Oh, What A Lovely Party!

What it demonstrates is that the Repubican party is in a death spiral that will leave the U.S. will a one party system. Given that less than have of kindergartners are whites and that the U.S. will be less than 50% by 2040, the Republican Party has no future

A better question is how will identify politics that dominate politics currently will function in the coming one party state. Will the Democratic maintain its policy of open borders and unlimited immigration even though it will not need future voters to defeat the Republicans? Will the US become more like Brazil or Mexico? Will the white upper middle class have to look for other countries to migrate to after they are left out of the government and political power?

Another question is how much of GDP will the government consume when it is controlled by a single party whose power base is built upon awarding government benefits

superdestroyer, if there's one thing that this campaign has demonstrated, it's that Americans can't agree on anything, particularly political issues. Which is why I think that even if the Republican Party continues its downward spiral, the Democratic Party should be just as worried. After all, it's not like the Dem message is any more appealing now than it was 8 years ago. My guess is that if the Republicans crash and burn, the Democrats will do what they do best - tear each other apart. They'll probably end up splitting into two distinct parties with the more liberal wing on one side and the centrists and conservatives on the other.

Another picture re-run, and no change from the low-budget whining! Even Shaun is letting things slide during these dog days.

Saner minds simply understand that the GOP is not offering Americans an attractive, positive alternative to the Dems this year. They don't know what to offer Americans, it seems.

As it improves the quality here and now, I'll change the subject momentarily, interject something completely different -- the editors can take this and start a new thread if they want. The following is likely to be popular in dinosaur Detroit, but nowhere else except among the most die-hard kind of Dem (dim) voters.

The Next Bailout: Detroit (another Taxpayer Guarantee)

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121936530892762...

DLS:

While your heavy handedness is kind of endearing after a while (we understand that you can't help yourself), the comments will be based on what I choose to write and not what your knee is jerking you to comment on. You are kindly invited to butt the frick out.

Like now.

Do I make myself clear?

Amanda,

States like Mass. and Maryland demonstrate that the Demoncratic party can function well in a one party state as long as there is enough funds to payoff the Democratic Party special interest groups. Remember, the demographic groups that make up the Democratic party are growing relative to the demographic groups that make up the Republican party.

As can be seen with the speaker list from the Republican convention, the Repubican party has lost most of its talent. What is left are a bunch of elderly politicains along with a group of pork barrel, big government hacks who through their own actions have denied conservative any issues to run on. Look at the problems that McCain (a weak choice for a presidential candidate) has in finding a VP candidate. The Republicans have no talent for the next generation.

Actually, this time I think Shaun has hit it right on the money. The GOP has become a national disgrace and this administration will be notorious in history books for first totally ignoring the terrorist threat, then using the attack to start a preplanned, unnecessary war based on forgeries and cherry-picked evidence from the CIA.

Their own law-breaking has gone uninvestigated because the Justice System was gamed to slow down investigations of prominent Republicans and administration members while ramping up those of prominent Democrats. Administration lawyers enabled the process instead of defending rule of law.

SD- Each party has their own special interest groups. The Democrats have the unions, consumer groups, environmentalists and teacher unions, and the GOP has business and industrial interests. The GOP has chosen to write off blacks, gays and Hispanics, and so now is left with mostly white male Christians who don't want to pay more taxes.

Shaun,
Isn't it ironic that the Republican convention will highlight the architects of a torture program similar to the one their nominee was subjected to in Vietnam? What's even worse is that the nominee supports it too!

kritt11,

First, the special interest groups that support the Republican Party are not large enough to support a national party. this can be seen in the large number of Democartic Congressmen and Senator that are running unopposed for reelection. The Republican never had the black or Hispanic vote and it is impossible for any conservative party to appeal to blacks and Hispanics.

So the real question is what will politics be like after the Republican Party becomes totally irrelevant and the U.S is left with one political relevant political party? Are places like LA County or DC the examples for the future.

Truth hurts, eh, Shaun? Tsk, tsk.

"Demoncratic party": Was that really an accident, Super D? [chuckle]

"The GOP has become a national disgrace": No, K., but a disappointment. It's legitimate to wonder if the Bush administration, on the other hand, has gone beyond being a disappointment (and the object of disgust, as I have written before) to a disgrace. It's revealing that Bush is not accompanying and endorsing McCain or anyone else to any significant extent whatsoever. Even Clinton wasn't that toxic.

"You are kindly invited to butt the frick out."

Offer declined. Quality control and improvement, again. But you're free to delete the off-topic posting. It's your thread, after all.

Chris -- the torture irony (unless it be hypocrisy) hasn't gone unnoticed by others.

The Republican never had the black or Hispanic vote and it is impossible for any conservative party to appeal to blacks and Hispanics.

Well, that's not really true. Blacks used to vote only for Republicans, until Republicans abandoned them and adopted the "Southern Strategy" aka racist appeals to white folk.

That's true, Chris. The GOP used to be the party of Lincoln, until they realized they could pick up disenchanted Southern Democrats who hated LBJ's civil rights legislation. Then they adopted codewords like "states' rights" which meant-- the right to enforce Jim Crow laws.

Karl Rove attempted to attract blacks and hispanics to the party, but the resulting backlash from the "nativists" destroyed that attempt, and left mostly white Christian males who dont' want their taxes used in a "socialist" redistribution of income.

kritt,
Exactly. Thanks for expanding on that.

If Republicans want black and Hispanic voters, they have to abandon the racist rhetoric and "cleanse" their party like the Dems did. The GOPs recent celebration of the legacy of Jesse Helms is an example of what NOT to do.

DLS- Clinton WAS that toxic- which is why he didnt' campaign with Gore. If he had, it would have helped counteract the "elitist policy wonk" image that the GOP painted Gore with.

Instead we got the "regular guy' that everyone wanted to have a beer with!

Chris-- If they did that, they'd have to abandon the party's racists! It would hurt in the short run but help in the long run. I also think it would be best if the party stopped treating its moderates like uninvited guests.

Blacks were voting for majority Democraitc at the time of FDR. When blacks migrated to the north, the moved into areas that were controlled by Democrats. Blacks in the 20th century were always voting for DEmocrats. Also, the Southern states voted for Carter in 1976. It was more the actions of the Democratic Party in the 1970's that lost the middle class white vote. Think busing, crime, inflation, unions in the 1970's and you will see it was Carter and the northern Democrats in Congress that lost the white vote as much as LBJ.

Karl Rove's attempt to appeal to blacks and Hispanic was built upon the idea that the the Republican Party is just a brand name and could become a second big spending, big government political party. What Rove failed to realize is that the cost of getting one additional black vote was the lost of ten or more white votes. Karl Rove's appeal to open border supporting Hispanics and big government supporting blacks is one of the reasons that President Bush's approval ratings are at 20% and one of the reasons that the Republicans are having problems fundraising.

I always find it odd that white males are the only group that is every expect to vote against their own interest. It seems quite acceptable for blacks and Hispanics to always vote their own interest. But if a politicians calls a white male a racist, the white male is support to immediately vote against his own interest.

kritt,

The political party that you describe: fiscal conservatives, pro-national security but support quotas, affiramtive action, busing and race based social engineering could have its convention in the bathroom of a 737. It is impossible for any conservative party to exist is it must support race based quotas.

SD

SD--White males are the only group that have had every advantage since the founding fathers. Just look at all of the appointments they receive because of connections or donations.

In academia, there are plenty of "legacy" admissions to Ivy League schools-- isn't that just another form of affirmative action for the white elites??

I always find it odd that white males are the only group that is every expect to vote against their own interest. It seems quite acceptable for blacks and Hispanics to always vote their own interest. But if a politicians calls a white male a racist, the white male is support to immediately vote against his own interest.

It's not a simple zero sum game like you describe. As a white man, I fail to see how I would be harmed (on the whole) by the current Democratic platform in such a way that benefited poorer minorities.

SD- I don't think you can pin all of those problems on Carter. Nixon and Ford were in office during busing and stagflation as well.

Blacks moved north because of factory jobs, but also to escape the near-slavery conditions in the south- including poll taxes, segregation and an antiquated share-cropping system. It was all designed to ensure that they did not ever approach social or economic equality- which the white Southerner felt would degrade his own status.

Most whites have never benefited from legacy admissions. However, many middle class whites have been denied college admission due to AA. See Jennifer Gratz as the case that went to the Supreme Court. If Ms. Gratz has checked "African-American" she would have been admitted to the University of Michigan and she would have probably been given a scholarship.

Chris, the Democratic Party supports quotas, raical set asides, and race based social engineering. Do you really want your children bussed across town so that blacks will behave better in school? Do you really want your children to attend a directional state university so that the children of Senator Obama can attend an Ivy legue with lower SAT scores? Do you really want to pay higher taxes so that the government can have more social workers?

kritt, I do not disagree withouth comments about black migration. It is just the idea that blacks ever voted for Republicans. The best argument you can make is that some of the few blacks who did vote pre-1930 actually did vote for Republicans. However, since the 1930's blacks have been solidly Democratic. Also, the south did not automatically change to Republican in 1968 because of LBJ. The south was still solidly Democratic in 1976. It was not until 1980, 12 years after LBJ left office, that the south turned Republican.

"Clinton WAS that toxic- which is why he didnt' campaign with Gore. "

I honestly believe that Bush is more toxic this year, and even if they're equal, then the GOP has learned at least _one_ thing since 2006.

* * *

"Blacks were voting for majority Democraitc at the time of FDR."

Actually, it was the Democrats and the New Deal (and FDR) that drew blacks just as they drew Jewish Americans and others -- while it's a myth nowadays, it is very much exploited (see K's remarks); while only fools believe in Systemic Oppression and all the rest of that Sixties nonsense, the straw man of the GOP as the Older Wealthy WASP Males (the Exclusive Club) remains with us, while the Democrats have used entitlements as bribes to supplement their reputation as the Party of Inclusion. (The radical and often-untrue charges of racism in the GOP are another example of legacy long gone that remains ripe for exploitation, and may last as long as the 1930s-onward welfare-state entitlement-based model retains substantial vitality.)

"Karl Rove's attempt to appeal to blacks and Hispanic was built upon the idea that the the Republican Party is just a brand name and could become a second big spending, big government political party."

The GOP has been doing something like this since 1948 and especially since 1964. The Dems-in-GOP-drag in the Northeast (and to a lesser degree on the West Coast) in this regard only differ in the matter of degree.

"Carter and the northern Democrats in Congress that lost the white vote as much as LBJ"

Yes, the McGovernite ("McGovern Democrat") crowd -- not quite the same as the worst Sixties radicals, but almost as repellent to the rest of the country.

DLS,

Of course you pointed out two parts of the country where the Republican Party has worked very hard to make itself irrelevant.

As you have probably notice, no one can every pont out how any conservative party can ever appeal to blacks and Hispanics when the Democratic Party is offering quotas, set asides, and seperate and unequal treatment based upon race.

As you have probably notice, no one can every pont out how any conservative party can ever appeal to blacks and Hispanics when the Democratic Party is offering quotas, set asides, and seperate and unequal treatment based upon race.

And the Republican party only wants unequal treatment for different sexual orientations and people of wealth.

Anyways, snark aside, achieving racial harmony is a laudable goal.

DLS- McGovern WAS anti-war but he was not a sixties radical. The GOP successfully painted him as such. Also, if the public had known the real Nixon-- the paranoid angry one ----(remember the enemies list, his anti-Semitic traits, his complicity with Watergate, the secret bombing of Cambodia, and the fact that higher ups in his administration were involved up to their necks in the conspiracy) he might not have won reelection.VP Agnew was also a crook.

SD- Its also true that most poor blacks have never benefitted from affirmative action admissions, yet they have suffered from institutional racism.

Just ask yourself why there has never, until now been a serious candidate for president that wasn't a white Christian male. Why is there only one black US Senator?

kritt,

A large number of blacks have benefitted from a government job, a government minority set aside contract, a black only educational program, a black only summer job program. Even they have not personally benefiitted, they will most certainly have family members who have benefitted. A large number of the white-collar blacks in DC benefiited from either HBCU programs or Affirmative Action in college. That creates a huge amount of support for the Democratic Party.

In addition, many blacks live in political districts where the borders were drawn to ensure that a black was elected. Thus, blacks feel that they benefit from set aside programs.

Once again, how can any party every appeal to demographic groups that want and support separate and unequal government programs based upon race. I ask the question repeatly and no one ever bothers to attempt an answer.

A large number of blacks have benefitted from a government job, a government minority set aside contract, a black only educational program, a black only summer job program.

White folk aren't employed by the government? That's news to me! Many white families have benefited preventing qualified black people from attending universities and the better funded public schools.

"McGovern WAS anti-war but he was not a sixties radical"

He was (sorry, John-Boy) a _real_ war hero. Bomber pilot -- I believe at least once he handled an emergency successfully when his navigator was killed.

McGovern had liberal to flirting-with-radical politics and "McGovernite" is a commonly known term to refer to Democratic brethren of Sixties radicals who were almost revanchist after Watergate. (Similar revanchism, and associated hatred has been in effect since the 1980 election of Ronald Reagan, most notably in the case of Bush.)

A derivative of "McGovernite" that was exploited by Gingrich around 1994-1995 was "McGoverni[c]k," probably a deliberate bit of extra taint by implication, based on the term "peaceni[c]k." (unilateral US-West oft-pro-Soviet disarmament activist)

"snark aside"

I'd advocate also dispensing with the illogical stuff. First, do no [self-]harm.


* * *

"why there has never, until now been a serious candidate for president that wasn't a white Christian male"

In Colin Powell's case, because apparently he didn't want the job -- so many of us considered him for that job going back into the 1990s.

SD- Because our system is inherently unequal--- just ask the black males who have been pulled over because their car was too nice.

There are also many districts that have been redrawn so that only conservative whites will win---that's why Tom Delay was indicted.

There have been many recent incidences of caging within the GOP -concerted -efforts to keep African-americans from voting.

I don't get why you only think the system is rigged to favor minorities- when there are many influences that prevent minorities from having a representative voice.

Superdestroyer -- the ace the Democrats hold with Hispanics is their pro-immigrant, often pro-illegal-immigrant, stance.

Superdestroyer -- the ace the Democrats hold with Hispanics is their pro-immigrant, often pro-illegal-immigrant, stance.

The way to stop illegal immigration is to crack down - hard - on businesses that employ them. But Republican party was never going to do that anyway, and instead were/are trying to use "securing the border" as an issue to to scare white people into voting for them.

DLS- McGovern had a following among 60's radicals, but that didn't make him one. He was a war hero who rightfully opposed the waste of blood and treasure of Vietnam-- a war that even Nixon and Kissinger acknowledged in secret, could not be won by the US. (which is where Vietnamization came from) He knew it was a huge mistake to go from Kennedy's advisory capacity to LBJ's full-blown participation. Those who have fought in wars often understand when a war is unnecessary and unwinnable, in a way that those who had deferrals do not.

I might add to Chris' comment that we could also discourage US businesses from relocating to Mexico and then paying locals a wage that is so low they are discouraged from staying in their own country. Economic development in Mexico that offers its citizens a living wage would end dangerous treks through the desert to cross into the US.

Bush wanted to offer businesses an endless supply of cheap labor-- so that they could continue to keep wages artificially low and pay no benefits. The market supply-and-demand is thus rigged in the favor of industry.

kritt,

I realized that system is rigged for minorities when the school counsellors were telling my daughter that because she was a white female she had to go better in school because she ws in the most competative group and universities look for reasons to not admit white females while they look for reasons to admit blacks no with inferior academic performance.

When I look at AP classes and see nothing but white or Asain students yet you see the children of rich, white-collar black families getting into colleges with inferior performance in school.

I am not argung that white have no advantage but that the Democratic Party uses government policy go give blacks reasons to vote at 90% for blacks and that those policies are things that no truly conservative party can ever support.

You need to explain how any conservative could reconcile being for smaller government while supporting quotas and set asides. Until you can answer that question, you must admit that blacks will always vote for the Democratic Party.

Chris,

There is no way for an employer to crack down on illegal immigration withouth being accused of profiling. Since Democrats hate profiling more than they dislike the effects of illegal immigration and snce many Democratic power blocks benefit from open borders and unlimited immigraiton, the Democratic Party will always support open borders and unlimited immigraton.

Even the greens in the Democratic Party cannot bring themselves to call for lower immigration levels. Also, since the Democratic Party gives quotas and set asides to Hispanics and draws political boundries to benefit Hispanics, there is not way that the Democrats can lose the Hispanic vote.

SD,
Why don't the Republican's support it then? It's all supply-sidey and stuff :-)

First, the special interest groups that support the Republican Party are not large enough to support a national party.

Oh SD, good one!

The Bush Admin has given to its special interests the biggest government handouts in world history. And those megagiant multinational special interests have WAY more money than unions.

For the record, 40% of the Iraq war funds, domestic disaster relief and homeland security funds have gone to private contractors, often no-bid crony deals with the Bush administration. Seems to me you are trying to perpetuate the fiction that Dems are even close to this level of corruption and welfare. It's just corporate welfare, which seems to be OK with "conservatives". As long as it doesn't land in the hands of someone actually in need or benefit the public (education, clean air and water, health and retirement), a welfare state is just fine with "conservatives".

GreenDreams,

There are not enough middle class whites to keep the Republican in future elections. Look at the over 100 Congressional seats where the Republicans are not running a candidate versus the 25 Congressional seats that the Democrats are not running a candidate.

Look at states like California and New York where the Republicans have zero chance of winning the Presidential Election or the U.S. Senate Election. Ask yourself who will be the last Republicans Congressmen east of the Hudson and then ask yourself who will be the last Republican Congressmen north of Virginia and east of Ohio.

The Republicans have spent huge amount of money and ruined the idea that Republicans can run for office as fiscal conservatives. However, government money does not make up for the growing black and Hispanic population nor will it get upper middle class northeastern or Pacific coast whites to vote for Republicans again.

Of course, you should remember that the DoD no-bid contract program was started under the Clinton Administration. And juding from recent raids of Democratic offices in Maryland, New Jersey, and Michigan, yes, the DEmocrats are just as corrupt as the Republicans. However, if people are going to vote for corrupt politicians, they are going to vote for the ones promising the most goodies and that is the Democratic Party.

DLS- As it turns out, Colin Powell was unable to withstand political pressures that come with the job,as we found out when he served as Secretary of State for George Bush. He wouldn't have made a very strong commander-in-chief, despite his many virtues in the military/diplomatic areas. Also, today's neocons would have destroyed him- just as Cheney ran circles around him when he was Sec State.

Greendreams-- Good points!

SD- The problem is that the GOP no longer supports the majority of middle-class Americans with their economic policy that provides corporate welfare but a stagnated or falling wage for workers. There aren't enough CEO's and upper-level managers to support the party--but there are a lot of disgruntled white males and Christians who supported the party for ideological reasons. If you take away the ideology-- the GOP doesn't really represent anyone but the white upper class.

Chris: It's easy to bash business and that's why there is some pro-amnesty and laxity by some in the GOP, but the main thing is to secure the borders and deport those who have no right to be here. (No, anybody and everybody who comes here does not have the "right:" [sic] to be here, no matter what the worst "sanctuary" scum may claim, unwittingly in bed with CATO for different reasons.)

K.: Background reading on the "McGovernites" -- they were Dean people in 2004 and many are Obama's core fans in 2006. Note also the echo about the division they cause, insofar as it describes some Hillary Clinton supporters who may be voting for McCain this year.

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/opinion/articles/0...

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/...

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,917...


"the GOP doesn't really represent anyone but the white upper class"

That's not true, but that's the myth, the reputation, the albatross. Just ask McCain, the owner of who knows how many homes.

kritt,

However, there is not place in the Democratic Party for middle class, private sector white males. How can white males be in the same party with the Congressional Black caucus that support race based reparations, Affirmative Action, and race based social engineering. Also, if middle class white males do not like the Republicans immigration policy, they are going to hate the Democratic version.

The Republicans should be able to appeal to the middle class, private sector whites. Yet, the incompetence of the Bush Admnistration ensures that middle class whites either have to endure the failures and incomptence of the Repubicans or the outright hatred from the Democrats.

You should have a stronger point if the Democratic Paty has not promoting its own veriosn of corporate welfare, was not supporting open borders that lowers wages, was not talking about forcing people to live in high rise apartments in inner cities.

It is hard to argue that the Reublicans really represent the rich since the richest zip codes in the U.S. are overwhelmingly DEmocratic. I think the U.S. is become more like Central and South America where it is the rich and poor against the middle.

"40% of the Iraq war funds, domestic disaster relief and homeland security funds have gone to private contractors, often no-bid crony deals with the Bush administration"

This in no way compares to ages of Democratic corruption, but it's sordid, of course. And, in case readers didn't understand my references to "centrist" moves made by the Democrats in the 1990s (largely after 1994; I wonder why), the "New Democratic" way of contracting out to private industry what's not essential that the federal government do (actually true for state and local governments as well), what was called part of "Reinventing Government" and "public-private partnerships,", that contracting out was resented by leftist ideologues (to change from public to private is, after all, sacreligeous and a grave insult and outrage to such people) and unions. The experience with crony contracting in Iraq and other related problems may lead to additional reluctance to do such contracting-out rather than solve the actual problems through reforms.

www.army.mil/docs/Gansler_Commission_Report_Fin...

SD,
You're being misleading. Even if black interest groups support reparations, that doesn't mean the Democratic party does.

but the main thing is to secure the borders and deport those who have no right to be here.

No it's not ;-) My proposal solves the cause of the problem, yours treats the symptoms and is highly unrealistic.

Chris,

The media is filled with stories of moderate, country club republicans leaving the party due to the intolerance of the religious right or the crimes of President Bush. Yet, no one asks them how they will fit in with a party that tolerates the Congressional Black caucus's displays of bigotry or the Congressional Hispanic Caucus's displays or intolerance?

That is why I keep asking what will happen to politics when the Repubcian Party completes its collapse and the U.S. is left with one relevant party. The former social conservatives could have a bigger influence in the Republican Party than the blacks or Hispanics have now.


Also, I think that immigration policy should only involve immigration. Saying that they way to fix illegal immigration is to fix 10 other problems is to keep supporting open borders and unlimited immigration. Since that is what most of the Democratic party really suppports, any claims to want Mexico or employers to fix the problem is just a lie.

Exactly, Kritt.

And SD, yes, most Americans want public wealth to be used for the public good, not the further enrichment of the upper crust. So the GOP must trick voters into voting against their self interest by fear and smear tactics, exploiting racism, nationalism and divisive issues like gay marriage, all to trick people into supporting a corporate welfare state. Farmers literally voted away the family farm in anti-Communist and "tough on crime" zeal, and the public at large has been successfully frightened into trashing their children's financial future with massive debt, again for the lavish enrichment of the few. This is profoundly anti-democratic.

BTW, I agree that Clinton furthered this corporate feeding at the public trough; and Kosovo, not Iraq, was the first of the corporate run wars in which Halliburton supplied everything but the bleeding bodies. But Bush in Iraq took it a big step further both in magnitude and in breaking down the few remaining roles that were the realm of the armed services; feeding the troops (now done by Pizza Hut, KFC and MacDonalds) and even fighting the war (Blackwater and other mercenary soldiers). Soon, all we'll have to do is open our wallets and those of our children to the corporate war machine. Don't like that? Perhaps some publicly funded corporate developed and patented spying device can be used to incriminate you so you can be put away in a private for-profit prison.

All anti-immigrant racism aside, DLS and SD, neither party wants to solve the immigration 'problem', just to use it against each other. We have no practical way to deport a few million 'illegals' and no workforce to replace them. Nor do we want to pay the price of having minimum wage Americans do these jobs. What exactly do you propose?

Greendream,

It is hard to argue about the decline of the family farm when the number of farms has not changed in decades. Also, if you are going to use the term :corporate farm" please let me know what farms I can buy stock in.

The Republicans have done a terrible job of appealing to the middle class. However, is more middle class welfare for the middle class worth giving up their guns (See DC gun control), their religion (see gay rights trumps religious rights0, their ability to educate their children (see forced busing illegal immigrations, and Cal's refusal to admit church school students), and their ability to decide where to live (See smart growth).

Neither party is doing in favors to the white middle class. The Democrats want to tax them out of existence or use them for social engineering purposes, and the Republicans refuse to promote fiscal, economic, social policies that would help the middle class.

However, in the long run, the REpublican party will no longer be around and that will make the white middle class virtual tax slaves to pay for the policies of the progressive left.

AS I have asked before, what business would you tell a 25 y/o middle class white guy to go into when looking at the policy proposals of the Obama Administration. Getting a civil service job is all I can see that will be expanding n an Obama Admnsitration.

Neither party is doing in favors to the white middle class. The Democrats want to tax them out of existence

Turn off Rush Limbaugh for a few minutes, and actually look at Obama's tax proposal, which would give a bigger tax cut to people making under $150,000 a year, and only increase taxes on those who make over $250,000.

Is more rich white guy welfare worth giving up privacy, the right to a trial, the legislative and judicial branches and democracy? Sorry, this argument has gotten silly.

I would advise the 25 yo middle class white guy to learn Mandarin.

Chris,

There is no way that Senator Obama can fund his policy proposals without a huge tax increase. Letting the Bush taxcuts expire will not make up for the current deficit. Add free healthcare, free college, and open borders, and the government expenses will go up quickly. In addition, Senator Obama's economic advisors look like they plan to go back to the old idea of using inflation to raise taxes. If living wage and new regulations go into effects, the U.S. will face rising prices which will be inflationary and put people into higher tax brackets.

Currently the feds consume22% GDP. SEnator Obama will quickly be pushing toward 40% will nationalized healthcare and energy regulations.

It seems that the GOP is more about trashing the Democratic candidate than actually hoisting their "presumptive nominee" up on the platform. It's the "oh don't focus on me focus on how bad the other guy is, and oh, did we mention he's a POW?" Sing ,Johnny One Note.

just wondering- what's better, a tax increase, or leaving a nation 482 billion in debt for a sham war?

More tax cuts for the 1% of the wealthiest? Cuts in healthcare ( not for Cindy's sprained wrist I'll tell you that...) cuts in Education so we can BOMBOMBOMB Iran...riiiight.

And how many of those billions get fed into the coffers of special interests, lobbyists and fat cat contractors with no accountability.

Yet you sit there smugly thinking your'e going to benefit with McCain in the Pilot's seat .( I hope to God he never "takes the stick", for his sake) ...how's that going to work again?

There is no way that Senator Obama can fund his policy proposals without a huge tax increase.

I would have said the same thing about Bush's policies.

"There is no way that Senator Obama can fund his policy proposals without a huge tax increase. Letting the Bush taxcuts expire will not make up for the current deficit."

A lovely parting gift from this administration. Another "business" this "CEO President ran into the ground and hops out of the plane with his golden parachute.
"Seeya suckers, I'm hoppin' out over Crawford!"

Oh, had he Run after Gulf 1 he would have had the job, but he's no dummy.
We all had high hopes when he was appointed by 43, and we all know how well that turned out- when a a top talent finds out his boss s an idiot he's not gonna hang around. Look at how many have left GWB's sinking ship. Some were rats, some not.

Thanks RememberNovember. It's exactly the fear and smear I was talking about. The GOP does not have plans or policies that make sense for the majority, so they must try to use fear of "other" and character assassination to coerce people into voting away the last vestiges of government "of the people, by the people and for the people."

SD, Obama has not advocated nationalizing healthcare. You're obviously a free marketeer, so go ahead and compete. Let me buy Medicare at my exact percentage of the total Medicare budget. Not ONE DIME of government money.

You continue to fund Blue Cross (or whatever) and hell, invest in them too. The bad old government is so inefficient that they can't possibly compete with the corporate excellence that is the insurance industry. Right?

And taxes? The GOP "birth tax" is now $31,000. That's what every newborn owes as 1/300,000,000 of the national debt. Every middle class working tax payer owes $325 a month interest on that debt. That, buddy, is a tax. It must be--and is--paid to the Chinese and other financiers of the GOP's lavish spending of our children's money. The GOP (and you) smears the Dems as "tax and spend" while their policy is even worse; "borrow and spend".

Chris- Remember Bush financed his policies by turning a huge surplus into an enormous deficit, and then convinced himself that we could have economic growth and deficit spending simultaneously (along with corporate welfare, added entitlement spending and deregulation).

We now have him leaving office the same way his father did- in the middle of a recession with spiraling inflation. Bush Sr, stumbled during the debates because he could not connect with the current price of a gallon of milk.

McCain's cluelessness about the number of houses he owns falls into this same-- I'm too rich to run to the 7/11 category!

RememberNovember,

The Democrats in Congress could have done something about it for the last two years. Yet, the took a pass and keep the spending going. The Democrats have no more credibility on fiscal issues than the Republicans do. Remember, they want to help out city dwellers in the northeast and California by eliminating the alternative minimum tax.

Repeating moveon.org talking points about Bush or McCain is pointless since Senator Obama is going to be the next president. So, how to you fell about his plan to centrally direct energy consumption and healthcare. What do you think those to programs will do for employment, inflation, or economic growth.

Please tell us what private sector career fields will benefit from an Obama Administration. and please, leave the moveon.org talking points out.

kritt,

The current accounts of the federal government were in deficit in Janaury 2001 before Bush took office. The surpluses stopped about the same time as the dot.com bubble. Of course that did not stop both Bush and Gore from proposing new programs during the election of 2000. The current budget mess is one reason that the Republicans will not be around much longer. The country only needs one big spending party. If both parties are big government, big spending parites, then demographic is everything and the Democrats have the edge in demographics. If Gore would have won, he would have faced budget deficits and 9/11 just like Bush. The question is whether U.S. forces would have ever been sent to AFghanistan under a Gore Administration.

Also, what the Republicans are planning is irrelevant. If budgets deficits are important, then more people would be made about Senator Obama's policy proposals. He plans on adding trillions to the budget deficit. Of course, the spending will be on core Democratic groups, so I guess that makes it all right. And of course, when know that the DoD will be the only governmetn program cut during an Obama Administration since he has said as much and that is waht President Clinton did.

UM- What can I say besides you're dead wrong? Remember the little refund check that you received right after you voted for W? That was your share of the surplus. Remember the added entitlement of the Medicare drug benefit that Bush swayed Florida voters with? That helped to create the deficit. Remember the huge outlays in taxpayer money to create the Dept of Homeland Security,expand the intelligence agencies and begin the era of shock and awe??? Remember the 8 billion or so lost by Bremer in Iraq in the days of the CPA??

Remember Clinton's signing Welfare Reform? The balanced budgets of the '90's??? I read somewhere that Bush has expanded government spending at a rate 7x his predecessor.

Never mind that I haven't engaged in any racism at all. What does that matter?

What to do? Secure the borders, change immigration policy from its Sixties change to "family reunification" back to a skills-and-asset-based evaluation system for entry, make it illegal for immigrants to receive public benefits, prosecute those who are here illegally and those who support their being here illegally. That is the public's general desire and mainstream (not "racist" [sic] or "xenophobic" [sic]) view.

Despite Chris's ill view of business, there are a number of pull and yes, push factors at work. We are, for example, Mexico's safety valve.

Superdestroyer -- the Dems can reduce the deficit from $500B to $400B and claim it to be a fantastic accomplishment while so many Dem voters don't care, so long as they get what they were promised. Where to find money? Going beyond the need for reform to arbitrary and greedy military spending reductions is the likely first method.

Despite Chris's ill view of business, there are a number of pull and yes, push factors at work. We are, for example, Mexico's safety valve.

Punishing businesses with heavy fines for hiring illegals isn't about my ill view of business. Corporations, for better or worse, are actors without a moral conscience, so if you want them to change, you have to remove the economic reward for hiring illegals. And once illegals can't get jobs, they won't move here.

It's pretty simple and makes sense in terms of supply and demand.

What you want to do is punish people that just want to make more money by moving to the United States instead of punishing those who provide the reward for breaking the law. On top of that, these corporations are exploiting them and hurting American workers they'd rather not pay a fair wage to employ.

On top of all that, deporting all of them is a task of mind boggling complexity. It would cost a fortune. It would gut entire industries and it would likely exacerbate the already weak economies of our neighbors to the south.

Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed, to me:
I lift my lamp beside the golden door.

The truth is that corporations love cheap labor and it seems like they should bear some of the responsibility for hiring illegals. Their rush to do so also contributes to the collapse of the middle class.

Chris,

Why should private business be in the business of immigration enforcement. For all of the talk of hating the privitizing government, progressives sure love the idea of forcing private companies to do the jobs that the government should be doing. Of course, with free healthcare, free education, and other government benefits, illegal immigration will probably be better off in the U.S. of the Obama Administraiton instead of returning home.

I guess as long as all of the illegal immigrants turn into automatic voters for the Democratic Party, progressives will never care about defending the borders of the U.S. or immigration enforcement.

Of course part of the progressive plan for the one party state is amensty for the millions of illegal immigratns so that they will become citizens and automatic Democratic voters. Of course, they will all have three or four children funded by nationalized healthcare. Such demographic policies are meant to ensure that conseravtive politics become irrelevant in the U.S. Of course what progressive will not admit is that is means that all the talk about lower carbon emissions for the U.S. is politic talk and not meant to be taken seriously.

SD- There are plenty of Democrats who don't want illegal immigrants added to the workforce. Remember, they hurt unionized workers because they work for less and get no benefits. But as long as businesses pay 10 x what they make in Mexico, they'll come here.

BTW, I didn't know that George W Bush and John McCain were progressive Democrats-- they wanted amnesty more than anyone.

kritt,

the rank and file republicans rejected President Bush's call for amnesty. President Bush's promotion of open borders and unlimited immigration is one of the reasons that his approval ratings are at 20%. However, there has not been any major Democratic politicians that has rejected open borders and unlimited immigration. During the primaries, all of the Democratic candidates supported open borders and unlimited immigration.

Currently, Senator Obama refuses to use the term deportation and does not want to spend money on borders security. IN the coming Obama Administration, if an illegal aliens makes it across the borders, the illegal alien gets to stay, gets free healthcare, and gets expanded government benfits. Even the green movement cannot bring itself reject open borders and unlimited immigraiton even though increasing population will be bad for the environment.

SD- You failed to mention John McCain's support - he sponsored the comprehensive immigration bill and -- He IS the GOP's candidate for the presidency in '08. He may have capitulated to the nativists but that doesn't mean he won't work to pass it if elected. Remember he works very well with Democrats.

If McCain or the Republicans had a chance of winning this year, their positions on immigration may have mattered. However, since Senator Obama is certainly going to win, the only thing that matters are the Democrats policy positions. The Democrats position on immigration is that creating more Democratic voters is more important than all of the harms caused by unlimited immigration. How can the Democrats talk about wanting to improve schools, wanting the real wages of the middle class to increase, or wanting to lower carbon emissions while supporting plans for open borders and unlimited immigration.

AS the U.S. becomes a one party state, it is obvious that the power of political correctness will trump real discussions about policy positions.

I also used the immigration positions of the candidates to show who is smarter. McCain supports open borders and unlimited immigraiton while refusing to believe that all of the illegals will eventually become Democratic voters under any amnesty program. HOwever, SEnator Obama is smart enough to know that every illegal put on the path to citizenship is a future Democratic voters who will demand more from the government.

SD- right now McCain is doing extremely well in the polls. His obituary has been written many times during the last 18 months, yet he pushes on. I think you are prematurely counting him out so that you can make your point about the Democrats and illegal immigration.

kritt,

McCain is have less than hafl the funds of Senator Obama while being forced to spend funds in States like Virginia and North Carolina. this aone should be enough to convinced anyone that McCAin has zero chance of winning. The MSM wants to make the election sound close to keep publi interest. However, in the end, McCain has no more chance of winning in 2008 than Bob Dole had in 1996.