The View From 1776

The Democratic Party Policy Vacuum

The Washington Post, a left-of-center, mainstream media giant, scrutinizes the Democrats’ campaign platform and concludes that there’s no there there.

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 10/28 at 09:51 PM
  1. Why does The View insist on supporting this president and his ludicrous policies? I know why and it's very obvious. It hates Democrats and liberals so much, even though they have proven themselves more apt at governing, that for spite it would support the devil and the anti-Christ himself.

    And It has!

    With Democrats there definitely is a there there. Richard Holbrooke wrote a good position paper on 'there there' in Iraq in The New York Sun.

    It is time that The View and many of its misguided conservative supporters wake up and smell the coffee. If the trivecta continues in favor of Republicans, America will fall further into its own quagmire.
    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  10/29  at  12:32 PM
  2. Mr. Airth:

    The target of your comments should be the editorial board of the Washigton Post, not me. They are the one's announcing the obvious: the Democrats' would-be emperors are marching down the path to serfdom sans clothing.
    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  10/29  at  03:32 PM
  3. "Politics abhors a vacuum." (Who coined that phrase?)

    It is the Republican party in Washington who have created the political vacuum, by constantly fighting and denying political opposition to its dangerous war policies. The View accuses the Democrats of being in a vacuum. However, when ever Democrats have come up with alternatives they have been ridiculed, bullied and called unpatriotic by Republicans and conservative henchmen. That is an easy game to play when you are hoarding all the cards. Moreover, it is the Republicans who have been sucking all the air out of the debate and creating the vacuum, not the Democrats.

    I think that on Nov. 7 this political vacuum will end because the administration will have concrete opposition to its treacherous and corrupt war policies, either from the Democrats or from within their own party. Get ready for a vacuum cleaner.
    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  10/29  at  04:23 PM
  4. If the Washington Post truly believes that there is no "there" in the Democrat agenda, it has finally written something that I can agree with. But then even a blind pig finds an acorn sometime!
    When have the Democrats been so good at governing?
    Granted there are many things that Bush and the Republicans have done and not done that I disagree with, but what Democrat do you trust with national security? The Party abandoned the one former Democrat who might have some credibility about that-Joe Lieberman. However, he was on the wrong side of nearly every domestic issue.
    Posted by Donald W. Bales  on  10/29  at  10:06 PM
  5. The democrats held power for the 40 years the nation went from 30.4% of GDP being from manufacturing to where it was less than 20% and their policies are still draining manufacturing from the nation. However, you are right, David, the GOP hasn't done much to change those damaging policies and the GOP spending is bad. However, much of the spending increase is from mandatory spending on entitlements tied to COLA increases and neither party is going to change that anytime soon that I can see.

    Also, the Democrats were in control during most of the spending and program increases in entitlements that even outspend defense now.

    Department of Defense--Military $491 Billion

    Department of Health and Human Services $697 Billion

    Department of the Treasury $495,Billion

    Social Security Administration $625 Billion

    Since just these four departments (plus 50 billion in the Dept. of Agriclture for food programs) are over 2.2 trillion of the 2.8 trillion budget, which areas besides defense do you want spending cut in. Even with all the pork spending by both parties, the rest of the government is running on about $450 billion.

    Much of the growth in these departments (excluding defense) is due to mandatory spending to keep up with inflation. Are you saying Democrats will cut those COLA adjustments?

    Much of the spending, like Dept. of Education that I disagree with is also being promoted either in similar or related ways by the Democrats. They just happen to have some different programs or variations of programs but intend on spending just as much as Republicans did.

    Neither party is leading this nation currently, in the direction it needs to go which is back to founding principles if it is to survive. I haven't seen the view promoting a party as much as promoting ideals that both parties should be using to base decisions on. This site's name, "The View from 1776" says what it is about. It is about returning to the principles that made this nation great, not about promoting either party. One, the Democrats just happen to be more opposed to the founding principles than the other. One party, the democrats, are more intent on promoting socialism which hasn't worked anywhere it has been tried in the long run.

    One party, the Democrats, had power for 40 years and did nothing to help this nation in the long run but rather, made it worse off decade after decade economically, defensively and politically. I certainly don't brag up the Republican party but definitely don't want the democrats who are even worse to resume the policies that hurt this nation so much while they were in power.
    Posted by JanPBurr  on  10/29  at  10:34 PM
  6. All I can say is that these statistics are rubbish and mean little. And what 40 years of power are we talking about? Is it the last 40 which included five Republican presidents? Clinton did better with a Republican House.
    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  10/29  at  11:35 PM
  7. Clinton completely ignored the coming storm. Of course, it began in 1979 and continued right along until we had 911. I consider it to be a 2nd Pearl Harbor except that then the enemy was localized in one country. And eveyone (or most everyone supported the fight that was forced on us.) Now we have this war with radical Islam. They plenty of oil money and plenty of people and plenty of Lenin's "Useful Idiots" who do not get it that we are in World War IV with a determined clever enemy who have plenty of people and a religious revival to exploit, and who have no intention of negotiating.
    Posted by Donald W. Bales  on  10/30  at  12:16 AM
  8. Ronald Reagan ignored the coming storm. George W. Bush ignored the coming storm because of his inept National Security adviser Condelizza Rice who ignored the warnings she was given.

    I mean, please!
    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  10/30  at  08:54 AM
  9. You know, the response "Clinton completely ignored the coming storm" is such a childish one. It is like saying "Well, Billy did it first".

    I would say, as grownup people stop using that worn out canard.
    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  10/30  at  10:00 AM
  10. You are missing the point, David. Both parties have failed to lead the country back to the founding principles. The 40 years of Democratic control were the 40 years prior to the return of control to Republicans in the 90's during which time they failed to implement any of the "Contract with America." Whether it was due to blocks by Democratic filibusters or their own ineptness, they failed.

    This isn't about one party or the other party as much as what needs to be done and neither party is doing it. However, what is sure is that during the 40 years of democratic control we saw much that was done to advance socialism (that doesn't mean social programs as much as how they are funded and administered since they are wanted by "we the people" for the most part) and lose manufacturing and reduce the buying power of workers.

    The fact that Republicans aren't either willing to or able to bring us out of that decline doesn't take away from the fact that the decline occurred during the Democratic control of Congress. Many Republicans are more socialist than conservative and so to say Clinton did well with a Republican Congress belies the fact that many Republicans aren't conservatives and that is what has so divided the Republican voters.

    Clinton had every manufacturing sector peak and go into declining job growth (not the same as unemployment) and we saw the trend begin of manufacturing jobs move to service industries. That trend of lost manufacturing jobs and increasing service industry jobs has continued under Bush so, there is no credit given to Bush for manufacturing by me.

    You are trying to support a party or socialism, it seems when instead, I believe you should be supporting a return to our founding principles and away from policies by both parties that take us further into the quagmire of inability to compete in a world market due to tax rates, compliance costs and business policies by both parties that drive more and more manufacturing out of the nations and reduce the buying power of workers here.

    The policies the Democrats advocate are similar to France and you see the mess it is in. The policies of the Republicans have increased spending and advanced socialism as well but they do have some policies that would help but they have been unable to enact them. Wealth redistribution is the focus of the Democrats and that has been a failed policy in the countries that use it because it drives business that has to compete in the world market out of those nation including ours.

    If you want fairness, it has to come from individuals more than government and certainly not the federal level of government but rather, from state and local government that are better controlled by the people or would be without centralized power in the federal system as our founders intended to avoid.

    As far as the statistics are rubbish, only a person who doesn't want to face facts would say that. If you notice, most Republicans are willing to face the facts of increased spending under Bush and they aren't anymore happy with his spending than they would be with a Democrat. What we do know is that what the Democrats are offering isn't a solution to our nation's problems either.

    It doesn't matter if you don't like Bush's policies or the Republican Congress policies, you should be looking for solutions that do work and the Democrats aren't offering them either. They don't even hide the fact they want to increase spending in many areas but say they can pay for them better with tax increases on business and the wealthy which in the long run usually means reduced tax revenues as the effects of the increased filter through over the course of a couple of years (lag factor, which I am sure you are aware of) and businesses start to close or move or raise prices which reduces buying power on workers. The tax increases on the wealthy mean more potential investment money is sent overseas or into tax free securities like Kerry uses to keep his tax bill low. They are perfectly legal manuever to protect wealth and will be used if taxes are increased on that wealth by both Democrats and Republican wealthy.

    Posted by JanPBurr  on  10/30  at  12:59 PM
  11. The only people hurt in the long run by those types of policies are the workers who end up shouldering the extra tax burden in the taxes that are passed on in the prices they pay when they buy things with their paychecks which lose buying power with each price hike increased taxes cause. 32% of a loaf of bread is hidden taxes business has to include in the price of bread to make a profit. Do you think that will change if we have tax increases? No! The increased taxes will just be passed on.

    Weath redistribution hurts the working class the most in the long run in every nation that tries it. That is why a millionaire a day is leaving France and taking jobs with them when they go. It is a good part of the reason (lost jobs) you are seeing the riots in France now. The potential for that occurring here is very real if we don't get both parties to change the direction this nation is moving.

    As the Republican party become more and more like the Democratic party of old and the Democratic party becomes more and more socialist, we move further and further from the direction we need to go.
    Posted by JanPBurr  on  10/30  at  01:29 PM
  12. Jan, I really get the point. Both parties have failed. But it gets worse if one party controls everything, all the branches, as the Republicans have for the last five years. It takes at least two parties to achieve the goals of the country, hence the invention of at least the two party system. One party rule, as has been the case for the last five years, inevitably leads to mismanagement, corruption, secrecy and abuses because there is little or no oversight. There is no incentive or bother for oversight or transparency in one party rule. With one party in control of everything you really get fascism, as we well know.
    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  10/30  at  05:37 PM
  13. quote:
    With one party in control of everything you really get fascism, as we well know.
    That is only true if the voters let it happen by not being involved in the primary process. What difference is one or two party control if both are bad? Having a Split Congress isn't going to help the nation since that means neither party can move us in the direction we need to go.

    The parties only have power because we give it to them. As long as voters sit on the sideline in the primaries you have the potential for corruption, not because one party or the other is the majority in Congress. You have a voting population that is corrupt and represented by corrupt representatives. The voters are immoral and thus are willing to have immoral representatives. The voters bend the rules and thus accept representatives that bend the rules.

    Remember that while the approval rating of congress in in the toilet, voters by a 60% mamority think their own representative is doing a good job. Only the "other state's" representatives are bad and so they keep re-electing the problems instead of getting change.

    In this last Primary, however, we did see some incomumbents replaced with more Conservative candidates so maybe some voters are starting to wake up. Still, winning a primary doesn't mean the same as winning the general election. While the members of one party have become more active in their primary, that doesn't mean the majority in the district are like minded and could easily elect the opponent instead of a more conservative candidate.

    Again, having two parties in Congress splitting the legislation and preventing most of it from being enacted doesn't mean improvement or that the right things will be done. Ideally, a third party would come on the scene, win the majority of popular opinion and votes and take the nation away from both of the parties but they would continue to be a "check" because they would still voice their opinions and voters would still have a choice.

    The voters chose for 40 years to have the Democrats in power and that was a disaster. Voters are not infallible but usually they recognize their mistakes and rectify them but since we no longeer have the type of government our founders created, that may no longer be possible due to Judicial abuse.

    After 1868, the federal government has not permitted any serious legal challenge to the constitutionality of the 14th Amendment. To do so would risk dismantling the entire apparatus of the federal government in a single stroke, depriving federal officeholders
    Posted by JanPBurr  on  10/30  at  06:28 PM
  14. The government of the United States, as established by the U.S. Constitution in 1789, was effectively abolished by the 14th Amendment. In its place was substituted a regime that resembles the absolutist centralized state envisioned by Thomas Hobbes in Leviathan. It is the type of political system Patrick Henry and other Founding Fathers had warned against
    Posted by JanPBurr  on  10/30  at  06:34 PM
  15. Oh come on with your policy vs party argument. Policy is made by consensus. And a consensus comes from parties beating each other over the head and then coming to a mutual agreement.
    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  10/30  at  06:55 PM
  16. No, policy is what you determine it should be and what every other American determines it should be. How well they work to elect people who reflect those policies is another issue and one which sitting out primaries mean somebody else's policies get implemented. The policies in every nation are open for review by every voter. The voter then chooses which work best or leaves it up to his representative to decide but when he does that blindly, he will often be disappointed. It is why we wanted an educated nation that had voters who knew what was best and what worked and what didn't. Dumbing down American voters has left us with a nation of voters that don't know what is best or what will or won't work. Most don't even know what the policies of other nations are let alone our own policies affects on the long term health of our own nation.

    Instead they elect representatives based on "feel good" policies or short term benefits that turn into long term disasters.
    Posted by JanPBurr  on  10/30  at  08:41 PM
  17. The electorate bears much of the responsibility for our fiscal problems. The public wants a lot of services from the government, but do not want to pay the taxes it would require. Also, in defense of the lack of government action against radical Islam, even after 911 there are many who do not want to take the required action against them. I give them the benefit of the doubt in supposing that they do not recognized the danger. There are millions of people who want to kill us or subjugate us. Even 105 of 1.3 billion is a lot and it may well be that a larger percentage than that support violence to gain power.
    Posted by Donald W. Bales  on  10/30  at  09:04 PM
  18. Now this is worth reading for you who have problems with Democrats as opposition:
    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  10/31  at  02:56 PM
  19. quote:
    Conversely, it would be too easy to change existing laws when party control reversed. Instead, they favored a system in which it was hard to pass legislation, thus preventing the enactment of bad laws and giving policy changes more permanence.
    Actually, that isn't true. Instead they deal to pass each others legislation. You vote for this and I'll vote for that. As I stated, neither party is willing to lead the nation that is best for the nation so what does gridlock accomplish if you can't get us of the track to the coming trainwreck because we can't compete in the world market.

    What good is gridlock if workers continue to lose manufacturing jobs and buying power? What good is an immoral nation that is focused on self instead of what makes a nation strong? While I have no problem with Bartlett being very disappointed by the GOP or even that he has decided to vote for "gridlock," I don't see that as helping workers. The bulk of the spending is mandatory and that isn't going to change under gridlock. The bulk of tax code and rulings that run into ten's of thousands of pages that make compliance costs hidden in prices isn't going away due to gridlock. The dependence on foreign oil won't go away with gridlock.

    Name the things gridlock will help to stop the economic problems we will face if we continue to lose manufacturing and high tech jobs because we can't compete with low tax nations, low wage, low health insurance, low litigation, low regulation, low entitlement cost nations?

    Again, neither party nor gridlock is what we need. We need leadership that turns the direction we have been going for the last 50 years around. If you don't like the Republicans, you certainly can't like the Democrats since they are even worse on the issues that will destroy this nation's ability to compete in the emerging world market.

    Also, many in both parties favor a "union" of nations and yet the "union" they favor, even together, can't compete with Asia or places like Ireland. China, with it's communist totalitarian government isn't going to join any union unless it is in complete control. China is buiding up its economic ties and buying oil fields and creating deals that will mean only China's interests are served. Yet, we find our nation is doing nothing that will let our businesses that have to compete in the world market become competitive.

    We have the 2nd highest corporate tax rate in the industrialized world. Even some of the socialist nations in Europe are cutting their tax rate to below ours. It is going to be bad if we can't even compete with other socialist nations let alone nations using free trade and capitalism to lure business and manufacturing to their shores.

    Again, David, I think you miss the point of this site. This site doesn't promote a party as much as returning to the principles of good government which neither party has been providing. While many of the principles that are needed are found in the GOP "party platform" the politicians in the GOP haven't been following the platform in many cases.

    Bartlett has good reason to be disappointed with the GOP but gridlock is not going to stop the trainwreck.
    Posted by JanPBurr  on  10/31  at  11:09 PM
  20. If the idea is to lose the war in Iraq, make the war with radical Islam longer and more expensive, if not lost, taxes raised, same sex marriage, more regulation, investigations for the next two years, don't vote if Republican or vote Democratic if disappointed or angry.
    Posted by Donald W. Bales  on  11/01  at  12:10 AM
  21. I think all the negativity about the possibility of Democrats gaining control is unjustified. If Republicans retain control I am certain The United States will fall further into the abyss, of its own making, because Republicans will continue without reforming themselves and remaining unaccountable.

    Now, if the Democrats do gain control and then things appear to get worse because of their reforms, it wouldn't be so much of their making but because of the legacy left by Republicans, a legacy that needs straightening out.

    Before you attack that argument, think of Reagan at the beginning of his administration, how he had to reform things and cause some pain before things got better and improved.

    You people and your tax cuts. Ha! I understand that under Bush income taxes are going up at the beginning of the year, on incomes of $75,000 - $500.000. It is one of his switcheroos when nobody was looking.

    This is such a foul administration!!!!!!!! I can't believe how you people stand up for it. It's a poor reflection.
    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  11/01  at  11:58 AM
  22. I would think the Democrats would like that. They like to have a lot of taxes. Of course, they would rather have the increased taxes effect those richer than those cited. Lowered taxes have resulted now and in the past in increased receipts by the Federal government. It happens every time. It happened under Kennedy and under Reagan and now under Bush II. Taxes effect economic activity just as prices do.
    Those are laws of economics that mere humans cannot change. The problem is not the lack of taxes-the problem is too much spending. Granted the Republicans have been disappointing about that, but the plans the Democrats have will lead to more spending-not less. Of course, they will cut military spending just as Clinton did. The only decrease in government employment during his time was in the armed forces and the only cuts in spending were there also except for those forced by the Republican Congress.
    Posted by Donald W. Bales  on  11/01  at  01:13 PM
  23. Again, David, who says they are standing up for this administration? We currently have a choice between "bad" and "worse" and with what the Democrats are projecting they are the "worse." They plan on increasing spending too. Much of it they can't do anything about because it is mandatory but, they do plan on increasing spending. If they do the tax changes Rangel is calling for, then in about two years, due to the lag factor, we will feel the impact of those changes and they won't be for the best.

    We have to start competing with low tax nations for business. Business has no loyalty to a nation if it is an international business as virtually all manufacturing and high tech industry is. It only has loyalty to the stockholders and customers around the world.

    Why do you believe Democratic policies would make them want to stay here when other nations offer a better deal? Why would wealhty investors from around the world invest here when they get a better deal in other nations.
    China and India rival one another and are aggressively challenging the United States as the world's most favored destination for foreign direct investment,,5,1,151

    Do you not care that both parties are doing things that are bad for U.S. workers? Democrats are even more for Bush's amnesty plan that will add millions of illegal workers to the legal worker roles and reduce earnings potential, than conservative Repubicans are (RINO's also favor Bush's plan). Democrats are more in favor of a minimum wage plan that leaves exempted workers even further behind and reduces our ability to compete with other nations. Democrats are not willing to reform social security which means millions of workers face an unsure world for their retirement. Democrats are weak on defense. Democrats are willing to tolerate many cultural changes that are going to negatively impact American workers by making government more expensive (dual language forms and signs and education and other things that you and I will have to pay for). Whether those are good things or not doesn't matter if they drive business and jobs out of the U.S. because of tax competition.

    Get rid of all the Republicans you want but, don't replace them with something worse for American workers, as you will if you support what Democrats say they will do if they gain control. Would there be a short term rise in tax revenues? Possibly so, but what does that get you in the long run when the lag factor kicks in and you lose more manufacturing and high tech industry to nations that compete for those businesses?

    Why don't you like the policies of Ireland where workers saw their wages go up 325% to our 60% over the same time period?
    Posted by JanPBurr  on  11/01  at  01:25 PM
  24. Sorry, but I believe you are wrong JanPBurr. On the scale of worse, worser, worst, nothing could be worst than having the Republicans in full control.

    Are you from Ireland or something. Anyway, I don't think your comparison with Ireland is fitting. In comparison it is a relatively new economy and as such will not be able to sustain the growth you speak of. As its economy matures its growth will slow.
    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  11/01  at  03:15 PM
  25. It has had a 20 year boom with no recessions using the very policies that other nations in high growth are using, isn't it ? What nation are you using as an example of policies that work since ours for 50 years haven't?

    There are plenty of policies that are worse than what we have already whether they are Republican or Democrat. Why do you support policies that have been tried and fail? Name one new policy the Democrats haven't said they were going to do before? Provide the details of how they will reach the goals the list? They don't seem to list many of them but, maybe you can.

    We saw what they did for 40 years and we have seen what Republicans have done. Neither party has the policies we need apparently but why support another batch that don't work? Why aren't you demanding Democrats come up with policies that will work.

    Also, remember they support Bush on immigration and they support a national education program that is no better than what we have now. They also want to hamstring our ability to fight terrorism. Their lack of willingness to reform social security should alone be something you are angry about. If they say they are going to fix it with tax increases or benefit reductions or millions of immigrants, do you want to continue to support them any more than Republicans who say we will need 100 million immigrants here to fill the gap 77 million retiring are going to create?

    What is your party's fix for rising healthcare? Socailized medicine like the other nations where you have to wait a year for some tests? Yes, much is wrong, deeply wrong because of our socialist system that we have been under for so many decades but what are you fighting for? More socialism to make the problem worse? Why do you want to drive more jobs out of America by supporting Democratic policies that have been driving business out for 50 years?
    Posted by JanPBurr  on  11/01  at  06:30 PM
  26. Jan says: "I haven
    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  11/06  at  10:12 PM
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.

Next entry: Dastardly Diversity

Previous entry: Educational Right and Wrong