Democract issues - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

girldetective · 03-28-2008, 06:48 AM

Its been awhile since weve had a democrat executive branch along with a demo congress. If our next commander-in-chief is a demo what domestic issues do you think are imperative for him/her to tackle in a quick and timely manner before our population elects another republican congress to "keep the balance", but be ineffective?

dc_dux · 03-28-2008, 07:33 AM

The top issue will be the economy and jobs....possibly a major public works program to fix the nation's crumbling infrastructure. And, if gas prices continue to rise, perhaps a windfall profit tax on the record high profits of big oil companies. Some type of subprime and credit reform.

Followed by health care reform, including the expansion of SCHIP by raising the eligibility level to include more children and perhaps the first phase of a larger initiative by enabling or establishing a national heath insurance pool for small businesses that currently do not provide insurance to employees.

Tax reform, with the first step being the immediate phase out of the Bush tax cuts (which were supposed to be temporary) and a refocus on middle class tax cuts and closing corporate tax loopholes.

Homeland security with a focus on further implementation of 9/11 Commission recommendations that have been ignored - ports, nuclear and chemical plants, and other high risk facilities - as well as restoration of a balance between national security and privacy rights. Expanded program to enhance local public safety capacities.

Go Green! I think this may be a surprise initiative.....reframing energy, environment and climate change issues into a national program to promote sustainability.

Restoring open government.....maybe a big open house and bonfire on the White House lawn to burn all the Bush executive orders that have created the most secretive government in US history.

How to pay for all this and maintain fiscal discipline?.......start with the current $2+ billion/week needed to pay for an unsustainable and unwanted large scale presence in Iraq. Add $billions more by returning the tax rate for top 2% to 1998 level.

And by an expanded program of reinventing government, a Clinton/Gore program of the 90s that resulted in $billions in savings for the federal government through regulatory reform, consolidation, etc.

Other issues....trade reform, education reform (fixing the bad No Child Left Behind)

What the Dems wont touch initially, for better or worse......entitlements (social security, medicare) and immigration reform

Willravel · 03-28-2008, 07:36 AM

The same thing all Democratic white houses do: cleaning up the mess the moronic GOP president made.

Baraka_Guru · 03-28-2008, 07:45 AM

Dems should look to Canada for inspiration on just about every point dc_dux made.

dc_dux · 03-28-2008, 07:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru

Dems should look to Canada for inspiration on just about every point dc_dux made.

Not a bad idea, eh?

loquitur · 03-28-2008, 10:24 AM

We had a Dem Pres and Congress in 1993-94. That's your most recent precedent. Before that it's 1977-80.

Neither period was particularly distinguished. Which isn't to say the Republicans covered themselves in glory when they were in charge, either.

girldetective · 03-28-2008, 11:19 AM

Thats right, its been 14 years. I think it is imperative that our new pres gets to work right out of the starting gate with all the gusto s/he can musto. It wont be long before another general election and the moment will have passed. I hope Pelosi has her cards lined up ready for action.

roachboy · 03-28-2008, 11:40 AM

i'm not sure how informative a precedent the 93-94 session is for what might come simply because that was under clinton during the height of his triangulation period, under the tutelage of dick morris--co-opt republican issues by moving steadily to the center-right (hysterical claims from conservative talk radio notwithstanding)....this would be particularly Other were obama to be elected (one would hope)

loquitur · 03-28-2008, 11:48 AM

Actually, RB, Morris came in later. 1993-94 was when a lot of people thought the Clinton Administration was amateur hour. Morris started working with Clinton after the 1994 election debacle, IIRC, not during the first couple of years of his presidency.

Yup:

Quote:

Morris first worked with Bill and Hillary Clinton during Bill Clinton's successful 1978 bid for Governor of Arkansas. Morris is credited by many with engineering Clinton's re-election to the Arkansas governorship after a humiliating defeat at the end of Clinton's first term. Thus it is not surprising President Clinton turned to Morris after the mid-term elections of 1994, when Republicans gained control of the U.S. House and Senate and Clinton's own chances for a second presidential term seemed negligible. From the early months of 1995 until August 1996, Morris was a principal architect of the Clinton-Gore re-election strategy.

That's from the Dick Morris entry in Wikipedia (emphasis mine).

roachboy · 03-28-2008, 12:01 PM

ah. shows you what happens when i go straight from memory then.
i disliked the morris period intensely--which overshadowed the possibility that from some viewpoint it could have been an improvement.
who qualifies the first year or so as "amateur hour" anyway?

anyway, there we are.
i basically agree with dc about the main tasks that await, within the realm of what seems possible/plausible given what i take obama to be about politically.

Digbudro · 03-28-2008, 12:23 PM

Father/Daughter Talk

A young woman was about to finish her first year of college. Like so
many others her age, she considered herself to be a very liberal Democrat,
and among other liberal ideals, was very much in favor of higher taxes to
support more government programs, in other words redistribution of
wealth.

She was deeply ashamed that her father was a rather staunch Republican,
a feeling she openly expressed. Based on the lectures that she had
participated in, and the occasional chat with a professor, she felt
that her father had for years harbored an evil, selfish desire to keep what he
thought should be his.

One day she was challenging her father on his opposition to higher
taxes on the rich and the need for more government programs. The self-professed
objectivity proclaimed by her professors had to be the truth and she
indicated so to her father. He responded by asking how she was doing in
school.

Taken aback, she answered rather haughtily that she had a 4.0 GPA, and
let him know that it was tough to maintain, insisting that she was taking a
very difficult course load and was constantly studying, which left her no
time to go out and party like other people she knew. She didn't even have time
for a boyfriend, and didn't really have many college friends because she
spent all her time studying.

Her father listened and then asked, 'How is your friend Audrey doing?'
She replied, 'Audrey is barely getting by. All she takes are easy classes,
she never studies, and she barely has a 2.0 GPA. She is so popular on
campus; college for her is a blast. She's always invited to all the parties and
lots of times she doesn't even show up for classes because she's too hung
over.'

Her wise father asked his daughter,

'Why don't you go to the Dean's office and ask him to deduct 1.0 off
your GPA and give it to your friend who only has a 2.0. That way you will
both have a 3.0 GPA and certainly that would be a fair and equal
distribution of GPA.'

The daughter, visibly shocked by her father's suggestion, angrily fired
back, 'That's a crazy idea, how would that be fair! I've worked really
hard for my grades! I've invested a lot of time, and a lot of hard work!
Audrey has done next to nothing toward her degree. She played while I worked my
tail off!'

The father slowly smiled, winked and said gently, 'Welcome to the
Republican party.'

If anyone has a better explanation of the difference between Republican
and Democrat I'm all ears.

roachboy · 03-28-2008, 12:28 PM

why, that fine story puts us in the position of explaining the difference between these types of characters:

their similarities as cartoons outweigh anything else.

host · 03-28-2008, 12:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by loquitur

Actually, RB, Morris came in later. 1993-94 was when <h3>a lot of people thought the Clinton Administration was amateur hour.</h3> Morris started working with Clinton after the 1994 election debacle, IIRC, not during the first couple of years of his presidency.

Yup:That's from the Dick Morris entry in Wikipedia (emphasis mine).

By a "lot of people", you must mean republicans....they were and are an anti-populist cancer....a pox on all houses that see them as the engineers of unprecedented deficits....providing nothing but redistribution of wealth back to their political benefactors.....

Has anything changed...there was a $347 billion increase in national debt in the last fiscal year that Bush I's admin. budgeted for.....
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/r...ebt_histo4.htm

and an $18 billion increase in national debt in the last full fiscal year of the Clinton administration....
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/r...ebt_histo5.htm

and all of the while....as can be seen in this 1994 article, republicans bitched about "tax and spend" democrats. They are bitching this year, as they preside over a $700 billion increase in national debt, in just one year ending on 9/30/08, and in the senate, they are the party that has blocked an unprecedented number of votes....

How are they not properly called saboteurs.... fiscally and legislatively?

Quote:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...o+years&st=nyt
CONGRESS CALLS IT QUITS: FINAL HOURS; Rancor Leaves Its Mark on 103d Congress

By ADAM CLYMER,
Published: October 9, 1994
The 103d Congress quit for the elections today, leaving behind a bitterly disputed record of legislation passed, defeated and put off.

As it closed its books, <h3>the Senate overcame the 28th Republican filibuster in two years</h3> and voted to protect millions of acres of California desert. Some senators who had already returned to their states to campaign had to fly back to the capital to vote, and Senator Carol Moseley-Braun of Illinois arrived at the Capitol by cab to vote on the bill after escaping from a garage that had a broken electronic door opener. [ Page 28. ]

That frantic footnote sent President Clinton the first significant environmental bill of this Congress. Mr. Clinton and Congressional Democrats looked back over 21 months that began with high hopes that a new President and more than 100 new members could solve dozens of problems they said had been ignored in 12 Republican years. But they were dogged by defeats on health care, campaign finance and long frustrating delays on many issues.

But in writing their epitaph for the 103d Congress, Democrats have suddenly rediscovered their voice, after standing by almost mutely for months as Republicans ran roughshod over the Administration's bills. [ Page 26. ]

In the session's final day, Democrats found several points of pride, arguing that accomplishments in trade, education, crime and deficit reduction had earned this Congress a respected place in history.

In listing accomplishments, Republicans agreed with Democrats only on trade -- an issue both sides managed to leave unfinished until Congress returns after the elections to vote on the global trade agreement. Last year's vote on the North American Free Trade Agreement was indeed one of only a handful of truly bipartisan lawmaking efforts, repeatedly praised by Republican leaders like Senator Bob Dole of Kansas, the minority leader, and Representative Newt Gingrich of Georgia, the minority whip, as the kind of Democratic leadership they wanted to encourage.

Today Mr. Dole ridiculed what he called "photo-op bipartisanship," which he said took place instead of real consultation.

Democrats were also keenly aware of the session's failures. Senator George J. Mitchell of Maine, the departing majority leader, told the Senate today of his unhappiness with the failure of health care and campaign finance legislation. "The disappointments of recent months are real," he said, but "we made a significant difference in the economic direction for the better -- more jobs, lower inflation, declining deficits -- than the country has seen for a dozen years."

Representative Pat Williams, a Montana Democrat who managed one of the many health insurance bills, described the Congress this way:"Fast start, slow finish, too much rancor."

On education, Democrats always had significant Republican help, especially in the Senate. But the Republican Party does not praise measures like shifting aid for poor children away from rich suburbs, easing the loan terms of college students and establishing national educational goals, perhaps because they were handled by Senator Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts, the most prominent incumbent they hope to defeat.

Where Democrats claimed this summer's $30 billion crime bill as an accomplishment, providing more money for police, prisons and crime prevention, Republicans scoffed, calling it too soft. Mr. Dole said the legislation was filled with pork-barrel projects, calling it "big pig."

<h3>The deficit issue remains perhaps the sharpest division of all. Fourteen months after it passed without a single Republican vote</h3>, Democrats say it has spurred economic growth and confidence; Republicans continue to blast it as no more than a tax increase.

Generally, Republicans saw Congressional success only where the Democrats saw failure, most of all on national health insurance.

On that issue and many others, the Republicans were remarkably unified, while the Democrats, with solid-looking majorities, were really too shaky to let them push more than one measure at a time. .....

loquitur · 03-28-2008, 01:31 PM

no, Host, go back and read some articles in the mainstream press from back then. A lot of people, Democrats included, thought there was no way Clinton could be re-elected. In fact, read the Dick Morris Wikipedia entry I linked to above.

Why does everything have to be a partisan issue, host? Chill a bit, my man.....

Baraka_Guru · 03-28-2008, 02:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Digbudro

If anyone has a better explanation of the difference between Republican and Democrat I'm all ears.

Well, this isn't an explanation, it's a misleading and fallacious illustration.

Seaver · 03-28-2008, 02:57 PM

Quote:

By a "lot of people", you must mean republicans....they were and are an anti-populist cancer....a pox on all houses that see them as the engineers of unprecedented deficits....providing nothing but redistribution of wealth back to their political benefactors.....

Can't find the post... but I remember something about you claiming to be a moderate....

host · 03-28-2008, 04:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seaver

Can't find the post... but I remember something about you claiming to be a moderate....

A moderate is someone who says reasonable things...reasonable, because the things said, can be substantiated:

Republicans have spent us into insolvency:

Quote:

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/BPD...application=np

............. Total outstanding public debt=
03/27/2008 $9,412,362,408,343.83

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/r...ebt_histo5.htm
09/30/2001 $5,807,463,412,200.06 ... 1st GW Bush budget year begins

09/30/2000 $5,674,178,209,886.86 ... Annual Debt increase only $18 biln
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/r...ebt_histo4.htm
09/30/1999 $5,656,270,901,615.43

09/30/1993 $4,411,488,883,139.38... 1st Clinton budget year begins

09/29/1989 $2,857,430,960,187.32... 1st GHW Bush budget year begins

09/30/1981 $997,855,000,000.00... 1st Reagan budget year begins

09/30/1977 $698,840,000,000.00... 1st Carter budget year begins

6/30/1973 $458,141,605,312.09

Republicans have obstructed the business of the US Senate, when they are the minority party...to counter the fact that they are the minority party:

Quote:

http://www.delawareonline.com/apps/p...3/1108/OPINION
By DANIEL W. PRITCHETT • February 27, 2008

Over the past seven years, this country has witnessed an unprecedented assault on constitutional government. The Bush-Cheney administration's assertions of executive power have made a travesty of the principles of openness, accountability and separation of powers.
Advertisement

The Constitution has been put through a shredding machine. For example, a pre-emptive war was started under false pretenses and with disastrous consequences. There have been wiretaps without warrants, abandonment of habeas corpus, torture during imprisonment, obsessive secrecy, and contempt for negotiated treaties.

Since the Democratic takeover of Congress a year ago, however, another perversion has arisen. The Republican minority has hijacked the U.S. Senate. The Senate no longer really deliberates; it merely obstructs.

What formerly was the exception has now become the rule. The Senate might now be described as the world's greatest filbustering body.

Once filibusters -- and the cloture rule to stop them -- were rare. They were reserved for exceptional issues of conscience, deep concern for minority viewpoints, or disgraceful efforts by Southern racists to block civil rights legislation.

This began to unravel during the first two years of President Bill Clinton's administration, when Republicans began a political strategy of deliberate obstruction by filibuster. In the spring of 1993, the Senate was involved in at least three filibusters at once.

This was a harbinger of things to come. The obstruction strategy worked well for the Republican Party. Its attacks on the "do-nothing Democratic Congress" helped it win smashing election victories in 1994.

Bill and Hillary Clinton's failure on health care reform in 1994 was not just because of their own errors. It was the result of a Republican plan to refuse any compromise in order to deprive the Clinton administration of a significant legislative and political victory before the mid-term elections.

With Republicans in control of the Senate for most of the next 12 years, the use of the filibuster resumed its normal pattern. Ironically, the exception was when Republicans threatened to ban filibuster against President George W. Bush's judicial appointees -- an effort that was settled by a compromise.

Then came the election of 2006, and the narrow capture of Senate control by the Democrats. Operating procedures changed. In the past year, 60 votes -- the number required to invoke cloture and stop a filibuster -- have been required for virtually all legislation.

This has turned the Senate upside down. Now the minority rules. A vote of 58-41, as recently happened on the economic stimulus package, is now not enough to pass a bill.

This is largely responsible for Democrats' inability to pass all of their program. The Republican Party seems set to paint Democrats as ineffective do-nothings, just as they did in 1994.

The reality is that we have seen a coup in the U.S. Senate that is another assault on

Shortly after Clinton became president in 1993, republicans launched an "Op" to replace the special prosecutor who republicans insisted must "investigate" the Clintons on hyped republican charges that were found, even by the "replacement", highly partisan special prosecutor, Ken Starr, to be unproveable:

Quote:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...entelle&st=nyt
Judge in Whitewater Dispute Rewards Faith of His Patron

By PETER APPLEBOME,
Published: August 17, 1994

When David B. Sentelle was nominated to be a Federal judge in 1985, his patron, Senator Jesse Helms of North Carolina, said that he had decided when he first met Mr. Sentelle, "I would do whatever I could to make sure that this young man's integrity and talent, principles and courage, would be used by this country."

Now as he is embroiled in the controversy over the replacement of Robert B. Fiske Jr. by Kenneth W. Starr as the Whitewater independent counsel, Judge Sentelle has already had an influence on the country that may exceed the Republican Senator's fondest expectations.

He was a member of the three-judge panels that overturned the Iran-contra convictions of Oliver L. North and John M. Poindexter, and he is regarded as the driving force behind the appointment of Mr. Starr, whose conservative credentials have riled Democrats.

Friends and critics alike here recall Judge Sentelle, 51, as a first-rate lawyer; an affable, folksy personality; and a politically savvy, ideologically committed leader of the conservative wing of the Republican Party and a supporter of Mr. Helms.

"I used to see David on a number of issues, everything from Confederate monuments to minority set-asides," said Harvey Gantt, who dealt with Mr. Sentelle often in the late 1970's when <h3>Mr. Sentelle headed the local Republican Party and Mr. Gantt, a Democrat, sat on the City Council. "I can't remember David being on on my side about anything, but he was a very affable fellow, a friendly assassin, cowboy boots and all."

In the current dispute, Democrats say the judge acted improperly by having lunch with Senators Helms and Lauch Faircloth, North Carolina's other conservative Republican Senator, while the Federal appeals panel he headed was still considering the future of the special prosecutor. Mr. Faircloth was a leader of the effort to oust Mr. Fiske because he thought Mr. Fiske had not been tough enough in his investigation.

On Aug. 5, three weeks after the lunch, the three-judge panel, which oversees matters involving special counsels, replaced Mr. Fiske, whose work on Whitewater had generally pleased the White House. It chose Mr. Starr, a former Solicitor General in the Bush Administration, to replace him. Many Democrats were outraged by the appointment of Mr. Starr, a strong conservative who had been highly critical of President Clinton's claim of immunity in a sexual harassment suit.</h3> Removal Is Sought

Senator Howard M. Metzenbaum, Democrat of Ohio, said today that Mr. Starr should either step down or be removed and that Judge Sentelle should either step down or be removed from the judicial panel before he "has another chance to taint the appearance of another appointment."

Asked tonight for comment, Judge Sentelle said, "I don't talk to reporters."

The judge has issued a single written statement saying that the lunch was a routine social event and "to the best of my recollection nothing in these discussions concerned independent counsel matters."

People here who know Judge Sentelle generally describe him as a first-rate judge and lawyer. And even North Carolina Democrats are less likely to see an improper use of judicial power than further evidence of Mr. Helms's genius at finding like-minded conservatives and putting them in positions of power.....

Quote:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...gewanted=print
November 20, 1998
TESTING OF A PRESIDENT: THE PROSECUTOR; Democrats Challenge Starr on Delayed Exoneration
By DON VAN NATTA JR.

Kenneth W. Starr today provided the public with a wide-ranging portrait of his four-year, $40 million investigation, announcing that he had not found any evidence of impeachable wrongdoing by President Clinton in Whitewater, the travel office and the personnel files of hundreds of employees.

Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee immediately seized on the disclosure, repeatedly challenging Mr. Starr, the independent counsel, and wondering, as Representative Barney Frank did, why Mr. Starr did not share the good news until after the Nov. 3 election....

Quote:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...+scaife&st=nyt
Judge Urges Investigation Of Whitewater Prosecutor

By NEIL A. LEWIS
Published: August 19, 1997

A senior Federal trial judge in Little Rock, Ark., has written in a confidential opinion that he believes that Kenneth W. Starr, the Whitewater prosecutor, may have a conflict of interest in investigating President and Mrs. Clinton.

The judge, G. Thomas Eisele of Federal District Court, wrote his opinion in response to an ethics complaint brought against Mr. Starr. In the opinion, Judge Eisele said he believed that the court should assign a lawyer to investigate Mr. Starr's plan to take an academic position at Pepperdine University that is partially subsidized by an avid opponent of Mr. Clinton.

.....Judge Eisele, a longtime Republican who was appointed to the bench in 1970 by President Richard M. Nixon, now works part time.

The unusual debate among the judges in the Eastern District of Arkansas will probably turn out to be little more than a legal sidelight in the long investigation of the Clintons' affairs by an independent counsel. But it shows how deeply the lives of the Clintons are intertwined with Arkansas's political and social life.

The episode began with the frequent filing of complaints about Mr. Starr's behavior by a Democratic lawyer in Connecticut. The lawyer, Francis T. Mandanici, had been rebuffed in most of his efforts to demonstrate that Mr. Starr was not an independent counsel but someone with a conservative political agenda determined to smear the Clintons.

Judge Eisele agreed with Mr. Mandanici's most recent legal filing, which contended that <h3>Mr. Starr had violated conflict of interest rules by agreeing to become dean of the law and public affairs schools at Pepperdine, in Malibu, Calif., when he finished his inquiry.</h3>

In a proceeding that was initially sealed from public view, Judge Eisele wrote that <h3>Mr. Starr had created an appearance of a conflict because the public affairs school at Pepperdine was subsidized by Richard Mellon Scaife, a conservative philanthropist and enemy of Mr. Clinton.</h3>

''Mr. Scaife, said to be a bitter opponent of President and Mrs. Clinton, especially with respect to Whitewater-related issues, has apparently helped to arrange and make possible the very career opportunities that Mr. Starr wants to pursue as soon as as he completes his work as independent counsel,'' Judge Eisele wrote in the opinion, which was circulated to his judicial colleages.

Judge Wilson, whose opinion was issued two weeks ago, said that while he could not participate in the ethics case, the public should have the benefit of Judge Eisele's opinion.

Judge Wilson's opinion noted that three of the judges who sit in Little Rock disagreed with Judge Eisele and concluded that no investigation of Mr. Starr was necessary. Three others, including Judge Wilson, recused themselves because they knew the Clintons and the seventh, Judge James M. Moody, because he married Mr. Foster's widow. .......

<h3>Finally, Ken Starr received his delayed, but not denied reward for pursuing his 6 year, $40 million witch hunt intended to ruin the Clinton presidency:</h3>

Quote:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...erdine+&st=nyt
THE WAY WE LIVE NOW: 4-18-04: QUESTIONS FOR KENNETH STARR; Life After the Report

By DEBORAH SOLOMON
Published: April 18, 2004

Q: I hear you have just accepted a new job as the dean of the law school at Pepperdine University. You don't strike me as a Malibu kind of guy.

I enjoy the ocean, but I don't surf.

Why have you decided to leave Washington after all these years?

You may be aware that seven years ago I made the decision to go to Pepperdine, and I was not able to complete my duties. So this is a kind of renewal of the opportunity.

Would you still like to become a justice of the Supreme Court?

I am told I was one of a handful of persons who were under consideration by President George Bush the 41st, but I no longer harbor the slightest sense that it is within the realm of possibility.

Why is that?

Because of the recent unpleasantness, as we refer to it.

You mean your investigation into Clinton's relationship with Monica Lewinsky? Do you feel your work as an independent counsel helped the country in any way or just added to cynicism about government?

I am so ill-equipped to say. What I do know is it was a very unhappy reminder that all persons are subject to the law and the legal process, no matter how lofty their station in life. I regret it for the country, but it needed to be done. ....

Would you like more, Seaver, we can compare the "postage stamp scandal" that brought down democratic house of rep. leader, Dan Rostenkowski, to the Iran Contra investigation, that revealed the disregard for the law, the deceit, and the cluelessness of President Reagan, and the contempt for the law exhibited by VP GHW Bush.

...Or shall it be the "felons voters purge list Ops", of GW Bush's brother, Fla. Gov. Jeb Bush in 2000, and in 2004? The 2000 voter caging "Op" cost democrat Al Gore the presidency.

What, in your opinion, Seaver, should an informed moderate think of the republican party and it's leadership, since the era of Nixon in 1969? Are republicans the party of sound fiscal policy, small government, open government, high ethical standards, respect for the rule of law?

Seaver · 03-28-2008, 09:30 PM

Nice attempt at giving Clinton responsibility for closing the budget when it was actually the Republican Congress. Remember the whole government shutdown during that period? Yeah, that was Clinton trying to keep spending as high as possible.

But sure, keep rewriting history the way you see fit.

Willravel · 03-28-2008, 09:33 PM

Seaver, what has the Republican Congress and President done in the past 7 years? Also, why is it that under the Dem white house the national debt decreases and under a Republican president it always rises, going back before I was born?

Now, bearing that in mind, are you sure that the Republican Congress gets credit?

smoore · 03-28-2008, 09:52 PM

1) Try not to start any wars. AFAICT, all US wars have been started when a single of the two parties controlled the Executive and Legislative branch.

2) Create transparency in government. Kill the pork. The People are empowered enough now to educate ourselves, we just don't have the tools. Blogs on all sides of the issues shed light on what interests them. Give them the tools to filter the raw legislation to it's finest degree and the general public will be informed. We will of course have to dissect our news more instead of relying on talking heads to spoon feed us. The ones who care will dissect, the masses will find new talking heads to follow.

3) Repair Infrastructure. Holy crap is it bad. Bridges falling, rolling blackouts, poor tornado warning systems, etc, etc, etc. National security isn't just a big military.

4) Independent energy, from whatever source necessary short of bombing brown people. Solar, wind, nuke, hydro, methane... hell, poor people pedaling bicycles hooked to generators, just something. We need to get off of the Mid East teat. Corn ethanol is a joke.

Everything after that is Mai-Tais and shuffleboard.

flstf · 03-29-2008, 12:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Digbudro

Her father listened and then asked, 'How is your friend Audrey doing?'
She replied, 'Audrey is barely getting by. All she takes are easy classes,
she never studies, and she barely has a 2.0 GPA. She is so popular on
campus; college for her is a blast. She's always invited to all the parties and
lots of times she doesn't even show up for classes because she's too hung
over.'

Her wise father asked his daughter,

'Why don't you go to the Dean's office and ask him to deduct 1.0 off
your GPA and give it to your friend who only has a 2.0. That way you will
both have a 3.0 GPA and certainly that would be a fair and equal
distribution of GPA.'

The daughter, visibly shocked by her father's suggestion, angrily fired
back, 'That's a crazy idea, how would that be fair! I've worked really
hard for my grades! I've invested a lot of time, and a lot of hard work!
Audrey has done next to nothing toward her degree. She played while I worked my
tail off!'

The father slowly smiled, winked and said gently, 'Welcome to the
Republican party.'

If anyone has a better explanation of the difference between Republican
and Democrat I'm all ears.

The daughter answers, "well Audrey's family is wealthy and politically connected and she will be making 1000 times what I'll make after we graduate even with her lower grades." "It doesn't seem to make any difference which major party I vote for".

dc_dux · 03-29-2008, 03:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seaver

Nice attempt at giving Clinton responsibility for closing the budget when it was actually the Republican Congress. Remember the whole government shutdown during that period? Yeah, that was Clinton trying to keep spending as high as possible.

But sure, keep rewriting history the way you see fit.

Clinton tried to keep spending as high as possible?

WTF are you talking about?

Clinton submitted budgets each fiscal year (1994, 1995) with smaller annual deficits BEFORE the Republicans took control of the House, and, in 1995, did the same with the FY 96 budget that led to the dispute with the Republican Congress and partial government shut-down.

The issue was Republican insistence on even more draconian cuts in key domestic programs. Most observers blamed it on Gingrich, who tried to play chicken with the budget (or was pissed and had his ego bruised that Clinton left him off Air Force One on a state trip to the funeral of the Rabin in Israel)

BTW, the only reason Bush showed smaller annual deficits in '05 and '06 was because he took the Iraq war spending off budget.

There are plenty of irrational reasons the wingnuts can come up with to blame Clinton for everything....but fiscal irresponsibility is not one of them.

But sure, keep rewriting history the way you see fit.

ottopilot · 03-29-2008, 08:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Digbudro

Father/Daughter Talk

A young woman was about to finish her first year of college. Like so
many others her age, she considered herself to be a very liberal Democrat,
and among other liberal ideals, was very much in favor of higher taxes to
support more government programs, in other words redistribution of
wealth.

She was deeply ashamed that her father was a rather staunch Republican,
a feeling she openly expressed. Based on the lectures that she had
participated in, and the occasional chat with a professor, she felt
that her father had for years harbored an evil, selfish desire to keep what he
thought should be his.

One day she was challenging her father on his opposition to higher
taxes on the rich and the need for more government programs. The self-professed
objectivity proclaimed by her professors had to be the truth and she
indicated so to her father. He responded by asking how she was doing in
school.

Taken aback, she answered rather haughtily that she had a 4.0 GPA, and
let him know that it was tough to maintain, insisting that she was taking a
very difficult course load and was constantly studying, which left her no
time to go out and party like other people she knew. She didn't even have time
for a boyfriend, and didn't really have many college friends because she
spent all her time studying.

Her father listened and then asked, 'How is your friend Audrey doing?'
She replied, 'Audrey is barely getting by. All she takes are easy classes,
she never studies, and she barely has a 2.0 GPA. She is so popular on
campus; college for her is a blast. She's always invited to all the parties and
lots of times she doesn't even show up for classes because she's too hung
over.'

Her wise father asked his daughter,

'Why don't you go to the Dean's office and ask him to deduct 1.0 off
your GPA and give it to your friend who only has a 2.0. That way you will
both have a 3.0 GPA and certainly that would be a fair and equal
distribution of GPA.'

The daughter, visibly shocked by her father's suggestion, angrily fired
back, 'That's a crazy idea, how would that be fair! I've worked really
hard for my grades! I've invested a lot of time, and a lot of hard work!
Audrey has done next to nothing toward her degree. She played while I worked my
tail off!'

The father slowly smiled, winked and said gently, 'Welcome to the
Republican party.'

If anyone has a better explanation of the difference between Republican
and Democrat I'm all ears.

I like the story. But see it more as being fiscally liberal or conservative, not Republican or Democrat. I know some very fiscally conservative Democrats.

Ustwo · 03-29-2008, 09:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ottopilot

I like the story. But see it more as being fiscally liberal or conservative, not Republican or Democrat. I know some very fiscally conservative Democrats.

Yea that just about sums it up, but while I know a good number of free spending republicans, I can't say I know many fiscally conservative democrats, at least not at the national level.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

Clinton tried to keep spending as high as possible?

WTF are you talking about?

Just proof that gridlock is good.

You can't spend what you can't get passed.

dc_dux · 03-29-2008, 10:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Just proof that gridlock is good.

You can't spend what you can't get passed.

Nice try....but you completely ignored Clinton's first two budgets (94 and 95) when the Dems controlled both houses of Congress and put in place a deficit reduction plan (an extension of Graham/Rudman Balanced Budget Act that GHW Bush ignored) that forced Clinton to make tough choices to control the runaway debt of the Reagan/GHW Bush years. BTW, one of the first things that GW Bush and the Repub majority did in 2001 was to kill the deficit reduction plan that was in place.

Here is a story on Clinton's 05 budget request, submitted in Feb 04, a year before the first Republican controlled Congress came into office:

Quote:

Clinton Announces Tough Federal Budget for 1995

President Clinton Monday unveiled an austere federal budget for 1995 that calls for elimination of 115 long-established programs, significant reductions in defense and most domestic outlays and only slight increases for the administration's top priorities.

The administration's $1.52 trillion budget is designed to advance the president's agenda within the modest bounds permitted by tough new spending caps, while still meeting the deficit reduction targets included in the economic plan passed by Congress last August....

...The White House estimates that its budget will leave the government with a deficit of $176 billion next year, down from $235 billion this year.

http://www-tech.mit.edu/V114/N4/budget.04w.html

As much as you (and seaver, et al) like to perpetuate the myth of big spending Democrats...the facts are clear that the Repubs have been the big spenders. Why is that so hard to accept when the numbers are right in front of you?

Did you notice the $1.52 trillion budget in the story above.

Do you know what Bush's latest budget request was? $3.1 trillion!

It took nearly 200 years before a president proposed a $1.5 trillion budget....it took only an additional 12 years before Bush proposed a budget of twice that size.

Ustwo · 03-29-2008, 11:00 AM

Without going hostal if I recall the only real cuts in spending during clintons years were in defense spending. Real cut being spending less money, not reduction in growth which democrats always call cuts.

dc_dux · 03-29-2008, 11:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Without going hostal if I recall the only real cuts in spending during clintons years were in defense spending. Real cut being spending less money, not reduction in growth which democrats always call cuts.

You obviously havent read the article above or any budget documents from those years.

Its true that a large portion of the cuts were in defense spending. At the time, most non-partisan military experts agreed that it was unnecessary to maintain a bloated Cold War defense budget after the fall of the Soviet Union and the Soviet bloc. (You can start another thread to discuss the merits of defense cuts in the 90s if you want.)

There were also significant cuts (real cuts, not just reductions in growth) in funding for dozens of domestic programs and complete elimination of dozens of other domestic programs.

BTW, both parties describe reductions in growth as cuts.

But only one party recently has used "emergency supplemental" requests to such an extent as to keep nearly $1/2 trillion off budget over a five year period.

Man...you have really bought into the Repub propaganda. I wouldnt have thought it of such an intelligent guy.

host · 03-29-2008, 11:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Without going hostal <h3>if I recall the only real cuts in spending during clintons years were in defense spending. Real cut being spending less money, not reduction in growth which democrats always call cuts.</h3>

going "hostal"....good one! Now, if you would just read my posts....I've posted about Gore's initiatives that produced real reductions in the size of the non-military federal work force, a number of times, on this forum.

When Jeb Bush's coup forced Gore out of government, the federal work force had been reduced to it's smallest size since 1960. Real noin-defense cuts, real management, no increase in spending on independent contractors.

In searching for the info to help Ustwo become an informed voter, I came across this, a year 2000 endorsement of Gore from Marc Perkel:

Quote:

http://www.perkel.com/politics/gore/gore.htm

The choice is, do we go back to the Reagan/Bush deficits? Or do we stay with the Clinton/Gore surpluses? It really is that simple.

It really was "that simple". The republicans took power in early 2001, and have done a remarkable job, given the short period of time that has gone by...in destroying the fiscal stability of government, and the ability of government to function...broken military, shattered foreign relations.... joke administrations of DOJ, FEMA, SEC, FCC, EPA, and the Fed!

Ustwo, please become an informed voter....so you don't help to vote in disaster, ever again?

Quote:

http://www.brookings.edu/testimony/2...nce_kettl.aspx
Has Government Been 'Reinvented'?
Governance, Bureaucracy, Executive Branch, Civil Service

Donald F. Kettl, Nonresident Senior Fellow, Governance Studies

House Committee on Rules; Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs

4-May-00 —

....The downsizing accounts for about half ($54.8 billion) of the $111.8 billion in savings the Clinton administration claims from "reinventing government." The downsizing reductions are clear and the estimates are reliable. Of the other half, most come from savings in procurement ($12.3 billion) and improvements in agency management. These savings are difficult to prove, since it is impossible to say with certainty what the government would have spent for these functions in the absence of reform. It might be possible to contest some of these estimates. However, in my judgment these estimates are certainly reasonable.

One question often raised is whether the "downsized" workers have been replaced by private contractors. Good numbers on government procurement are notoriously difficult to produce. However, the General Services Administration Government Procurement Data System reveals that, from fiscal year 1992 through fiscal year 1999, the federal government's total procurement budget actually dropped slightly, by about $1 billion. The number of contract actions—contracts negotiated—decreased by 48 percent. The number of defense contracts shrank more quickly than the number of contracts elsewhere in the government (a 52 percent decrease in the number of defense contracts, versus a 42 percent decrease elsewhere). Total defense spending via contracts shrank slightly (by 1 percent), while contract spending elsewhere in the government grew slightly (by 1 percent). Thus, it is difficult to make the case that the downsized workers produced an increase in contracting.

<h3>In short, "reinventing government" has significantly downsized the bureaucracy and produced substantial cost savings.</h3> However, the effort has not attacked the critical workforce issues facing the federal government......

Studies like the one above were funded by the Smith Richardson foundation, of the ("Vick's vaporub" fortune), hardly a "liberal" source:

Quote:

http://www.mediatransparency.org/rec...ecipientID=570

1-1-1999 102,100 Building an Agenda for Public Service Reform
Paul Light will produce a series of reports and monographs that will examine a set of challenges affecting the civil service. He will assess the state of the federal government’s work force, analyze efforts by the private and nonprofit sectors to recruit and retain personnel, and develop of a set of policy recommendations to guide civil service reform.

http://www.mediatransparency.org/fun...php?funderID=6

dc_dux · 03-29-2008, 11:40 AM

The Clinton/Gore "National Partnership for Reinventing Government" referenced in the Brookings article was the most successful, but unfortunately not widely known, government reform effort in modern times. My favorite component was the E-Government initiative, which not only saved money, but made government much more accessible to many more citizens.

Republicans campaign on small government, a Democrat implemented it.

Thats why its on my to-do list in my first post.

host · 03-29-2008, 11:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

The Clinton/Gore "National Partnership for Reinventing Government" referenced in the Brookings article was the most successful, but unfortunately not widely known, government reform effort in modern times. My favorite component was the E-Government initiative, which not only saved money, but made government much more accessible to many more citizens.

Republicans campaign on small government, a Democrat implemented it.

Thats why its on my to-do list in my first post.

Considering all of the vitriol aimed at democrats by republicans and their talk radio propagandists....do any here who object to my characterization of republicans as a "cancer" and a "pox", make an argument denying that, if democrats, when in control of the executive branch and one house of congress, had performed anywhere near as destructively as republicans indeed have, that they would be describing democrats as a "cancer" and a "pox"?

I posted the following, nearly 1-1/2 years ago, in this thread:
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...56#post2151656

(I guess Ustwo must have missed it.....)

....and, while you wait for your libertarian third party to grow large enough to eclipse one of the other two parties, why do you concede to the folowing mismanagement? Haven't the debt accumulation and the federal government growth of the past six, years, set your libertarian agenda signifigantly farther back, than if you had managed to gain control of the government in 2001, or in 2005? Aren't many of the fiscal options for reversing the tide. gone, now that the deficit grows by more than $550 billion annually, compared to just $18 billion in 2000, and just $32 billion, in 2001, and now that the total treasury debt is $8500 billion, instead of 2001's $5764 billion?

(Note: the republican cancerous "leadership" has run the national debt up an additional $900 billion, <a href="http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/BPDLogin?application=np">to $9400 billion</a>, since I posted this in Nov., 2006. Their "tax cuts for the rich", no bid contracts, and pointless war that makes Iran "the victor", causes $50 billion per month, each and every month, in national debt increases...yet, with all that "fiscal stimulus"...increased federal borrowing is supposed to "stimulate" the economy, since all of it is borrowed and spent....yet the economy is beginning a descent phase....)

Why do you favor leaving the control of the budget in the hands of a party that has no plan to reduce additional $500 billion deficits, or to end "wars of choice"? Isn't it much harder now, even if you were to gain power, to achieve swift and signifigant reversal of the current course, than if you did not serve as "spoilers" in the 2000 and 2004 elections? Why do you not consider voting "defensively" for democrats, especially if your goal is smaller government and dramatically less spending? Won't the debt service burden...hundreds of billions of addtional budget dollars spent on annual interest payments resulting from nearly $3,000 billion in recent new debt, hamper your plan to swiftly implement "reforms" on some (possibly distant), future date?

Quote:

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m...34/ai_96644869
All the presidents' employees - Data - federal employment growth or shrinkage by president - Brief Article
Reason, Feb, 2003 by Brian Doherty

It's often said there isn't a dime's worth of difference between today's two major political parties. But Democrats and Republicans still try to cast themselves as cats and dogs. For example, Republicans label their adversary the party of big government, while Democrats count the GOP as a tool of the military-industrial complex.

Does the rhetoric reflect reality? When considering statistics about civilian employment by the federal government, the answer is clearly no. During the last 40 years, Democratic administrations added to the federal government's payroll 31,000 civilian defense employees (Defense Department employees who aren't soldiers), and 49,000 nondefense employees--some growth in both categories. <b>But Republican administrations have on balance subtracted 426,000 civilian defense jobs--and added 320,000 nondefense employees. That adds up to bureaucratic bloat more than six times that of the Democrats. The biggest slasher of federal nondefense payrolls was Bill Clinton.</b>

Government Employees Added or (Subtracted)

Civilian Defense Non-Defense

Kennedy (12,000) 73,000
Johnson 312,000 105,000
Nixon/Ford (333,000) 213,000
Carter (25,000) (14,000)
Reagan 91,000 3,000
George H.W. Bush (184,000) 104,000
Clinton (244,000) (115,000)

Source: Budget for Fiscal Year 2003 Historical Table 17.1, "Total
Executive Branch Civilian Employees: 1940-2001"

COPYRIGHT 2003 Reason Foundation

Quote:

<b>1981....A 12 year period of Republican Control Begins...</b>
ftp://ftp.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdm091981.pdf
TABLE II -- STATUTORY DEBT LIMIT, SEPTEMBER 30, 1981
(Amount in millions of dollars)

Public Debt Subject to Limit:
Public Debt Outstanding.............................................. $997,855
Less amounts not subject to limit:
Noninterest-bearing Debt............................................ 607
Unamortized Discount .............................................. (*)
Federal Financing Bank..............................................
Total Public Debt subject to limit................................... 997,248
Other debt subject to limit:
Guaranteed Debt of Government agencies.............................. 435
Total Debt Subject to limit.......................................... 998,818
Statutory Debt Limit ................................................ 999,800
Balance of Statutory Debt Limit...................................... 982

ftp://ftp.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdm091989.pdf
TABLE II -- STATUTORY DEBT LIMIT, SEPTEMBER 30, 1989
(Amount in millions of dollars)

Public Debt Subject to Limit:
Public Debt Outstanding.............................................. $2,857,431
Less amounts not subject to limit:
Noninterest-bearing Debt............................................ 597
Unamortized Discount .............................................. 12,360
Federal Financing Bank.............................................. 15,000
Total Public Debt subject to limit................................... 2,829,474
Other debt subject to limit:
Guaranteed Debt of Government agencies.............................. 296
Total Debt Subject to limit.......................................... 2,829,770
Statutory Debt Limit ................................................ 2,870,000
Balance of Statutory Debt Limit...................................... 40,230

ftp://ftp.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdm091993.pdf
TABLE II -- STATUTORY DEBT LIMIT, SEPTEMBER 30, 1993
(Amount in millions of dollars)

Public Debt Subject to Limit:
Public Debt Outstanding.............................................. $4,411,489
Less amounts not subject to limit:
Noninterest-bearing Debt............................................ 592
Unamortized Discount .............................................. 80,539
Federal Financing Bank.............................................. 15,000
Total Public Debt subject to limit................................... 4,315,358
Other debt subject to limit:
Guaranteed Debt of Government agencies.............................. 213
Total Debt Subject to limit.......................................... 4,315,471
Statutory Debt Limit ................................................ 4,900,000
Balance of Statutory Debt Limit...................................... 584,429

<b>1993, A 12 Year period of Republican Control Ends, an 8 Year Period of Democratic control, Begins:</b>

http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdmss09.htm
TABLE II -- STATUTORY DEBT LIMIT, SEPTEMBER 30, 1997
(Amount in millions of dollars)

Public Debt Subject to Limit:
Public Debt Outstanding.............................................. $5,413,146
Less amounts not subject to limit:
Noninterest-bearing Debt............................................ 536
Unamortized Discount .............................................. 70,054
Federal Financing Bank.............................................. 15,000
Total Public Debt subject to limit................................... 5,327,556
Other debt subject to limit:
Guaranteed Debt of Government agencies.............................. 68
Total Debt Subject to limit.......................................... 5,327,624
Statutory Debt Limit ................................................ 5,950,000
Balance of Statutory Debt Limit...................................... 622,376

http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opds091999.htm
TABLE II -- STATUTORY DEBT LIMIT, <b>SEPTEMBER 30, 1999</b>
(Amount in millions of dollars)
Public Debt Subject to Limit:
Public Debt Outstanding......................................... <b>$5,656,271</b>
Less amounts not subject to limit:
Noninterest-bearing Debt.................................... 529
Unamortized Discount ......................................... 73,154
Federal Financing Bank......................................... 15,000
Total Public Debt subject to limit................................... 5,567,588
Other debt subject to limit:
Guaranteed Debt of Government agencies............ 106
Total Debt Subject to limit...................................... 5,567,694
Statutory Debt Limit ................................................... 5,950,000
Balance of Statutory Debt Limit ................................ 382,306

<b>2000: Budget Data indicates that, after 7 budget years, Democratic budget oversight and tax policy yields a cessation of treasury debt accumulation, the first time that this has occurred in 25 years:</b>
http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opds092000.htm
TABLE II -- STATUTORY DEBT LIMIT, <b>SEPTEMBER 30, 2000</b>
(Amount in millions of dollars)
Public Debt Subject to Limit:
Public Debt Outstanding............................... <b>$5,674,178</b>
Less amounts not subject to limit:
Noninterest-bearing Debt.................................... 526
Unamortized Discount ......................................... 67,246
Federal Financing Bank......................................... 15,000
Total Public Debt subject to limit.......................... 5,591,407
Other debt subject to limit:
Guaranteed Debt of Government agencies............ 218
Total Debt Subject to limit...................................... 5,591,625
Statutory Debt Limit ................................................... 5,950,000
Balance of Statutory Debt Limit ................................ 358,375
<b>2002 Budget, ending on Sept. 30, 2002, marks end of first year of new period of Republican control of federal government......<>
ftp://ftp.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdm092006.prn
TABLE II -- STATUTORY DEBT LIMIT, SEPTEMBER 30, 2006

Debt Subject to Limit: 19
Public Debt Outstanding............................................ 8,506,974
Less Amounts Not Subject to Limit:
Other Debt Not Subject to Limit...................................... 506
Unamortized Discount 3............................................ 72,286
Federal Financing Bank 1 ..................................... 14,000
Total Public Debt Subject to Limit................................. 8,420,183
Other Debt Subject to Limit:
Guaranteed Debt of Government Agencies 4 ......................... 96
Total Public Debt Subject to Limit.................................. 8,420,278
Statutory Debt Limit 5............................................. 8,965,000
Balance of Statutory Debt Limit.........................................544,722
COMPILED AND PUBLISHED BY
THE BUREAU OF THE PUBLIC DEBT
www.publicdebt.treas.gov

<b>2006: Budget Data indicates that, after 5 budget years, Republican budget oversight and tax policy yields a resumption of treasury debt accumulation, at a record annual pace, to a record level.... as total US treasury Debt increases by more than $2,800 billion, an increase greater than 50 percent, compared to the Sept. 30, 2001 debt total of $5706 billion.</b>

Update: 3-27-08:
....and now, the national debt total is more than $9.4 trillion:
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/BPD...application=np

03-28-2008, 06:48 AM	#1 (permalink)
girldetective sufferable	Democract issues Its been awhile since weve had a democrat executive branch along with a demo congress. If our next commander-in-chief is a demo what domestic issues do you think are imperative for him/her to tackle in a quick and timely manner before our population elects another republican congress to "keep the balance", but be ineffective? __________________ As far as possible, without surrender, be on good terms with all persons...be cheerful; strive for happiness - Desiderata

03-28-2008, 07:33 AM	#2 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	The top issue will be the economy and jobs....possibly a major public works program to fix the nation's crumbling infrastructure. And, if gas prices continue to rise, perhaps a windfall profit tax on the record high profits of big oil companies. Some type of subprime and credit reform. Followed by health care reform, including the expansion of SCHIP by raising the eligibility level to include more children and perhaps the first phase of a larger initiative by enabling or establishing a national heath insurance pool for small businesses that currently do not provide insurance to employees. Tax reform, with the first step being the immediate phase out of the Bush tax cuts (which were supposed to be temporary) and a refocus on middle class tax cuts and closing corporate tax loopholes. Homeland security with a focus on further implementation of 9/11 Commission recommendations that have been ignored - ports, nuclear and chemical plants, and other high risk facilities - as well as restoration of a balance between national security and privacy rights. Expanded program to enhance local public safety capacities. Go Green! I think this may be a surprise initiative.....reframing energy, environment and climate change issues into a national program to promote sustainability. Restoring open government.....maybe a big open house and bonfire on the White House lawn to burn all the Bush executive orders that have created the most secretive government in US history. How to pay for all this and maintain fiscal discipline?.......start with the current $2+ billion/week needed to pay for an unsustainable and unwanted large scale presence in Iraq. Add $billions more by returning the tax rate for top 2% to 1998 level. And by an expanded program of reinventing government, a Clinton/Gore program of the 90s that resulted in $billions in savings for the federal government through regulatory reform, consolidation, etc. Other issues....trade reform, education reform (fixing the bad No Child Left Behind) What the Dems wont touch initially, for better or worse......entitlements (social security, medicare) and immigration reform __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire Last edited by dc_dux; 03-28-2008 at 08:14 AM..

03-28-2008, 07:45 AM	#4 (permalink)
Baraka_Guru warrior bodhisattva Super Moderator Location: East-central Canada	Dems should look to Canada for inspiration on just about every point dc_dux made. __________________ Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing? —Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön Humankind cannot bear very much reality. —From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

03-28-2008, 11:19 AM	#7 (permalink)
girldetective sufferable	Thats right, its been 14 years. I think it is imperative that our new pres gets to work right out of the starting gate with all the gusto s/he can musto. It wont be long before another general election and the moment will have passed. I hope Pelosi has her cards lined up ready for action. __________________ As far as possible, without surrender, be on good terms with all persons...be cheerful; strive for happiness - Desiderata

03-28-2008, 11:40 AM	#8 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	i'm not sure how informative a precedent the 93-94 session is for what might come simply because that was under clinton during the height of his triangulation period, under the tutelage of dick morris--co-opt republican issues by moving steadily to the center-right (hysterical claims from conservative talk radio notwithstanding)....this would be particularly Other were obama to be elected (one would hope) __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

03-28-2008, 07:36 AM	#3 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	The same thing all Democratic white houses do: cleaning up the mess the moronic GOP president made.

03-28-2008, 10:24 AM	#6 (permalink)
loquitur Junkie Location: NYC	We had a Dem Pres and Congress in 1993-94. That's your most recent precedent. Before that it's 1977-80. Neither period was particularly distinguished. Which isn't to say the Republicans covered themselves in glory when they were in charge, either.

03-28-2008, 12:01 PM	#10 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	ah. shows you what happens when i go straight from memory then. i disliked the morris period intensely--which overshadowed the possibility that from some viewpoint it could have been an improvement. who qualifies the first year or so as "amateur hour" anyway? anyway, there we are. i basically agree with dc about the main tasks that await, within the realm of what seems possible/plausible given what i take obama to be about politically. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

03-28-2008, 12:23 PM	#11 (permalink)
Digbudro Upright Location: South Louisiana	Father/Daughter Talk A young woman was about to finish her first year of college. Like so many others her age, she considered herself to be a very liberal Democrat, and among other liberal ideals, was very much in favor of higher taxes to support more government programs, in other words redistribution of wealth. She was deeply ashamed that her father was a rather staunch Republican, a feeling she openly expressed. Based on the lectures that she had participated in, and the occasional chat with a professor, she felt that her father had for years harbored an evil, selfish desire to keep what he thought should be his. One day she was challenging her father on his opposition to higher taxes on the rich and the need for more government programs. The self-professed objectivity proclaimed by her professors had to be the truth and she indicated so to her father. He responded by asking how she was doing in school. Taken aback, she answered rather haughtily that she had a 4.0 GPA, and let him know that it was tough to maintain, insisting that she was taking a very difficult course load and was constantly studying, which left her no time to go out and party like other people she knew. She didn't even have time for a boyfriend, and didn't really have many college friends because she spent all her time studying. Her father listened and then asked, 'How is your friend Audrey doing?' She replied, 'Audrey is barely getting by. All she takes are easy classes, she never studies, and she barely has a 2.0 GPA. She is so popular on campus; college for her is a blast. She's always invited to all the parties and lots of times she doesn't even show up for classes because she's too hung over.' Her wise father asked his daughter, 'Why don't you go to the Dean's office and ask him to deduct 1.0 off your GPA and give it to your friend who only has a 2.0. That way you will both have a 3.0 GPA and certainly that would be a fair and equal distribution of GPA.' The daughter, visibly shocked by her father's suggestion, angrily fired back, 'That's a crazy idea, how would that be fair! I've worked really hard for my grades! I've invested a lot of time, and a lot of hard work! Audrey has done next to nothing toward her degree. She played while I worked my tail off!' The father slowly smiled, winked and said gently, 'Welcome to the Republican party.' If anyone has a better explanation of the difference between Republican and Democrat I'm all ears.

03-28-2008, 12:28 PM	#12 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	why, that fine story puts us in the position of explaining the difference between these types of characters: their similarities as cartoons outweigh anything else. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

03-28-2008, 01:31 PM	#14 (permalink)
loquitur Junkie Location: NYC	no, Host, go back and read some articles in the mainstream press from back then. A lot of people, Democrats included, thought there was no way Clinton could be re-elected. In fact, read the Dick Morris Wikipedia entry I linked to above. Why does everything have to be a partisan issue, host? Chill a bit, my man.....

03-28-2008, 09:30 PM	#18 (permalink)
Seaver Junkie Location: Fort Worth, TX	Nice attempt at giving Clinton responsibility for closing the budget when it was actually the Republican Congress. Remember the whole government shutdown during that period? Yeah, that was Clinton trying to keep spending as high as possible. But sure, keep rewriting history the way you see fit. __________________ "Smite the rocks with the rod of knowledge, and fountains of unstinted wealth will gush forth." - Ashbel Smith as he laid the first cornerstone of the University of Texas

03-28-2008, 09:33 PM	#19 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	Seaver, what has the Republican Congress and President done in the past 7 years? Also, why is it that under the Dem white house the national debt decreases and under a Republican president it always rises, going back before I was born? Now, bearing that in mind, are you sure that the Republican Congress gets credit?

03-28-2008, 09:52 PM	#20 (permalink)
smoore Crazy Location: West of Denver	Altruistic concepts, all: 1) Try not to start any wars. AFAICT, all US wars have been started when a single of the two parties controlled the Executive and Legislative branch. 2) Create transparency in government. Kill the pork. The People are empowered enough now to educate ourselves, we just don't have the tools. Blogs on all sides of the issues shed light on what interests them. Give them the tools to filter the raw legislation to it's finest degree and the general public will be informed. We will of course have to dissect our news more instead of relying on talking heads to spoon feed us. The ones who care will dissect, the masses will find new talking heads to follow. 3) Repair Infrastructure. Holy crap is it bad. Bridges falling, rolling blackouts, poor tornado warning systems, etc, etc, etc. National security isn't just a big military. 4) Independent energy, from whatever source necessary short of bombing brown people. Solar, wind, nuke, hydro, methane... hell, poor people pedaling bicycles hooked to generators, just something. We need to get off of the Mid East teat. Corn ethanol is a joke. Everything after that is Mai-Tais and shuffleboard. __________________ smoore

03-29-2008, 11:00 AM	#26 (permalink)
Ustwo Pissing in the cornflakes	Without going hostal if I recall the only real cuts in spending during clintons years were in defense spending. Real cut being spending less money, not reduction in growth which democrats always call cuts. __________________ Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

03-29-2008, 11:40 AM	#29 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	The Clinton/Gore "National Partnership for Reinventing Government" referenced in the Brookings article was the most successful, but unfortunately not widely known, government reform effort in modern times. My favorite component was the E-Government initiative, which not only saved money, but made government much more accessible to many more citizens. Republicans campaign on small government, a Democrat implemented it. Thats why its on my to-do list in my first post. __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire Last edited by dc_dux; 03-29-2008 at 11:43 AM..