Mock Election

[MarkDel]

The bottom line here??? Like I tell people, 40-50 years ago I would have been a Democrat, but today, it ain't even close to the same party.

But surely the Democratic Party 40-50 years ago in the age of Stevenson an Kennedy was more liberal interventionist than it is today….having said that I suppose in those days moral standards where not debated they where just accepted and the foreign policy of both Kennedy and Stevenson was confrontational and assertive…but economically Kennedy’s economic team headed by Galbriath was much more to the left than any today…and remember the amount of money that Kennedy poured into urban renewal and his raising of the minimum wage and attempt to introduce Medicare reform…again though Kennedy’s program’s of urban renewal where not simply cases of throwing money at problems he used tax breaks for companies to relocate to economically depressed areas etc…      

Ben,

Kennedy DID pour money into urban renewal and I personally would have been in favor of that in 1961. But to say his overall policies were MORE LEFT than the Democratic Party today is just downright ignorant. Kennedy pushed for massive tax custs throughout the course of his Presidency, and most of his liberal programs were bolstered by business tax breaks. Essentially, Kennedy was very much along the lines of Jack Kemp within the Republican Party. Supported tax breaks, enterprise zones and other business promotion while using the free market to promote urban renewal. This is VERY DIFFERENT than the Great Society pushed by LBJ and eventually carried to even more extreme measures by the modern Democratic Party. Plus, first and foremost, Kennedy actually promoted national defense, not Utopian Appeasement like Kerry, Dean and the rest of your current crop of internationalists.

[StevenNick]

The democratic party is the party of slavery, abortion, communist appeasement, terrorist appeasement, Monica Lewinsky, Whitewater, the Vietnam War, a stolen election (1960), Kennedy's lies about Addison's disease, affirmative action, gay marriage, the welfare state, pornography, and rabid secularism.  No political party is perfect, but you guys have elevated state-sanctioned depravity to the level of an art form.

As far as FDR is concerned, he didn't get us out of the depression.  He got us further in it by raising taxes, raising the minimum wage, and letting labor unions run amock.  Social security is an embarrassment to the welfare state, which really says something.  It takes money from young, productive workers and gives it to members of the single richest segment of the American populace.  The vast majority of seniors do not need social security.  Unless social security is reformed--and by reformed I mean privatized or abolished--FDR's legacy will be the bankrupting of the entire U.S. government.  FDR did lead us through WWII, but at the same time he was fighting the Nazis, he was instituting a very similar set of policies here in the U.S.  Don't forget, FDR is the president who signed an executive order to intern the Japanese.  

What a president!

StevenNick99, your views are a little extreme.

I agree that Roosevelt's policies did not really get us out of the depression.  Because of his class warfare and anti-business approach, as well as his tax increases, business did not pick up significantly until the war boom of the 1940s.  And he had to abandon some of his more onerous anti-business policies in 1940 in order to entice business to make the investment that would be necessary to gear up war production.

With respect to social security, at the time, the elderly were the poorest population group, and people without an opportunity to save for their own retirement had to work until they dropped, or rely on family to take care of them.  At this point, programs for the elderly have done their job almost too well.  The elderly are the richest population group, and they're always demanding more.  But that doesn't mean that the vast majority of them don't need social security.  Social security needs to be privatized in my opinion so that the politicians don't have the ability to use the money to buy votes.  But that doesn't mean that social security wasn't the right idea in Roosevelt's time.

I also think you're over the line in saying that Roosevelt instituted policies similar to those of the Nazis.  That's just not true.  As far as the Japanese internment is concerned, I think it's just too easy to criticize what was done when there was genuine fear of a Japanese invasion of the west coast.  Maybe it was wrong in retrospect, but I would not criticize Roosevelt too severely for it.  It was far milder than the treatment that other countries gave to those deemed a threat.

Much of what you said about the Democrats is true to a degree, and I have a deep-seated antipathy toward the current Democratic party.  But I would rather engage the Democrats on current issues than bring up their past support of slavery.  You should also remember that it was a Democratic president (Truman) who originally stood up to Soviet Communism, so while it is true that the Democrats largely went over to the other side in the last half of the Cold War, I don't think it's right to make a blanket indictment of them for appeasement of Communism.  At this point, the Democrats largely stand for appeasement of our enemies, and that is the issue on which we should engage them.

I, too, would rather engage the democrats on current issues.  I was merely responding to a post on the past evils of the republican party.  

As far as communism is concerned, I think you're giving Truman and the democrats far too much credit.  Truman didn't even pretend to be anti-communist until the republicans swept to victory in both houses of congress in the 1946 midterms.  The republicans won in 1946, in part by blaming the dems for the worldwide spread of communism.  Magically, Truman adopted the policy of "containment" in 1947.

Prior to 1947 Truman was still calling Stalin "Uncle Joe," and saying things like "Stalin was a fine man who wanted to do the right thing," and "[The Russians] have always been our friends and I can't see any reason why they shouldn't always be."

When Truman finally adopted some kind of strategy against the Soviets, it was the wussy, anemic "containment" policy.  Containment wasn't hawkish and aggressive, it was a copout.  And it appears Truman either didn't believe it himself, or was simply too inept to actually contain communism.  Under Truman, communists conquered China, Eastern Europe, and North Korea.  In another stunningly aggressive move, Truman fired Gen. Douglas MacArthur for, God forbid, actually trying to win the Korean war.

Truman was an impotent softy and so was his party.

And as far as FDR instituting the policies of the Nazis, it's true.  The nazis were socialists.  So was FDR.  One of the Nazi party's signature issues was a government pension plan for seniors.  What is FDR's lasting domestic program?  Social Security.  Both FDR and the Nazis were for massive expansion of government, higher minimum wages, et cetera.  Obviously there were many key differences.  FDR wasn't evil like Hitler.  Nazis and New Dealers had considerably different views on social issues (Nazis were pro-abortion, pro-euthenasia, green, eugenics fanatics, all of which New Dealers would have found repulsive had any American leader proposed them).

[Gustaf]

The democratic party is the party of slavery, abortion, communist appeasement, terrorist appeasement, Monica Lewinsky, Whitewater, the Vietnam War, a stolen election (1960), Kennedy's lies about Addison's disease, affirmative action, gay marriage, the welfare state, pornography, and rabid secularism.  No political party is perfect, but you guys have elevated state-sanctioned depravity to the level of an art form.

As far as FDR is concerned, he didn't get us out of the depression.  He got us further in it by raising taxes, raising the minimum wage, and letting labor unions run amock.  Social security is an embarrassment to the welfare state, which really says something.  It takes money from young, productive workers and gives it to members of the single richest segment of the American populace.  The vast majority of seniors do not need social security.  Unless social security is reformed--and by reformed I mean privatized or abolished--FDR's legacy will be the bankrupting of the entire U.S. government.  FDR did lead us through WWII, but at the same time he was fighting the Nazis, he was instituting a very similar set of policies here in the U.S.  Don't forget, FDR is the president who signed an executive order to intern the Japanese.  

What a president!

StevenNick99, your views are a little extreme.

I agree that Roosevelt's policies did not really get us out of the depression.  Because of his class warfare and anti-business approach, as well as his tax increases, business did not pick up significantly until the war boom of the 1940s.  And he had to abandon some of his more onerous anti-business policies in 1940 in order to entice business to make the investment that would be necessary to gear up war production.

With respect to social security, at the time, the elderly were the poorest population group, and people without an opportunity to save for their own retirement had to work until they dropped, or rely on family to take care of them.  At this point, programs for the elderly have done their job almost too well.  The elderly are the richest population group, and they're always demanding more.  But that doesn't mean that the vast majority of them don't need social security.  Social security needs to be privatized in my opinion so that the politicians don't have the ability to use the money to buy votes.  But that doesn't mean that social security wasn't the right idea in Roosevelt's time.

I also think you're over the line in saying that Roosevelt instituted policies similar to those of the Nazis.  That's just not true.  As far as the Japanese internment is concerned, I think it's just too easy to criticize what was done when there was genuine fear of a Japanese invasion of the west coast.  Maybe it was wrong in retrospect, but I would not criticize Roosevelt too severely for it.  It was far milder than the treatment that other countries gave to those deemed a threat.

Much of what you said about the Democrats is true to a degree, and I have a deep-seated antipathy toward the current Democratic party.  But I would rather engage the Democrats on current issues than bring up their past support of slavery.  You should also remember that it was a Democratic president (Truman) who originally stood up to Soviet Communism, so while it is true that the Democrats largely went over to the other side in the last half of the Cold War, I don't think it's right to make a blanket indictment of them for appeasement of Communism.  At this point, the Democrats largely stand for appeasement of our enemies, and that is the issue on which we should engage them.

I, too, would rather engage the democrats on current issues.  I was merely responding to a post on the past evils of the republican party.  

As far as communism is concerned, I think you're giving Truman and the democrats far too much credit.  Truman didn't even pretend to be anti-communist until the republicans swept to victory in both houses of congress in the 1946 midterms.  The republicans won in 1946, in part by blaming the dems for the worldwide spread of communism.  Magically, Truman adopted the policy of "containment" in 1947.

Prior to 1947 Truman was still calling Stalin "Uncle Joe," and saying things like "Stalin was a fine man who wanted to do the right thing," and "[The Russians] have always been our friends and I can't see any reason why they shouldn't always be."

When Truman finally adopted some kind of strategy against the Soviet's, it was the wussy, anemic "containment" policy.  Containment wasn't hawkish and aggressive, it was a copout.  And it appears Truman either didn't believe it himself, or was simply too inept to actually contain communism.  Under Truman, communists conquered China, Eastern Europe, and North Korea.  In another stunningly aggressive move, Truman fired Gen. Douglas MacArthur for, God forbid, actually trying to win the Korean war.

Truman was an impotent softy and so was his party.

And as far as FDR instituting the policies of the Nazis, it's true.  The nazis were socialists.  So was FDR.  One of the Nazi party's signature issues was a government pension plan for seniors.  What is FDR's lasting domestic program?  Social Security.  Both FDR and the Nazis were for massive expansion of government, higher minimum wages, et cetera.  Obviously there were many key differences.  FDR wasn't evil like Hitler.  Nazis and New Dealers had considerably different views on social issues (Nazis were pro-abortion, pro-euthenasia, green, eugenics fanatics, all of which New Dealers would have found repulsive had any American leader proposed them).

At least you're honest enough to admit that there are SOME difference between FDR and Hitler...your mistake is saying that FDR imposed Nazi policies, it was rather Hitler implementing socialist policies, since the Nazi elemsnts is what sets Hitler apart from socialists.

MacArthur was starting WWIII, so it wasn't about being soft...and the Soviet Union WAS an ally...and most of Eastern Europe was lost before Truman stepped in. Esienhower gave Prague, and thus probably Czeckoslovakia to the Soviets.

[StevenNick]

I should have been clearer that I was talking about economic policies.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I'm suprised anyone could blame the Democrats for a stolen election in 1960.

Go look at Dave's atlas. In 1960, Kennedy won 303 electoral votes. Illinois had 27. Change Illinois to Nixon, and Kennedy had 276 votes to Nixon's 246. Kennedy still won.

Florida 2000 on the other hand, that's a whole different story. So shut up. No Republican should be whining about stolen elections.

[StevenNick]

...your mistake is saying that FDR imposed Nazi policies, it was rather Hitler implementing socialist policies, since the Nazi elemsnts is what sets Hitler apart from socialists.
 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Nazi stood for NATIONAL SOCIALIST PARTY OF GERMANY!  Naziism was socialism by their own definition and party platform.  The only thing that was unique in Naziism was its fanatic nationalism which led to hatred of other nationalities, particularly Jews.

[Gustaf]

...your mistake is saying that FDR imposed Nazi policies, it was rather Hitler implementing socialist policies, since the Nazi elemsnts is what sets Hitler apart from socialists.
 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Nazi stood for NATIONAL SOCIALIST PARTY OF GERMANY!  Naziism was socialism by their own definition and party platform.  The only thing that was unique in Naziism was its fanatic nationalism which led to hatred of other nationalities, particularly Jews.

I do know what NSDAP stood for, no need to tell me...my point was that Nazism is a unique ideolgy, not a form of socialsim, regardless of their name. Nazis combined left-winged, anti-capitalist rethoric with support from capitalists, without which Hitler probably wouldn't have won, environmentalist stands that would be to the left of today's Dems, extreme nationalism combined with racism (the two are really contrary to each other), socialism with rabid anti-Communism, strong anti-Semitism, socialist economic policies and a weird kind of progressive view on many social issues, combined though with old-fashioned views of women and scary romanticism about earth, blood and old Germanic legends. It was a pretty unique mix...defined by Hitler himself rather than by other ideologies.

[classical liberal]

FDR was a Hawkish Moderate that managed to play himself off as a socialist to get elected in a depressed economic period.

Some political correctness is necessary in formal situations (laws, resolutions, awards, etc).  But the way the Dems harp on it is ridiculous.

Every number the government uses in policy implementation should be indexed to whatever inflation occurs: currency values, life expectancy, etc.

StevenNick99-

I agree with most of what you said but S Corporation owners would proabaly not fall in the top bracket.  If their business is that profitable, and they had competent advisors, they would have swiched to a normal corporation.  If they don't seek competent help then they deserve what they get (or don't get in this case).   Most in the top 1% are capitalists who want to pay taxes on their money (ex- Donald Trump), corporate officers (CEO's, CFO's, VP's, Chairmen, etc), or celebrities/athletes with large salaries.  Most other rich people will have liability shelters that double as tax shelters.

FDR implemented social security to give money to those who lived to be 105% of the life expectancy of the time (equivalent today to 82 for men and 86 for women); it was more politics than idealism, but the modern Democratic Party has seized upon the idealism.

John Kerry and George Bush were both born with silver spoons in their mouthes.

WMD's should have never been the crux of Bush's pro-war argument.  Regime change and the resultant shift in the politics of the region that might grow and expand into stability and shy away from the terrorist breeding grounds that exist today should have been the crux of the argument as it was the crux of the logical rationale.  Of course, I say we should have hit Saudi Arabia before Iraq, most 9/11 hijackers were Saudi's, but Iraq was on our list since Bush-1.  All the WMD's that Saddam has used were used when Reagan was in office, if that was the issue then we would have gone to war a while ago.

If the GOP just came forward and logically explained conservative ideas, we wouldn't need all this bullsh**t and the Democrats would have nothing to even pretend to hit us with.

[StevenNick]

WMD's should have never been the crux of Bush's pro-war argument.  Regime change and the resultant shift in the politics of the region that might grow and expand into stability and shy away from the terrorist breeding grounds that exist today should have been the crux of the argument as it was the crux of the logical rationale.  Of course, I say we should have hit Saudi Arabia before Iraq, most 9/11 hijackers were Saudi's, but Iraq was on our list since Bush-1.  All the WMD's that Saddam has used were used when Reagan was in office, if that was the issue then we would have gone to war a while ago.

I agree with that completely.  The only reason Bush and co. started talking about WMD was because Tony Blair wanted UN approval for the war.  We never should have gone to the UN to begin with.  I was pro-war because I believed it was the right thing to do, both for humanitarian purposes, and because I believe that the only way to stop terrorism is to modernize the regions the seem to spawn terrorism.  The fact that Bush did pursue the WMD argument more than the other good arguments for war has meant that the entire legitimacy of the war has been called into question.  That's not a good thing.  If the American people (and the people of the world) decide that this war, and the Bush doctrine in general, is wrong, we will be unable to effectively combat terrorism.  

I think it would be dangerous to attack Saudi Arabia outright.  I think the best thing to do would be to drill in ANWR and establish energy independence from the middle east then we'd be free to pursue whatever policy we wished toward whatever country we wished.  If we didn't need middle eastern oil, we probably would have knocked off Saddam Hussein a long time ago and we probably would be able to take a more aggressive policy toward Saudi Arabia.

[angus]

Somewhere in England, William Shakespeare is rolling over in his grave.  And so is Franklin Roosevelt!

[Beet]

ANWR will not provide a fraction of the oil that would be required to make up for loss of Saudi Arabia, which would increase all global prices. And to the extent that we drill in ANWR when we don't really need too, all we're doing is using up our limited resources so that they aren't there when we really need them. It's better in the long term to use up as much oil from foreign countries first while keeping our own in reserve.

Most of all the civilized world has to be united against terror. And I think it was pretty united before the Iraq war.

[ian]

ian, weclome to the forum... kerry for pres all the way

I greatly appreciate your welcoming arms.

[Gustaf]

Somewhere in England, William Shakespeare is rolling over in his grave.  And so is Franklin Roosevelt!

You don't think he appreciated our endeavours?