storm1977 0 #1 September 9, 2004 I think back to the ideologies of the Democratic party in the past, and their current Ideologies. I wonder what happened. When did things get so far off course? One famous quote sticks out in my mind. JFK - "Ask not what your country can do for you - ask what you can do for your country." That statement alone shows the vast difference between then and now. The democratic party has slowly but surely been pushing closer and closer toward the left and embracing instead an attituted that the Government owes the people not the otherway around. This is most true when it comes to social programs and a push for wealth redistrubution. So, an honest question.... How did this happen? When did it start, and what are the long term goals of the Democratic party? ----------------------------------------------------- Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tunaplanet 0 #2 September 9, 2004 Nowadays JFK would have been a republican. His views and personal dedication to the country are the exact opposite of what the democrats stand for now. JFK, as short as a term he served, was hands down the greatest president this country ever had. We can only pray we have another man like him again. Forty-two Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,131 #3 September 9, 2004 >When did it start, and what are the long term goals of the Democratic party? To get more votes for their candidates, which is the primary goal of the republican party as well. In a two-party system, both sides are constantly fighting over the middle. (That's the value of third party candidate BTW - if a lot of people vote libertarian, both parties will add some libertarian principles to their platforms in an attempt to attract those voters next time.) Ten years ago the republicans were the party of small government; now they are the party of massive (and growing) new departments and agencies. But change like that is nothing new. The two parties have been evolving for a long time, ever since the GOP was first formed from the remains of the Whig party (note that the Grand Old Party is actually younger than the Democrats, which is odd.) In the 1850's on, the republicans were the liberal party; they were the party against slavery, and the demographic was that large cities were republican and farmers/landowners were democratic (the opposite of today.) In 1872 a group calling themselves the liberal republicans drove a lot of changes in government as a result of some scandals. Going into the 1900's republicans dominated government; much of that was a carryover from being the winning party in the civil war. The Great Depression drove the republicans from power for a long time, and during that time they gradually changed into what they were - a party of fiscal conservativism, smaller government, and laissez-faire foreign economic policy. From the 1950's onward the New Right used the fear of communism to claim that many of their opponents were communist sympathizers, and with the fears of the time, they were wildly successful. Now we have a new era of republicanism - the age of the heavy-spending, heavy-handed ruler who gets very involved in world affairs to bend things his way (i.e. "making the world safe for democracy.") The democrats will react to this, and will distinguish themselves by becoming the budget-cutting party of smaller government. I think the rest of their platform will stay essentially the same. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
storm1977 0 #4 September 9, 2004 I appreciate your historical overview Bill. Some of it I was aware of some of it I wasn't. I noticed however you emphasized the path of the current Republican party. What about the Democrats? ----------------------------------------------------- Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,131 #5 September 9, 2004 >What about the Democrats? As I mentioned, I think the one big change is going to be that the democrats are going to become the party of small government (well, they will claim that at least.) "We will trim the fat off the republican's massive, bloated federal bureacracy and reduce the deficit, so our children do not have to shoulder the results of our greed!" or something along those lines. In terms of civil rights, they are already set up to oppose the erosions we've seen in Patriot 1. Neither party will survive if they cut miltary budgets, so both parties will be in favor of military spending. The democrats will likely become less interventionist, but that's not that new (at least since Vietnam.) I think you might be making the mistake in thinking that there is really a big difference between the parties. The differences will be far more rhetorical than practical in the end. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
storm1977 0 #6 September 9, 2004 What are your thoughts on the fiscal differences for the future????? ----------------------------------------------------- Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #7 September 9, 2004 QuoteWhat are your thoughts on the fiscal differences for the future????? Neither party seems willing to cut established spending. Neither has touched the question of Social Security and Medicare since Gore's lock box obsession, and every year of neglect means more pain in 20 years. A lot of tax cuts expire shortly and won't be renewed. We'll see who flinches first and raises other taxes. Really, the only difference on fiscal policy is who gets the money. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,131 #8 September 9, 2004 > What are your thoughts on the fiscal differences for the future????? In the long run? Not much. The dirty little secret of the government's finances is that the taxpayers WILL pay for every cent it costs to run the government, one way or another. Tax cuts that drive up the deficit will mean heavier taxes in ten years; just paying off the interest will become overwhelming. Republicans are currently the party of big government; the democrats will likely campaign on cutting spending to trim the deficit in the short term, but in the long run both parties will gradually expand the size of the federal government. In general, democrats will get taxpayers paying more up-front, and republicans will put that cost off to future administrations - but in the end, we will pay for all of it. There ain't no such thing as a free lunch. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 226 #9 September 9, 2004 NO - NO! Ve need ontly vone paartie. Vone party ees goot! I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
storm1977 0 #10 September 9, 2004 I don't see the Dems cutting spending, but I do see them raising Taxes. My idea... get rid of SS. Pay what is currently owed right now even though that means more debt. Get rid of the Dept overseeing SS (or the portion of the dept) take that part of the budg and use it pay that debt.... I hear what you are saying Bill, but I just can't see the Dems being the party of small gov. If that happened, SHit I might vote for them :-) ----------------------------------------------------- Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
akarunway 1 #11 September 9, 2004 My idea... get rid of SS. Pay what is currently owed right now even though that means more debt______________________________________________ I have been working since I was 16. I am 47. You propose paying me IN FULL right now. I'd go for that.I hold it true, whate'er befall; I feel it, when I sorrow most; 'Tis better to have loved and lost Than never to have loved at all. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
storm1977 0 #12 September 9, 2004 I do propose that!!!! Let's get rid of SS. It is a burden. A good idea in principal, but destine to fail with large swings in population.... Pay us all off now for what we have put in and let's be done with it. Survival of the fittest. If you can't save for your own retirement then Tough... Have some personal responsibility. ----------------------------------------------------- Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
akarunway 1 #13 September 9, 2004 So where is ALL this CASH gonna come from? Hey, maybe Donald Trump can help usI hold it true, whate'er befall; I feel it, when I sorrow most; 'Tis better to have loved and lost Than never to have loved at all. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,131 #14 September 9, 2004 >Survival of the fittest. I don't believe even the most hardened right-winger could look at an 80 year old woman lying in the street and think "let her die; she's not smart enough to save for retirement." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,174 #15 September 9, 2004 QuoteI don't see the Dems cutting spending, but I do see them raising Taxes. My idea... get rid of SS. Pay what is currently owed right now even though that means more debt. Get rid of the Dept overseeing SS (or the portion of the dept) take that part of the budg and use it pay that debt.... I hear what you are saying Bill, but I just can't see the Dems being the party of small gov. If that happened, SHit I might vote for them :-) Strange you should say that. During the Clinton years, government pending as %GDP declined from the highs of the Reagan/Bush(41) years. During Bush(43)'s administration, government spending has gone back up again. There are 1.1 million MORE people on the government payroll now than there were in 1999. Look up the numbers for yourself, since you are about to change your vote.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TypicalFish 0 #16 September 9, 2004 QuotePay us all off now for what we have put in and let's be done with it. Unfortunately, Social Security doesn't work that way. There is no "account" with your name on it sitting somewhere; it is an AMOUNT owed to you. The way SS is structured, the current workforce effectively "pays off" the obligation to the previous generation."I gargle no man's balls..." ussfpa on SOCNET Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 226 #17 September 9, 2004 QuoteQuotePay us all off now for what we have put in and let's be done with it. Unfortunately, Social Security doesn't work that way. There is no "account" with your name on it sitting somewhere; it is an AMOUNT owed to you. The way SS is structured, the current workforce effectively "pays off" the obligation to the previous generation. So lets all change that! i want my money to be invested the way I Want it to be.I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #18 September 9, 2004 QuoteWhat are your thoughts on the fiscal differences for the future????? Article in WSJ today said that the Heritage Foundations analysis of both Bush's and Kerry's budget proposals and economic plans show that Kerry's plan would end up with a $1 trillion increase at the end of 10 years, and Bush's would be $3 trillion or more. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TypicalFish 0 #19 September 9, 2004 QuoteQuoteQuotePay us all off now for what we have put in and let's be done with it. Unfortunately, Social Security doesn't work that way. There is no "account" with your name on it sitting somewhere; it is an AMOUNT owed to you. The way SS is structured, the current workforce effectively "pays off" the obligation to the previous generation. So lets all change that! i want my money to be invested the way I Want it to be. Fair enough. However, how do you think the current workforce is going to react to having to pay for the previous generation's retirement AND plan/fund their own (that would have been paid for by the following generation)? Are you willing to take the double hit?"I gargle no man's balls..." ussfpa on SOCNET Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,131 #20 September 9, 2004 > However, how do you think the current workforce is going to react to >having to pay for the previous generation's retirement AND plan/fund their >own (that would have been paid for by the following generation)? Are you >willing to take the double hit? Easy answer - just don't pay it! Pass the buck on to our kids. Let them pay for it, the selfish brats! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jib 0 #21 September 9, 2004 QuoteEasy answer - just don't pay it! Pass the buck on to our kids. Let them pay for it, the selfish brats! Isn't that what's being done to us? People didn't retire and live another 20+ years when the scheme was hatched. By the time some of us are old, we could live longer than we worked! -------------------------------------------------- the depth of his depravity sickens me. -- Jerry Falwell, People v. Larry Flynt Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TypicalFish 0 #22 September 9, 2004 Quote> However, how do you think the current workforce is going to react to >having to pay for the previous generation's retirement AND plan/fund their >own (that would have been paid for by the following generation)? Are you >willing to take the double hit? Easy answer - just don't pay it! Pass the buck on to our kids. Let them pay for it, the selfish brats! Or just blow it off; like United is trying to do to their pension holders... You know, I honestly believe that one of these days an Enron Investor or some such is going to go off the deep end and kill the CEO..."I gargle no man's balls..." ussfpa on SOCNET Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 226 #23 September 9, 2004 QuoteQuote> However, how do you think the current workforce is going to react to >having to pay for the previous generation's retirement AND plan/fund their >own (that would have been paid for by the following generation)? Are you >willing to take the double hit? Easy answer - just don't pay it! Pass the buck on to our kids. Let them pay for it, the selfish brats! Or just blow it off; like United is trying to do to their pension holders... You know, I honestly believe that one of these days an Enron Investor or some such is going to go off the deep end and kill the CEO... And there you have it folks. The entire Democratic Ideology in a nut shell!I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
storm1977 0 #24 September 9, 2004 QuoteSo where is ALL this CASH gonna come from? Hey, maybe Donald Trump can help us READ my previous post... I said where the money will come from. ----------------------------------------------------- Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
storm1977 0 #25 September 9, 2004 QuoteQuoteI don't see the Dems cutting spending, but I do see them raising Taxes. My idea... get rid of SS. Pay what is currently owed right now even though that means more debt. Get rid of the Dept overseeing SS (or the portion of the dept) take that part of the budg and use it pay that debt.... I hear what you are saying Bill, but I just can't see the Dems being the party of small gov. If that happened, SHit I might vote for them :-) Strange you should say that. During the Clinton years, government pending as %GDP declined from the highs of the Reagan/Bush(41) years. During Bush(43)'s administration, government spending has gone back up again. There are 1.1 million MORE people on the government payroll now than there were in 1999. Look up the numbers for yourself, since you are about to change your vote. Don't be silly Kallend we all know why..... A little thing called a war!!! Clinton closed military bases.. (slowed spending?) Yeah good Idea (sarcasm) Now the war cost money, and as a result a good deal more people are on uncle Sams payrole.... Funny, you say Bush doesn't create jobs yet you say there are 1.1 million more people employed by the gov....interesting. ----------------------------------------------------- Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
