A Democratic Plan for Victory

[Stinger]

Clinton balanced the budget, brought down a dictator in the Balkans, and left us with a surplus.

Clinton fought balanced budgets, and proposed budgets with higher spending that congress passed every year except for one in which the spending increase was set from the previous budget agreement. He shut down government to get higher spending. And he is the only modern day president to have done so.

Did he make mistakes? Yeppers. Some biggies...but not as big as King George. Oh yea...unlike King George...Clinton knew how to speak in complete sentences.

Oh that's a real intelligence point.

The growth of Government and Government spending under Bush only proves that the Democrats are for more fiscally conservative.

No it proves that Republicans aren't much better and that Bush is not so conservative as one might hope. But his latest proposal does cut spending and many uneccesary programs. Can I assume since you think too much spending has been going on you support cutting spending, which the Dems oppose?

The Patriot Act is a danger to Constitutional liberties.

So tell me how you have been effected, what constitutional liberty have you lost?

There is a Democratic plan drafted that will put together a program similar to the "Manhattan Project" dedicated to establishing energy independence.

Where is it, tell me specifically what it does. What is the project to do specifically?

The Republicans have only drafted paperwork

Which is exactly what you just said the Democrats have done, except the Republicans actually PROPOSED LEGISLATION, they have said specifically what they want to do.

Why should I support the Democrat plan?

The vast majority of uninsured people in the US go to emergency rooms.

And Bush has proposed programs to allow them to buy insurance, do you support them?

What is the Democrat plan? Give me the specifics.

The King George Tax giveaway to the top 2% of Americans could have been used to stablize the Social Security system.

No it couldn't, not without a massive overhaul of the authorizing legislation and a fundimental change in tax law. And you can't tax them enough anyway, and when overall revenues drop, as happens when we increase taxes above current levels, how will you make that up?

Targetted roll backs of the Bush tax plan could free up enough funding to stablize Social Security until the bell curved funding crisis passes.

No it can't and there is no legal authorization to use general funds for the Social Security program. And besides why is it the right of some citizens to demand the wealth of others to fund their retirement?

Your not hearing the plan because the Media isn't reporting it.

:rofl believe me if the Democrats had a plan the media would be plastering on their shows every day. LOUDLY. The fact is they have admitted they have no plans and refuse to say when they will and even defend the fact that they don't.

 

[jfuh]

A victory plan cannot be solely based on the hate for and the slander of the other guy. Democrats must provide an alternative platform and produce a viable candidate. I hope they do.

I hope any party could base thier elections on something other than hate or slander. However, if you look at how Bush has won in the past with Rove ideals.... hate and slander is mostly what he used to win.

 

[cnredd]

I hope any party could base thier elections on something other than hate or slander. However, if you look at how Bush has won in the past with Rove ideals.... hate and slander is mostly what he used to win.

hate and slander, eh?...

I'll remember that the next time I hear "religious nutjobs" or "redneck hicks who were so stupid to vote for Bush"...

What you're saying is the EXACT reason Democrats have a hard time winning...They're more than happy to blame everyone but themselves...

Democratic response if/when the Democrats win?..."The American people finally smartened up"...

Democratic response if/when the Republicans win?..."The American people are stupid."

I hate to tell you, but those "stupid people" are the same people that you'd love to have vote your way...Continually talking down to them and telling them how dumb they are isn't a good way to win them over...

If the Left continues to belittle everyone who disagrees with them, the results will not change...

 

[hipsterdufus]

But the left would say those are extremist right positions.

Not at all.

 

[KCConservative]

hate and slander, eh?...

I'll remember that the next time I hear "religious nutjobs" or "redneck hicks who were so stupid to vote for Bush"...

What you're saying is the EXACT reason Democrats have a hard time winning...They're more than happy to blame everyone but themselves...

Democratic response if/when the Democrats win?..."The American people finally smartened up"...

Democratic response if/when the Republicans win?..."The American people are stupid."

I hate to tell you, but those "stupid people" are the same people that you'd love to have vote your way...Continually talking down to them and telling them how dumb they are isn't a good way to win them over...

If the Left continues to belittle everyone who disagrees with them, the results will not change...

Very well put. Bravo.

 

[oldreliable67]

Paraphrasing from a recent column by Andrew Ferguson:

Given the daily grind of bad news from Iraq, along with the other Repub and/or WH embarassements, its remarkable that a recent Rasmussen poll showed the Dems with only a slight edge, within the statistical margin of error. It was in this context that Pelosi and Reid released their "Plan to Protect America".

Rank-and-file Dems should ask the leadership for a do-over. The plan released last week was mostly devoted to listing Bush admin shortcomings.

The plan contains several pledges that may be smart but have nothing to do with national security, the issue on which the Dems perceived weakness gave the Repubs the edge last time. The plan does nothing to mute the real source of voter concerns about Dem and national security: their natural tendency to minimize threats and underestimate the response required.

And voters are right to worry. When Pelosi and Reid say they will "ensure that Iraqis assume primary responsibility for securing and governing their country" by the end of 2006, a voter might happily agree with the goal -- but then recall Pelosi's endorsement last December of Murtha's call for a complete and "immediate" withdrawal of US forces from Iraq.

Or the voter might hear an echo from DNC Chairman Howard Dean, who last year said, "The idea that we're going to win the war in Iraq is an idea which is just plain wrong."

Or maybe they will recall Pelosi's consistent opposition to the Patriot Act, or Reid's boasting that "We killed the Patriot Act. And they may recall that when Bush's NSA surveillance program was exposed, the first reaction of some prominent Dems - including John Conyers, who would become chairman of the Judiciary Committee if Dems gained a majority in the House -- was to "explore" the possibility of impeachment.

Bush, the Dems suggest by these actions, has been too tough on national security. This seems to be the point behind that curious focus-group formulation: "tough and smart" - a nice way of saying 'tough, but lets don't overdo it'. A majority of voters are unlikely to sympathize.

Source.

 

[The Real McCoy]

I would put the top tax rate back to where Clinton had it in 1993 - 39.3% to help balance the budget and pay down the national debt.

How about slashing spending instead? I can think of plenty of gov't agencies and programs I'd reform, phase out, privatize or totally gut. Namely SS, Medicare, smart DoD cuts, the FAA, the USDA, the FDA, the DEA, the FCC, the IRS, the TVA, the USPS, the list goes on.

 

[jfuh]

hate and slander, eh?...

I'll remember that the next time I hear "religious nutjobs" or "redneck hicks who were so stupid to vote for Bush"...

What you're saying is the EXACT reason Democrats have a hard time winning...They're more than happy to blame everyone but themselves...

Democratic response if/when the Democrats win?..."The American people finally smartened up"...

Democratic response if/when the Republicans win?..."The American people are stupid."

I hate to tell you, but those "stupid people" are the same people that you'd love to have vote your way...Continually talking down to them and telling them how dumb they are isn't a good way to win them over...

If the Left continues to belittle everyone who disagrees with them, the results will not change...

Rove politics don't do this?
"You're either with us or your with them (terrorists)."
The current Bush Inc. rhetoric is if you don't agree with us, your unpatriotic, anti-america and so on.
And yes ppl that vote based solely on religious ideology are indeed religious nut heads. "redneck hicks who were so stupid to vote for Bush" There's nothing false about that statment either. Just look at any polling, the majority of the educated elite did not vote for Bush, the bible belt /redneck country however did, as did most rural areas.
My contrast has been drawn against Bush, not against the GOP in general, as there are many decent GOP members in power.

 

[hipsterdufus]

How about slashing spending instead? I can think of plenty of gov't agencies and programs I'd reform, phase out, privatize or totally gut. Namely SS, Medicare, smart DoD cuts, the FAA, the USDA, the FDA, the DEA, the FCC, the IRS, the TVA, the USPS, the list goes on.

Slashing spending is part of it by I would disagree where the cuts are.
For example - Exxon is being subsidized by our government in the energy bill to the tune of one billion dollars. Yet they posted record profits for the quarter and 36 billion in profits for the year - why the corporate welfare? Because Big Oil wrote the energy bill. The same can be said for the credit card companies that wrote their own bill, and the Big Pharmaceutical Cos that did the same thing.

Kill the FDA? - The Bushies already decided to test less beef for mad cow disease? That's mind boggling to me. Do you want to leave this up to the multinational corporations to police themselves?

Kill the FCC? Bush has almost done that. Clinton helped. We're headed in a direction where one company will control all corporate media. Maybe you would like that, especially if it we Fox. Jefferson would disagree.

TVA? Maybe, I need to look into that one.

 

[The Real McCoy]

Slashing spending is part of it by I would disagree where the cuts are.
For example - Exxon is being subsidized by our government in the energy bill to the tune of one billion dollars. Yet they posted record profits for the quarter and 36 billion in profits for the year - why the corporate welfare? Because Big Oil wrote the energy bill. The same can be said for the credit card companies that wrote their own bill, and the Big Pharmaceutical Cos that did the same thing.

Agreed. Corporate Welfare must stop. Farm subsidies are another big one... to the tune of $30 billion last year, the vast majority of which going to giant agribusiness and a handful of elites with hardly a dime seen by most average farmers.

Kill the FDA? - The Bushies already decided to test less beef for mad cow disease? That's mind boggling to me. Do you want to leave this up to the multinational corporations to police themselves?

Yes. Putting out bad products is bad for business. Look at Underwriters Labortories. They're a private company. The UL logo is on thousands of household items. Their scrutiny is second to none. Or Consumer Reports. Why must the government do these things for us? The free market is a wonderful thing.

Kill the FCC? Bush has almost done that. Clinton helped. We're headed in a direction where one company will control all corporate media. Maybe you would like that, especially if it we Fox. Jefferson would disagree.

I think Jefferson would disagree with the FCC. Nobody forces us to watch corporate media. There will always be alternate points of view.

TVA? Maybe, I need to look into that one.

It was fine at the time. The Tennessee Valley got hammered by the Great Depression and the TVA helped prime the pump for prosperity. I don't think it's necessary anymore.

 

[Alias]

Every democrat that likes to point to Bush putting us in debt refuses to give the entire story. We are at war. Did you dems know that? Sometimes I wonder. Wars cost money, lots and lots of money. Lower taxes, make it favorable for business to expand which will produce jobs and thereby increase revenue. Taxation stunts everyone's growth except the government's.

 

[Alias]

I think public TV should not be funded by taxpayers.

 

[hipsterdufus]

Yes. Putting out bad products is bad for business. Look at Underwriters Labortories. They're a private company. The UL logo is on thousands of household items. Their scrutiny is second to none. Or Consumer Reports. Why must the government do these things for us? The free market is a wonderful thing.

UL and CR do great work, I agree, but they have no power over anyone. Big difference. The government's job, when done correctly, is to hold these multinational corporations responsible when they put out bad or dangerous products.

 

[hipsterdufus]

I have heard that if the FDA had existed back in the day, something like 50,000 more people would've gotten Polio.

You may be right. Believe me I don't think government is the answer to all of our problems. The FDA can be too cautious at times. I don't think ordering the FDA to cut back in testing of Mad Cow disease is the way to go. Sorry, that seems idiotic to me.

The problem we are having now is these federal agencies are so inneficient and full of incompetent cronies, that they can't do the jobs they were mandated to do!

I could list 100s of people that have went to and from the companies that they were supposed to regulate.

Former big oil execs regulating big oil?
Former FEMA director Joe Allbaugh makes millions lining up jobs for the Katrina rebuilding?

Of course, that's the Grover Norquist neo-con philosophy in a nutshell: make the government agencies so atrocoius, that no one complains when they go away.

I'm for an efficient, small, well-managed government. It is possible if the right people are hired.

At the very least, it should be the goal...

 

[Stinger]

I think public TV should not be funded by taxpayers.

I agree along with many of the cuts in the current proposal from the WH, will the Dem/Libs agree? Nope then they will blame Bush for not cutting the budget when it is THEIR job to do so.

 

[LeftyHenry]

Every democrat that likes to point to Bush putting us in debt refuses to give the entire story. We are at war. Did you dems know that? Sometimes I wonder. Wars cost money, lots and lots of money.

Right well the democrats you point to don't want to be at war because it is total bull. They don't want their money going into killing and bloodshed but rather SS, healthcare, or a tax cut. Did you repubs know that?

Lower taxes, make it favorable for business to expand which will produce jobs and thereby increase revenue. Taxation stunts everyone's growth except the government's.

Yes I think we should tax businesses less because it feeds the economy, however the economy isn't that simple and doesn't really work that way. cutting business tax puts us in a deficeit unless we make up for it some how.