffee can futures) and future taxable income is not realized through reinvestment.
Have to finish this next Wednesday or later if you'd like to continue this discussion. I have a 04:45 AM flight across the pond to catch in the morning.
Posted by carl on August 1, 2007 08:49 PMOh, and for Charles B. You ask when it's ever worked in real life. It's working now -- that's way the gargantuan deficit run up by the spend crazy Republicans is currently decreasing. The key to continuing success is somehow keeping the federal purse from bleeding green again as it did the last few years.
Good night folks...to be continued, I'm sure, next week!
Posted by carl on August 1, 2007 08:54 PMCarl,
Let me get this straight. According to your theory, each president either reaps the rewards or pays the price of the previous administration?
So you're saying that Clinton is responsible for the Dow Jones hitting 14000 for the first time ever, and for all the new jobs currently being created?
I don't buy it. It doesn't take 8 years for the economy to react to policy changes and market forces.
You need to go back and take macro-economics 101 all over again.
Your whole premise sounds like an attempt to shift blame away from the GOP.
Quit watching Fox and quit listening to Limbaugh and O'Reilly. Open your eyes.
Posted by Student on August 2, 2007 10:28 AM"Student"
I think you missed the point of the argument above. It only takes 2 to 3 years max for effects to be realized. The GOP put it into effect before, and so that, they could go on their spending binge. While the tax cuts have started lowering the deficit via an expanding economy (and larger tax generating base), think how much further ahead we would be if they hadn't done it just to buy power and finance a questionable war.
They implemented a sound policy that worked, but for the wrong reason and results.
Posted by on August 2, 2007 11:29 AM