Quote:
|
Originally Posted by cj2112
The lesser of two evils is STILL evil, make a stand for what you actually believe in, rather than vote for a different form of evil. The reason third party politics aren't successful is because people are too focused on believing they can't be successful.
|
So your choice is to simply leave the republicans in charge, with no opposition party in a position to check, balance, or conduct any investigations into misconduct, or even to block the passage of any bill, or executive edict......
until your so far unidentified, third party challengers can win future elections and assume a majority or a coalition in one of the congressional houses, or win a presidential election.
What went so terribly wrong, during the 8 years of the Clinton/Gore administration....in terms of fiscal or domestic policy, foreign policy, or in the management of government, that you can specify, that rules out voting in a democratic majority as soon as this november, just in one house of congress?
What was so negative? Was it the late 90's federal budget surplus, the effort to declassify all government documents that no longer justify a secret classiification? Was it the reduction during the Clinton years, of the actual number of civilian federal employees? Was it the $257 million defense budget in 2000 that still allowed "Clinton's military's projected force in Afghanistan and in "Shock and Awe" in Iraq, very convincingly, within 26 months from when his term ended? Was it the effect of Clinton era spending reductions on the CIA? Is the CIA in better or worse shape to perform it's intelligence gathering role now...or in Jan., 2001? Is the military stronger now that spending has doubled...is it more "ready"?
Was the Clinton administration corrupt? The Starr report, after an eight year and $110 million probe of every republican accusation against Clinton, from Waco to Watergate to travel gate, to the FBI files....determined that no one could be charged with breaking the law. Was it the controversial end of term Clinton pardons? Scooter Libby was pardoned fugitive financier Marc Rich's lawyer and testified before congress, after the pardon, that he believed in Rich's innocense.
No democrat received money or perks directly from Jack Abramoff. Democratic party affiliated senators can hardly be called "tools" of Corporatism, judging by their voting records, as republicans clearly can be:
http://www.progressivepunch.org/memb...zip=&x=40&y=10
If politics is about representing the people instead of selling votes to corporate lobbyssts, the list and scores at the link above, speak volumes.
Your tax money and $500 billion a year in new debt that you are responsible for, as an American, is now going for tax cuts for the richest one percent and for "no bid" federal contracts to Halliburton and ChoicePoint, to name just a few connected corporations.
FEMA was a basket case once before, after the first Bush administration in '93:
1997:Conservatice Cato Institute blasts the cost of a well run, responsive FEMA
http://www.cato.org/dailys/2-19-97.html
May 2005, Wa Po reports that FEMA 2004 generous hurricane relief was related to the upcoming 2004 election:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...051802076.html
2006: Fla Sun-Sentinel Newspaper investigates FEMA payouts from '04 - '06
http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/sfl...a-news-utility
2006: Bipartisan Group of US Senators calls FEMA Hopeless
http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/a...604280493/1009
How about the federal budget deficit record, from 1961 to 2001?
Quote:
http://sideshow.me.uk/annex/JustForTheRecord.htm
In Part I [Wednesday, October 16, 2002], I looked at Budget Deficits:
Just for the Record
From FY1962 (the first Kennedy budget) through FY2001 (the last Clinton budget) presidents have prepared forty budgets. Control of the White House was evenly divided between Republicans and Democrats with each party preparing and submitting twenty budgets. We decided to take a look at the fiscal performance of the Federal government during that period. The measurement we used was budget deficits and surpluses. We wanted to control for inflation to make the comparisons meaningful. Fortunately, the Government Printing Office publishes such information on the web. We got our data here at table 1-3. <b>All dollars are adjusted for inflation and are expressed as 1996 dollars......</b>
.....Summary
The twenty years of budgets prepared by Republican presidents increased the national debt by $3.8 trillion. The average yearly deficit under Republican budgets was $190 billion.
The twenty years of budgets prepared by Democratic presidents increased the national debt by $719.5 billion. The average yearly deficit under Democratic budgets was $36 billion.
In Part II [Thursday, October 24, 2002], <b>I looked at the increase in non-defense Federal Government employees</b>
Just for the Record Part II
In 1961, under the last Eisenhower budget, there were 782,000 executive branch, non-defense employees in the Federal Government. By the end of 2001 that number had risen to 1,151,000 employees. That is an increase of 369,000 employees or a 47% increase over the 40 year period.
We decided to determine in which presidential terms that increase occurred. In order to do so, we looked at the years 1962 through 2001. We assigned credit or blame to an administration for the years for which it submitted a budget. Thus, for our purposes, the Kennedy term runs from 1962-1965. The Johnson term runs from 1966-1969 etc. We got our data here at table 17-1.
........Carter 1978-1981
During the Carter years, the number of non-defense federal employees dropped by 14,000.
Reagan 1982-1989
In the Reagan years, the federal workforce increased by 3,000 employees.
Bush 1990-1993
Under George Herbert Walker Bush, the number of non-defense government employees increased from 1,162,000 to 1,256,000 for a gain of 94,000 employees.
Clinton 1993-2001
During the Clinton years the number of non-defense government employees fell from 1,256,000 to 1,151,000 for a decrease of 105,000 employees.
Conclusion
Under the 20 years of Republican administrations the number of non-defense government employees rose by 310,000.
Under the 20 years of Democratic administrations, the number of non-defense government employees rose by 59,000.
Of the 369,000 employees added between 1962 and 2001, 84% were added under Republican administrations and 16% were added under Democratic administrations.
|
<b>So...what is the aversion to an Al Gore 2008 candidacy, or to democratic candidate challenges to incumbant republican congressional seats in the election this November?</b> Do democrats spend too much money, engage in budget busting spending and creat a larger government? Are they too corrupt, too secretive? <b>That wasn't their record in the eight year, Clinton presidency....quite the opposite!</b>What is your aversion motivated by?
Is your aversion to voting with the intent of of turning the majority of just one house of congress over to democrats, starting in Jan., 2007 more about the past performance of democrats...their spending ....corruption ....secrecy ....veracity.... preservation of military readiness and intelligence gatherin and analysis, fair representation of the interests of ordinary people vs. those of corporations and the most affluent.....or is it about "feelings"?
Are you willing to examine whether your opinion is primarily influenced by facts or feeling? If you are......post documentation to back your fact based opinions. If your opinion is more about "feelings", then maybe you should consider posting in another venue. But please stop posting unsubstantiated statements. It just isn't fair for you to regurgitate undocumented talking points and feelings here anymore.
Take stock of how much of what you believe...what you react to...might be propaganda fueled "feelings" and not based on the facts. Remember how you reacted to this "news"...in 2001??? Turns out....it was an "Op",,,not news:
Quote:
http://64.233.179.104/search?q=cache...s&ct=clnk&cd=1
<b>No truth in White House vandal scandal, GSA reports</b>
By DAVID GOLDSTEIN - The Kansas City Star
Date: 05/17/01 22:15
WASHINGTON -- The General Services Administration has found that the White House vandalism flap earlier this year was a flop.
The agency concluded that departing members of the Clinton administration had not trashed the place during the presidential transition, as unidentified aides to President Bush and other critics had insisted.
Responding to a request from Rep. Bob Barr, a Georgia Republican, who asked for an investigation, <b>the GSA found that nothing out of the ordinary had occurred. .....</b>
|
I sincerely want to discuss issues with folks here who are informed with the facts. Trouble is...I don't encounter many. It would be encouraging to find that you could back up what you post, but your just not motivated to do so.
Is that what it is? Or...have you allowed "news" like my last example, to trigger "feelings" that shape your political opinions?
There's too much at stake to let things continue until you feel "good" about who is running to unseat the republicans who run the government in Washington....