kritter The American public will use the election to extract accountability for the war. Even though the Democrats have not been successful in their attempt to set a timeline, the effort is clearly there, as are the GOP congressional votes right in lockstep with their leader. There are a record number of Senate seats held by Republicans coming open in '08, and some GOP officeholders in the House have said they are not planning to run again. Many moderate GOP candidates will be vulnerable- like Chris Shays and Heather Wilson. So those races are wide open, along with the presidency, for the democrats. Even if Conservatives were to rally around a candidate that they felt expressed their ideology in a way they could get enthusiastic about, I doubt they would win in the general. The mood of the country is shifting back towards the center, and I think the war and numerous Bush-related scandals are enough to keep independents and moderates firmly in the Democratic camp. The Democrats typically underperform in fundraising, but have outperformed their GOP counterparts by 30 million dollars. There is a lot of enthusiasm for Edwards, Obama , Clinton and even Richardson on the net, and Christopher Dodd may also do pretty well. As the war drags on, the picture will continue to get worse for the Republicans, so I think they are right to be worried.

mvdg Kim: don't forget that Giuliani and McCain lead Clinton in the polls (when they run against her). The Democratic base might be enthusiastic about the Democratic candidates, but that does not mean that the rest of America is ready to jump on the bandwagon. Don't exaggerate the support for the Democrats. Last year's elections were more a vote against the Republicans, than in favor of the Democrats.

Interested Well, Congress has very low approval ratings right now too, so that bodes better for Republicans as they can show the Dems are no better. And in reality - they're not any better at all. It's just divided government that is better. However the Repubs have to centralize around actually being fiscally conservative this time for it to matter. It may be too late for them to get the message out that their camp is cleaned up (if it is) - at least for this election cycle. I see three issues they could highlight and run with. - if they have the candidate. 1) Taxes 2) Fiscal responsibility. 3) Immigration Especially where the Dems aren't hiding the fact of wanting to increase taxes. The three aren't issues the Dems can get behind - yet. Looks even better for the Lib party to make some footholds.

C Stanley Yeah, I have to say, Kim, that counting on the unpopularity of Bush to automatically translate into a Democratic sweep, given that we're still 18+ months out, isn't a great strategy. Mobilizing voters against something rather than for something only goes so far. But hey, if that's the tack you guys want to take, as a conservative I'll stand back and watch...I may get to witness defeat being snatched from the jaws of victory.

kritter CS- Isn't that the strategy that the conservatives are using against their Democratic opponents? I don't think that either side benefits from resting on the other side's failures, but I do see '08 as an opportunity to take advantage of the country's desire for a change. That doesn't mean that skating by should be the Democratic party platform, lol! I'm not as sure about the presidency- the problem seems to be that GOP candidates that would do well in the general might tank in the primaries. The truth is that conservatives talk about fiscal responsibility but they haven't been able to govern that way , at least not recently. Just saying that they believe in it may not be convincing. In the long run, it will depend on the status of the war and if the middle class believes that the democrats are fighting for programs that benefit them. The 6 initiatives that the House passed are bogged down in the Senate, but if the Democrats can convince the public that they are heading in a direction that will benefit them, I think they could do pretty well.

Michael van der Galiën

In the long run, it will depend on the status of the war and if the middle class believes that the democrats are fighting for programs that benefit them. The 6 initiatives that the House passed are bogged down in the Senate, but if the Democrats can convince the public that they are heading in a direction that will benefit them, I think they could do pretty well.

The problem for the Democrats is that they think that they help the middle class by starting all kinds of new programs, while the middle class might think differently about that matter.

kritter Well as part of the middle class, I'd have to disagree. The government we have had has largely benefitted the upper class, while raising the interest rates on student loans. Healthcare and energy costs have skyrocketed, putting many families who were previously comfortable on the edge. Costs for huge weapons systems have drained funds that might have gone to repair crumbling infrastructure, or beef up Bush's NCLB which is seriously underfunded. The programs the Democratic Congress came in with were not radical, yet they responded to an imbalance caused by catering to business interests for six years and neglecting the middle class.

Interested As part of the Middle class I'd have to greatly agree. For years government has gotten more and more involved, instituting more and more programs. Goverment needs to back out of our lives not try to protect us from ourselves. For example, I enjoy giving to a handful of charities. I ended up giving more to charities than I got in tax cuts. Yet now with the Democrats talking yet again about more social programs and raising my taxes. That means that I will be able to give less. I tend to doubt that the money a tax increase costs me will benefit the same groups I feel are important.

kritter But neither you or MvdG has said what you specifically object to that is on their agenda. Just saying you don't want your taxes raised for programs says little. And polls have shown that the majority of Americans have supported the Democratic initiatives so far- but they have stalled out in the Senate, and would probably be vetoed by Bush. The size of government has grown substantially under the Bush administration- but I don't see you objecting to the cost of that- which will be born by our kids. Do you think that's ok as long as you don't have to pay higher taxes? Is it ok that the Chinese own our debt, and the interest is growing daily?

Interested Well I kind of thought I do not want my taxes to be raised was specific in and of itself.

but I don’t see you objecting to the cost of that- which will be born by our kids.

Any paying of attention or searching to my views on this would have easily prevented your taking the time to write that.

But neither you or MvdG has said what you specifically object to that is on their agenda.

You mean like the added pork ? Or are you for raising taxes that everyone has to pay for unnecessary projects - projects that you and your kids will be paying for for the remainder of their lives.

kritter Pork is basically the grease that keeps the wheels moving in legislation. Everyone in the country is against it, until a congressman from their district brings money home for a pet project. I'm not saying its a great system or even a good one- but it is the way Congress functions regardless of who is in power. The GOP-led Congress also loaded its bills with pork, and Bush signed every single one of them without objection. So, I'm sorry, but I find this objection a little ridiculous. The deficit has grown, so has the debt, so I haven't seen signs of fiscal responsibility from the GOP. Maybe you don't expect your tax money to work for you, in helping to keep student loan rates reasonable, or making sure healthcare is affordable- but I do. I think those goals are worthy ones along with helping states keep their air clean, and keeping people off of welfare by increasing the minimum wage. We seem to care more about investing in foreign countries than we do in our own.

Interested oh please, spare me the theatrics and fluff speeches that toe the Democrat party line.

The GOP-led Congress also loaded its bills with pork, and Bush signed every single one of them without objection. So, I’m sorry, but I find this objection a little ridiculous.

Here we go again. So it's perfectly okay for the Dem's to load up with pork. (Who by the way you didn't hear them complaining about pork when they were a very vocal minority - who knew fully well how to manipulate minority tactics) because the Repubs did, although you don't like to compare Repubs to Dems when it's in the Repubs advantage to do so. Man - okay a quick little economics lesson. If you get a $5,000 raise and you spend $8,000 whats the solution - get a $3,000 raise? More Taxes does not equal more tax receipts.

Maybe you don’t expect your tax money to work for you, in helping to keep student loan rates reasonable, or making sure healthcare is affordable- but I do.

Prove it. Prove how tax increase will benefit any of those. - hint - look at history.

and keeping people off of welfare by increasing the minimum wage.

And yet another facade. Increasing the minimum wage only effected a very minute amount of the population. It was mainly for political gain.

Michael van der Galiën The minimum wages can be raised, in the U.S., at a State level. Absolutely no need to do it on a federal level. Second: if everyone got back from taxes what they give on taxes, nobody would have to pay taxes, or at least not in a 'progressive' tax system.

Interested

The minimum wages can be raised, in the U.S., at a State level. Absolutely no need to do it on a federal level.

I agree it should be a State issue not a Federal one.

Second: if everyone got back from taxes what they give on taxes, nobody would have to pay taxes, or at least not in a ‘progressive’ tax system.

Side-note. I was doing more research today on the so-called Fair Tax. While parts of what they say are economically valid (i.e. you pay less taxes you spend more in the economy and thereby increasing the economy). I am left wondering what it's net effect truly would be. Right now, like it or not. It is the Rich that create more jobs for the economy. If it is more advantageous for the Rich to - not spend, than they most likely will not. Certainly it states that Raw goods would not be taxed, however what would be considered a raw material. Is it the tree? or is it the 2x4 that has been milled. I'm still left feeling it's just a progressive tax in another name, and I see it having the effect of needing to raise that % that is taxed. Plus it wouldn't seem to have much of a leveling effect between the classes at all.

kritter Political reality- both sides use pork to stay in power. When the Democrats do it, the GOP complains- and vice versa. I'm not excusing it for either- just pointing out that it is not unusual-just the way business is done in Washington. But I don't think the GOP can claim to be the party of fiscal responsibilty and load bills up that way either. Raising the minimum wage is popular with at least 60% of Americans- so is embryonic stem cell research. The Democrats are responding to the will of the people, instead of being elitists who claim to know better than the people they represent. We had trickle-down economics in the Reagan years and even its originator, David Stockman, admitted that it was a cleverly designed plan to help Reagan's rich base get richer. It left us with a recession that Bush 41 got blamed for.

domajot Interested- A few thoughts A. Pork Pork covers a lot of ground. The way our system works, members of Congress are elected, at least partigally, on their ability to bring pork home to their states or regions. There is good pork as well as bad pork. The road you drive on may be partially funded by pork, as an wxample, and it may well be a badly needed road that your state couldn't fund on its own. The adding of pork to unrelated bills is another matter and not a good thing, IMO. Washington does not seem to be able to, or does not want to, devise a way to fund these projects separately. I can see why, in a way. Each party would be trying to sabotage the other's pork while adding to its own. It would get ugly. The person who devises a way to divvy up the funds fairly and gets his iedea accepted by both parties should receive a huge prize along with a halo. I have no doubt, though, that some of what is called pork will always be part of the total budget, unless the states break up and become independent countries. B. Taxes and Charities Taxes are needed for lots of projects aside from the ones you hate. Unless you favor taxation by donation, every tax payer has to resign himself to paying for some things he hates. For example, while I agree with the need to have a strong military, the DOJ is being treated like a kid in a candy store with no adult supervision. I hate that, but I accept what I can't change. Implementing a plausible accounting system in the DOD and other other departments to aid in cutting waste would lowerl the need for at least some portion of taxes. Each budget item must really adressed separately. The Libertarian and Conservative touting of charities as a replacement for some taxes does not make sense to me. Charity is a band-aid and does little to address the underlying forces that cause the need for sharitable donations. After you've dropped a dime in a beggar's hat, he's still a beggar waiting for the next dime. In many respects, programs funded by taxes have also failed. So, we have to identify whicih programs work and which don't and fund accordingly. Besides current budget needs, we have to also address our national debt. The interest on that is a huge cost each year. When you cite the legacy to our progeny, that is a must item to consider. Talking about taxes and pork as if it were a partisan concern just makes our problems worse. Describing them as all bad or all good is to deal in mirages. ------------- How all this affects the middle calss depends on which pundit you agree with. Getting away from theories to look at real life people, the middle calss is not crowing with happiness, paritally because it is slowly disappearing. As far as I can see, the strategy during the Bush years has produced as much pain for some as it has brought gain to others. Something has to be done to address this. If the Dems make it worse, they'll pay at the voting booth. But staying the course on the economy because of faith makes no more sense to me than staying the course on other issues when you see things are not working well.

Interested Really. Are you going to tell me that economically speaking. a $7.00 minimum wage is the same in Los Angeles as it is in Oriental NC, or Deadwood SD? And that the increase in wage hike will make a sizeable difference in reality? Not talking fluff - bullet point Democrat party line talk. So again - as you havn't even tried to answer. If you get a $5,000 raise and you spend $8,000 whats the solution - get a $3,000 raise? Maybe you don’t expect your tax money to work for you, in helping to keep student loan rates reasonable, or making sure healthcare is affordable- but I do. Prove it. Prove how tax increase will benefit any of those. - hint - look at history.

It left us with a recession that Bush 41 got blamed for.

That's cutting quite a bit out of it and focusing on one element. And that wouldn't explain the recession Clinton slid us into either. Did you ever take an economics class?

Interested blockquotes got messed up in there.

domajot 'The minimum wages can be raised, in the U.S., at a State level. Absolutely no need to do it on a federal level.' ------ That would work only if we build fences along state lines. States are not separate economic entities in an age when commuting rather long distances is commonplace. Where the wage has been raised, there are mixed reports. Some businesses have had negative effects, while others have seen positive ones. For me, the risk is worth it. Since conservatives tout the rwork ethic, I had thought that making working worthwhile would be a consideration. IMO a nation should be something more than it's economis, anyway. When the citizens who are workers are valued on the same scale as the dost office furniture, I hear alarm bells. I start to worry about the sould of America. Disregard for its people is not a good way to promote patriotism.

Interested

That would work only if we build fences along state lines. States are not separate economic entities in an age when commuting rather long distances is commonplace.

That would only be accurate if the cost of living was equal in all 50 States. AND if the economic growth were also equal amongst all 50 States. A good indication that such a situation will never occur is to know why there are 12 branches of the Federal Reserve.

IMO a nation should be something more than it’s economis, anyway. When the citizens who are workers are valued on the same scale as the dost office furniture, I hear alarm bells. I start to worry about the sould of America. Disregard for its people is not a good way to promote patriotism.

That's quite a bit to attempt to view. What's one of the first things people ask each other when they first meet - "what do you do". People look at each others houses, or cars, or other fixtures. Our society is routed in economics. And has been for decades if not centuries.

kritter Of course no one can prove what a tax increase would be used for, but those programs are stated goals of the Democratic candidates. You and I don't speak for the middle class, but in most respects, they are not better off than they were 7 years ago. How long do you think we can go on fighting two wars with tax cuts, record debt and record deficits? Yes I took economics - but I will admit it was a while back.I make not claims to be an economics expert. Anyway, this is a silly argument, because you are going to vote for whomever you think won't raise your taxes, and I am going to vote for whomever I think will fulfill the goals I mentioned. Viva la difference! But I do expect the Democrats to pick up Congressional seats and think they have a good chance for the presidency, mostly because the Republicans are in disarray and their fundraising is not keeping pace with their opponents. Candidates like Obama are raising oodles of cash because so many in the country want a drastic change. McCain who has gotten too close to the status quo, is suffering because of it and is even having to lay off campaign staff.

mvdg

For me, the risk is worth it. Since conservatives tout the rwork ethic, I had thought that making working worthwhile would be a consideration.

Yep, abolish welfare.

IMO a nation should be something more than it’s economis, anyway. When the citizens who are workers are valued on the same scale as the dost office furniture, I hear alarm bells. I start to worry about the sould of America. Disregard for its people is not a good way to promote patriotism.

Agreed, which is one of the reasons for my firm opposition to socialism which reduces individuals to mere material beings. Dependence on the government makes a man... less a man.

Interested

You and I don’t speak for the middle class, but in most respects, they are not better off than they were 7 years ago.

well, During Clinton years I was in poverty. During Bush Years I've increased my pay each and every year. Went from Poverty to Middle Class. Can't get any simpler. More Taxes does not equal more Tax Receipts. There is no direct line.

domajot "which is one of the reasons for my firm opposition to socialism which reduces individuals to mere material beings" -------------------- That's a valuable slogan, whete it applies. I haven't heard anyone propose socialism as the basis for our economy. No ideologically pure system works in real life, because life doesn't deal with wooden chess pieces. It's messy, with unforseen circumstances everywhere. I cannot and will not deal with life on that basis. I have to touch base with real people and real events.

Interested You kinda lost me Dom, what are you talking about in regards to the US Economy?

domajot Interested- I'm glad you've done well under Bush. There are any number of people who have not been able to emulate your success, however. And they have worked very hard at trying to. I don't blame Bush for all of it. The effects of globalization are part and parcel of our current situation. But I do blame Bush and his friends for pretending that everything is rosy just because some are doing well.. We have to acknowledge the downside and keep track of it, rather than rely on a dream that may become a nightmare. - Re the national debt: There is wide disagreement among ecomomists on how it can/should be reduced. You are just echoing the theory that suits you. Since I am not an economist, I listen to a variety of voices but never make it an ecomic faith based issue.

domajot You lost me as well. To what does your question refer?

Michael van der Galiën lol, great, now everybody is lost

domajot I'm quitting. Only one thing is clear. I can never be this brand of liberal/conservative. Too many theories applied on blind fairh to every situation. I need real blood and flesh problems to solve in pragmatic ways. That leaves me with only a fall back party. Not a happy situation.

mvdg Doma: I think that every truly politically engaged American has one major problem: no party suits him or her fine. It, in many ways, seems to be more of a 'well... this is less bad than the other" situation. I understand why more and more Americans are Independents.

Interested lol, Well to me it's plain, simple, mathmatics. If you got a $5,000 raise but you spent $8,000 the solution isn't in finding another $3,000 raise it's to find $3,000 to backpeddle spending on.

I’m glad you’ve done well under Bush. There are any number of people who have not been able to emulate your success, however. And they have worked very hard at trying to.

It's not like its an isolated incident. There are also a great many people who did better than I did. And despite the tax cuts, Federal, State & Local municipalities are reporting record numbers of tax receipts, and have been for some time. The argument can go on as to where to apply what tax rate %. But one little example is clear - no matter which tax bracket, or supply or demand side gets one. If you tax at 0%, the Government will receive 0 taxes. If you tax at 100% the Government will receive 0 taxes. And this theory came from one of Reagans economists. - again, not to be confused of which rate or economic model got a tax break, just on how to figure the tax break. The theory (and proven by Democrat President & Republican Presidents) is that there is a % of tax applied that will result in the greatest amount of tax receipts for the Federal/State/Local government. Those opposed claim it's too difficult to discover where that % really lies - if it's on the too much tax break or not enough - and therefore discount it. By doing so they are putting on at minimum a 50% chance that you are getting taxed too much, and the government is receiving too little.

Interested

Too many theories applied on blind fairh to every situation. I need real blood and flesh problems to solve in pragmatic ways.

heh - they outlawed the coliseum games.

Doma: I think that every truly politically engaged American has one major problem: no party suits him or her fine. It, in many ways, seems to be more of a ‘well… this is less bad than the other” situation.

Exactly right, while I'm more economically conservative/libertarian. I'm also very Lib... Progressive on some Social aspects.

Interested

Only one thing is clear. I can never be this brand of liberal/conservative. Too many theories applied on blind fairh to every situation. I need real blood and flesh problems to solve in pragmatic ways.

I got to ask. Don't you feel that's a bit romantic in thinking? when you have a country of 300 million people you cannot make a law that does not apply blind faith to effects on a group of that 300 million. Take real down to earth issues. Is having a welfare system a good safety net to help the disadvantaged get back on their feet? Sure of course it is. But what about those that are hurt by it or those who abuse it? Not so great in those cases. But you at least have to have a law to address the overall problem. What about a Police Force? Sure, everyone can say why we need a police force. Everyone can also say where they can see why it'd be a bad thing. Yet you have to have one in place to blanket cover a group of people. What about anti-discrimination laws? Easy one right? Well what about people that get discriminated against due to anti-discrimination laws? But hard to imagine how we would have come to this point without them. What about the "New Deal", many great things with it are and were good. A great many things weren't.

kritter Well, I do agree with Doma that practical solutions are often overlooked in favor of theory in both camps. I bow to a combination of both- programs that work in the areas of the environment, education, energy and housing. If the program is underused or inefficient- either fix it or get rid of it. But a lot of the differences between Conservatives and Liberals are in priorities. If you still doubt global warming, you aren't going to give the solution to it much of a priority. Just like in Justice- the Democrats put emphasis on civil rights, while Republicans favor law enforcement.

domajot Interested- I had to do something else urgently. Sorry for the break I can only answer your questions in a general way. Otherwise I'll be writing a book on poor Michael's site. Also, I'm really tired. Am I being romantic? Maybe, I don't know. I try to be fair. And being fair means that I can't be totally free in the libertarian sense. I do believe in the 'good of the nation' idea, and I was inspired by Kennedy's '..ask what you can do for your country' speech. I think it risks the future of the nation when the underdog's are ignored. Chavez rose on the backs of masses of the ignored. The poor don't care about economic theories; they want food. Then, of course, we have to examine the best way to get them going to get out of poverty. But ingnoring them- no. In general, I think the best approach is one of balance. Federal vs states' rights, personal vs societal, etc., with as little infringement as possible. Absolutes are anathema to me. That's the general drift from whcih I approach the specific. ---- I'm exhausted. The world will have to wait for another time.

domajot Interested - I wrote a reply, and it disappeared. I hope it's not on some irrellvant thread. I'm sorry, I'm too tired to deal with this toady. In general, I approach any specific frrom the stanspint pf Balance Pragmatism Fairness and Kennedy's "ask what you can do for your country".

Interested It's a nice goal. The only problem is - all those are user-defined. What's fair to you may not be to me or the person next door. To me if you take a life, I feel it's fair to put you up for the death penalty. Others feel that isn't fair. I think it's fair for someone to be compensated in direct proportion to their job performance. Others think it would be more fair to have it regulated. Ask a far right-winger and their definition of balance may be to have only 3 Church sessions in School a day instead of 4. Democrats would probably feel having 6 Liberal Judges on the Supreme Court would be balanced - I think others would disagree. It may seem practical to someone on career welfare to boost it 250%. Ask a middle class person and they'd most likely think not. It may seem practical to mandate each town will pick up the trash of it's citizens and tax accordingly for that service. Others may feel they can haul their own stuff to the dump - and save money. And at the same time we define our own version of fair or balanced or practical, we want to impose that through laws or regulations upon the majority of people. That's not very fair - or balanced.

domajot Interested - Oh, come on, those kind of objections can be raised about anything, any approach, any theory, any fact. I just told you what my personal approach is, as opposed to a set ideology. In my judgment, it's better than deferring to a party line. I use my my own judgment on any issue, any proposed law, etc. It's too bad, I lost the brilliant (ha ha) answet I wrote yesterday on specifics. So long. .

Interested

Oh, come on, those kind of objections can be raised about anything, any approach, any theory, any fact.

That's exactly right, and that's exactly why your personal approach does not differ from a party line. It's a thought process just like an ideololgy is.