Jump to content


Getting an "Insecure Connection" warning for Exisle? No worry

Details in this thread

American party jumble

Politics Political Parties poll 2004

  • Please log in to reply
17 replies to this topic

Poll: The party you'd most like to be able to vote for would be... (18 member(s) have cast votes)

The party you'd most like to be able to vote for would be...

  1. 1. the Republican/conservative agenda, just like it is, on economics, government, and social/religious stuff (2 votes [11.11%])

    Percentage of vote: 11.11%

  2. 2. the Democrat/liberal agenda, just like it is, on economics, government, and social/religious stuff (5 votes [27.78%])

    Percentage of vote: 27.78%

  3. 3. the D/l agenda on cultural matters combined with the R/c agenda on the conomy and government (10 votes [55.56%])

    Percentage of vote: 55.56%

  4. 4. the R/c agenda on cultural matters combined with the D/l agenda on the conomy and government (1 votes [5.56%])

    Percentage of vote: 5.56%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#1 Delvo

Delvo
  • Islander
  • 9,273 posts

Posted 22 June 2004 - 11:31 PM

I was reminded in another thread of how unnatural I find the curent mix of things in American politics, that our political and social concepts of conservatism don't really belong together. (I also have a suspicion that it leaves most Americans without a party for them, since I have a prediction about which of these options will get the most votes, and it's one of the mixed-halves options, meaning the two parties we've got are mostly associated with one thing people like and one thing they don't.)

#2 Nick

Nick

    ...

  • Islander
  • 7,130 posts

Posted 22 June 2004 - 11:36 PM

Take a wild guess how I'm gunna vote on this one. :p

-Nick

#3 UoR11

UoR11
  • Islander
  • 1,839 posts

Posted 23 June 2004 - 12:44 AM

Well, I voted for 3, as it's the closest to me, though honestly, I just want a party that can read the Constitutuion. At this point I think I'll have to travel back in time and grab Jefferson shortly before his death, bring him to now and get him healed.
UoR11, disgruntled voter
Yes, I am an economist. Yes, I do frequently sing "Can't Buy Me Love". No, I don't see any contradiction there.

#4 Palisades

Palisades

    Northern Lights

  • Islander
  • 7,753 posts

Posted 23 June 2004 - 06:00 AM

Currently my biggest priorities would be
1) Curb increases in Medicare and Medicaid
2) Curb increases in social security by raising retirement age and reducing the increase in benefits per recipient each year.
3) Doing something about the culture of hopelessness in inner cities (funding mentor programs and youth centers plus encouraging neighborhood watch patrols). Similarly, boot camps have apparently greatly increased the self-esteem, discipline, and scholastic performance in the worst-off schools.
4) Cap increases in spending to less than projected revenue growth, except for emergencies.
5) Improve relations with other countries
6) Simplify tax law
7) Stop the erosion of separation of church and state

Edit: BTW, I didn't vote in the poll because I don't think I fit cleanly into any of the categories, considering the Republican Party's current irresponsible lack of fiscal discipline.

Edit: Grammar correction

Edited by QuantumFlux, 23 June 2004 - 07:13 AM.

"When the Fed is the bartender everybody drinks until they fall down." —Paul McCulley

"In truth, 'too big to fail' is not the worst thing we should fear – our financial institutions are now on their way to becoming 'too big to save'." —Simon Johnson

FKA:
TWP / An Affirming Flame / Solar Wind / Palisade

#5 Rov Judicata

Rov Judicata

    Crassly Irresponsible and Indifferent

  • Islander
  • 15,720 posts

Posted 23 June 2004 - 09:37 AM

The republican agenda on the economy-- or what they SAID it was when they were in an isurgent party-- coupled with the Democrats laxness on social issues would suit my just fine. I'm wondering if the Democrats will slowly transition to that paradigm as a reaction to Bush's big spending... here's hoping :)
St. Louis must be destroyed!

Me: "I have a job and five credit cards and am looking into signing a two year lease.  THAT MAKES ME OLD."
Josh: "I don't have a job, I have ONE credit card, I'm stuck in a lease and I'm 28! My mom's basement IS ONE BAD DECISION AWAY!"
~~ Josh, winning the argument.

"Congress . . . shall include every idiot, lunatic, insane person, and person non compos mentis[.]" ~1 U.S.C. § 1, selectively quoted for accuracy.

#6 Chipper

Chipper

    Give it up

  • Islander
  • 5,202 posts

Posted 23 June 2004 - 09:57 AM

I'm leaning more towards 3, but I would prefer changes rom the current economic platform of the repubilcans, but not necessarily the democratic one.
"Courtesy is how we got civilized. The blind assertion of rights is what threatens to decivilize us. Everybody's got lots of rights that are set out legally. Responsibilities are not enumerated, for good reason, but they are set into the social fabric. Is it such a sacrifice to not be an a**hole?"

- Jenny Smith on Usenet, via Jid, via Kathy

#7 Cardie

Cardie

    I'm a very *good* tailor

  • Administrator
  • 22,634 posts

Posted 23 June 2004 - 10:20 AM

I'm not sure that either party totally sums up my feelings on the economy and government.  I'm a liberal in believing that sometimes it's only government that has the will and the resources to provide crucial social services, and I believe that there need to be sufficient taxes collected in order to provide them.  However, Democrats tend to design inefficient ways to do the providing and then throw piles more money into these failing systems than they should.  Republicans, on the other hand, don't want to commit to solving the problems in the first place and concentrate on keeping the flow of capital in the hands of corporations and people whose income derives from investment, while asking wage-earners to shoulder proportionately more of the tax burden.

Some bipartisan coalition needs to throw out the tax code and bring in one that works to fund what we need, without being a patchwork of various ideological tinkerings.  I'd call that, and my position, tax fairly, spend helpfully, and keep the books balanced.  If tax and spend liberalism isn't the answer, the current don't tax but spend us into the poorhouse behavior of the Bush administration is even worse.

Cardie
Nothing succeeds like excess.

#8 MuseZack

MuseZack

    132nd S.O.C.

  • Demigod
  • 5,432 posts

Posted 23 June 2004 - 10:23 AM

Javert Rovinski, on Jun 23 2004, 02:35 PM, said:

The republican agenda on the economy-- or what they SAID it was when they were in an isurgent party-- coupled with the Democrats laxness on social issues would suit my just fine. I'm wondering if the Democrats will slowly transition to that paradigm as a reaction to Bush's big spending... here's hoping :)
So basically, you pine for the Clinton Administration without the extramarital sex?
"Some day, after we have mastered the wind, the waves, the tides, and gravity,
We shall harness for God the energies of Love.
Then, for the second time in the history of the world,
we will have discovered fire."
--Father Pierre Teilhard de Chardin

#9 Drew

Drew

    Josef K.

  • Islander
  • 12,191 posts

Posted 23 June 2004 - 10:31 AM

MuseZack, on Jun 23 2004, 10:21 AM, said:

Javert Rovinski, on Jun 23 2004, 02:35 PM, said:

The republican agenda on the economy-- or what they SAID it was when they were in an isurgent party-- coupled with the Democrats laxness on social issues would suit my just fine. I'm wondering if the Democrats will slowly transition to that paradigm as a reaction to Bush's big spending... here's hoping :)
So basically, you pine for the Clinton Administration without the extramarital sex?
I recently read an article suggesting that if you look at Clinton's big successes--NAFTA, a balanced budget and welfare reform--he was really just continuing with Reagan's policies.  :cool:
"Someone must have slandered Josef K., for one morning, without having done anything wrong, he was arrested."

#10 MuseZack

MuseZack

    132nd S.O.C.

  • Demigod
  • 5,432 posts

Posted 23 June 2004 - 10:40 AM

I was with you until you mentioned "Reagan" and "balanced budget" in the same breath, whereupon I broke down in gales of laughter...



Seriously, except for the 1993 tax bill, Clinton's economic policies were pretty much moderate Republican, from back in the days when Republicans stood for things like fiscal responsibility and encouraging the private sector instead of supply side cultism (how many times does it have to be discredited by reality before they discard it?) and rampant cronyism.
"Some day, after we have mastered the wind, the waves, the tides, and gravity,
We shall harness for God the energies of Love.
Then, for the second time in the history of the world,
we will have discovered fire."
--Father Pierre Teilhard de Chardin

#11 Kosh

Kosh

    Criag Ferguson For President!

  • Islander
  • 11,149 posts

Posted 23 June 2004 - 03:18 PM

Drew, on Jun 23 2004, 10:29 AM, said:

MuseZack, on Jun 23 2004, 10:21 AM, said:

Javert Rovinski, on Jun 23 2004, 02:35 PM, said:

The republican agenda on the economy-- or what they SAID it was when they were in an isurgent party-- coupled with the Democrats laxness on social issues would suit my just fine. I'm wondering if the Democrats will slowly transition to that paradigm as a reaction to Bush's big spending... here's hoping :)
So basically, you pine for the Clinton Administration without the extramarital sex?
I recently read an article suggesting that if you look at Clinton's big successes--NAFTA, a balanced budget and welfare reform--he was really just continuing with Reagan's policies.  :cool:
IIRC Uncle Ron ran the higest deficet in history, until now.
Can't Touch This!!

#12 HubcapDave

HubcapDave

    Bald is Beautiful!

  • Islander
  • 1,333 posts

Posted 23 June 2004 - 04:51 PM

Kosh & Zack,

The only way you can buy that Reagan alone ran up the debt is to be completely ignorant of the federal budget process. Tip O'Neill and his Fellow Democrats must receive their fair share of the blame.

#13 Rov Judicata

Rov Judicata

    Crassly Irresponsible and Indifferent

  • Islander
  • 15,720 posts

Posted 23 June 2004 - 11:36 PM

MuseZack, on Jun 23 2004, 08:21 AM, said:

So basically, you pine for the Clinton Administration without the extramarital sex?
Works for me, so long as we get the Republican congress that goes along with it.
St. Louis must be destroyed!

Me: "I have a job and five credit cards and am looking into signing a two year lease.  THAT MAKES ME OLD."
Josh: "I don't have a job, I have ONE credit card, I'm stuck in a lease and I'm 28! My mom's basement IS ONE BAD DECISION AWAY!"
~~ Josh, winning the argument.

"Congress . . . shall include every idiot, lunatic, insane person, and person non compos mentis[.]" ~1 U.S.C. § 1, selectively quoted for accuracy.

#14 MuseZack

MuseZack

    132nd S.O.C.

  • Demigod
  • 5,432 posts

Posted 23 June 2004 - 11:43 PM

HubcapDave, on Jun 23 2004, 09:49 PM, said:

Kosh & Zack,

The only way you can buy that Reagan alone ran up the debt is to be completely ignorant of the federal budget process. Tip O'Neill and his Fellow Democrats must receive their fair share of the blame.
And how many balanced budgets did Reagan submit to Congress?









Here's noted left wing radical George Will with the answer:

Congress has passed every balanced budget he has submitted. Congress has quarreled with him a bit about the composition of spending, but not much about the amount. The first Reagan budget was essentially Carter's. The eighth was a product of the Reagan-Congress "summit" following the October 1987 stock market convulsion. The middle six budgets tell Reagan's story. Those budgets produced deficits totaling $1.1 trillion. The budgets Reagan sent to Congress proposed 13/14ths of that total. Congress added a piddling $90 billion, just $15 billion a year.

Edited by MuseZack, 23 June 2004 - 11:47 PM.

"Some day, after we have mastered the wind, the waves, the tides, and gravity,
We shall harness for God the energies of Love.
Then, for the second time in the history of the world,
we will have discovered fire."
--Father Pierre Teilhard de Chardin

#15 Delvo

Delvo
  • Islander
  • 9,273 posts

Posted 23 June 2004 - 11:53 PM

Yes, I was talking about the fiscal thinking espoused by the Republicans BEFORE they got into power and started governing like Democrats... I guess I should have just left the words "conservative" and "liberal" alone instead of attaching the party names, since it's been a long time since the Republicans could be said to seriously be conservative. I just wanted to indicate the general concepts and not get tied down to just one set of words that somebody might pick on a detail of their interpretation of. It worked beautifully, of course... :rolleyes:

Anyway, my prediction is accurate so far; more than half of the votes are for #3. I've been saying for several years that most people are libertarian and don't know it.

#16 Drew

Drew

    Josef K.

  • Islander
  • 12,191 posts

Posted 24 June 2004 - 08:33 AM

MuseZack, on Jun 23 2004, 10:38 AM, said:

I was with you until you mentioned "Reagan" and "balanced budget" in the same breath, whereupon I broke down in gales of laughter...
It was apparently something Reagan wanted, but it took Clinton to get it. The point being that Clinton did a better job following up on the Reagan presidency than Reagan's own Vice President.

Edited by Drew, 24 June 2004 - 08:35 AM.

"Someone must have slandered Josef K., for one morning, without having done anything wrong, he was arrested."

#17 Nick

Nick

    ...

  • Islander
  • 7,130 posts

Posted 24 June 2004 - 12:12 PM

Drew, on Jun 24 2004, 09:31 AM, said:

It was apparently something Reagan wanted, but it took Clinton to get it. The point being that Clinton did a better job following up on the Reagan presidency than Reagan's own Vice President.
^We'll make a democrat out of you, yet! :p

;)

-Nick

#18 HubcapDave

HubcapDave

    Bald is Beautiful!

  • Islander
  • 1,333 posts

Posted 24 June 2004 - 12:14 PM

MuseZack, on Jun 23 2004, 09:41 PM, said:

HubcapDave, on Jun 23 2004, 09:49 PM, said:

Kosh & Zack,

The only way you can buy that Reagan alone ran up the debt is to be completely ignorant of the federal budget process. Tip O'Neill and his Fellow Democrats must receive their fair share of the blame.
And how many balanced budgets did Reagan submit to Congress?









Here's noted left wing radical George Will with the answer:

Congress has passed every balanced budget he has submitted. Congress has quarreled with him a bit about the composition of spending, but not much about the amount. The first Reagan budget was essentially Carter's. The eighth was a product of the Reagan-Congress "summit" following the October 1987 stock market convulsion. The middle six budgets tell Reagan's story. Those budgets produced deficits totaling $1.1 trillion. The budgets Reagan sent to Congress proposed 13/14ths of that total. Congress added a piddling $90 billion, just $15 billion a year.
Your answer excludes something very important.

Congress at that time would never give him both an increase in military spending he wanted and at the same time approve large cuts in domestic spending.

The following isa from Dinesh D'Souza's book Ronald Reagan: How an Ordinary Man Became an Extraordinary Leader

The problem for Reagan was that he knew hw would have to do business inside this menagerie. Most important, he had to convinceCongress to approve the massive increases in defense spending he considered absolutely necessary. The Democratic leadership in the House was strongly opposed to the magnitude of the proposed buildup. Top O'Neill and other made it absolutely clear that there was no way they were going to appove huge defense increases while at the same time voting for huge domestic spending cuts......Reagan finally accepted the political reality that if he wanted a big increase in the defense budget, he would have to leave domestic spending roughly at existing levels. In a sense, Reagan reconciled himself to presiding over a large federal government as the price worth paying for his defense policy.

There's also the 1982 bait-and-switch game the Democrats played on Reagan, wherein Congress was to approve $3 of spending cuts for every $1 tax increase Reagan approved of. Reagan held up his end of the deal, but the Congress never did the spending reductions.

Edited by HubcapDave, 24 June 2004 - 12:15 PM.




Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Politics, Political Parties, poll, 2004

0 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users