Originally posted by pizzinteaI think the two party system has served this democratic republic (the US)well over our history, I think a system were there were 5 or 6 or 7 different parties wouldn't do as well.
Which works better?
However, we need some serious reform. there is a need to get back to government exercising common sense, pragmatism, and fiscal responsibility. Government needs to return to the basic premise of doing whats best for all (or the greatest majority) of the American people. That means stop doing whats best for my congressional district , city or state and doing whats best for the entire country. Stop pandering to this racial group, or that minority, or this business sector, or that special interest group and doing whats right for the American people in a common sense, down to earth manner.
Thats my take on it, unfortunately, I don't see that happening in my lifetime. And I don't see it happening without some national disaster or crisis of a size and nature that this country has yet to see. Hopefully, I won't be around to see it happen
Originally posted by SMSBear716Well, Gore's financial plan was far more economically sound than Bush's. Did you vote for him?
However, we need some serious reform. there is a need to get back to government exercising common sense, pragmatism, and fiscal responsibility. Government needs to return to the basic premise of doing whats best for all (or the greatest majority) of the American people. That means stop doing whats best for my congressional district , city or state and doi ...[text shortened]... ze and nature that this country has yet to see. Hopefully, I won't be around to see it happen
Did you vote for Kerry once it was clear after Bush has four years of record spending and record
deficits? I'll be you didn't. So much for fiscal responsibility!
The key to getting real politicians in (and not the three morons who are running now) is money.
When the tremendous (and frankly obscene) amounts of money being raised make or break a
campaign, none of the politicians can be faithful to their district, state or country, period. They
can only be faithful to those people and corporations who give them those massive amounts of
money.
Of course, campaign finance reform (originally spearheaded by McCain) lost to 'free speech,'
in which it became evident that some people have more free speech than others.
Nemesio
the us has a multi-party system. it's just that all the campaign money goes to either the democrats or the republican. if the big spenders will only support these two parties or better said if the big spenders are allowed to give this much money to these parties it is obvious the little people will never get elected and the nation only has to choose between two ideologies( which may be both wrong at a certain time)
the us will not have a multi party system unless the corporations are forbidden to write checks for candidates. maybe even impose a limit on how much campaign money a certain candidate has.
and yes, a 2 party system is one party away from a one-party(obvious) system and the end of democracy.
Originally posted by NemesioThe only thing wrong with your diatribe (other than the obvious) is that the President proposes and Congress disposes. A simple concept they use to teach in schools... who knows how they teach it now.
Well, Gore's financial plan was far more economically sound than Bush's. Did you vote for him?
Did you vote for Kerry once it was clear after Bush has four years of record spending and record
deficits? I'll be you didn't. So much for fiscal responsibility!
The key to getting real politicians in (and not the three morons who are running now) is money. ...[text shortened]... n which it became evident that some people have more free speech than others.
Nemesio
But the point is the President proposes a budget to Congress, what comes out after they add to it , hack it up, add pork for their states/congressional districts/city has no resemblance to what the Executive branch submitted. Oh sure the President can twist some arms and cut some deals, but in the end the federal budget is the creation of Congress
Besides immigration, my other chief complaint about President Bush is that he seemed to forget that he had the power of veto over the spending that comes out of Congress, maybe he misplaced that veto pen, who knows
Originally posted by SMSBear716Bush always seemed to have his 'signing statements' pen handy, though, didn't he? A reprehensible contempt for democracy from such a bafflingly inadequate man. Just goes to show you how passive and cowed so much of the American electorate is (if it bothers to vote, that is).
President Bush [...] seemed to forget that he had the power of veto over the spending that comes out of Congress, maybe he misplaced that veto pen, who knows
And the ones who are relatively active or purportedly 'analytical' so often seem to be plain mean-spirited, proudly small-minded and slaves to their hook-line-and-sinker orthodoxy.
You no doubt feel your 'principled opposition' to Bush is living proof of the wonder of free speech and democracy at work. And yet to hear your thoughts on politics on this forum is always a glimpse into a suffocatingly dogmatic, self-absorbed, selfish, shallow and profoundly conformist public domain and economic culture that you seem determined to force upon every inch of the Earth at gunpoint.
Two parties? Please do not presume that all non-Americans have internalized the hopeless monoculture of your political sphere and, like you, see it as some sort of self-evidently applicable paradigm that "works pretty well".
With your corporate warping of the political process, deeply ingrained cronyism (Bush being a textbook example) and 'manifest destiny' played out on the world stage with a $550,000,000,000 Offence Budget, your Two Party State is a Kakistocracy, pure and simple
Originally posted by SMSBear716
The only thing wrong with your diatribe (other than the obvious) is that the President proposes and Congress disposes. A simple concept they use to teach in schools... who knows how they teach it now.
None of this contradicts my manifestly true claims: Bush's proposed budget when he was first
running for President was economically unfeasible even back then. Gore's was financially
responsible, if not a little overly conservative. The same is true was when he was running for
reëlection against Kerry, and after we were subjected to four years of record deficits and debt.
Yes, Bush proposed, Congress disposed (and added pork, which you and I can agree is
reprehensible), and Bush signed. Who was initially and ultimately responsible: Bush.
So, where was your allegiance to fiscal responsibility? You didn't have one. You had allegiance
to the Republican party.
Nemesio
Originally posted by NemesioI think a parliamentary system can help with the money issue - certainly it works here.
Well, Gore's financial plan was far more economically sound than Bush's. Did you vote for him?
Did you vote for Kerry once it was clear after Bush has four years of record spending and record
deficits? I'll be you didn't. So much for fiscal responsibility!
The key to getting real politicians in (and not the three morons who are running now) is money. ...[text shortened]... n which it became evident that some people have more free speech than others.
Nemesio
Politicians support their party almost without fail, which means that money doesn't need to be spent by interest groups and lobbyists on any one politician, but rather they need to attract the attention of the party itself.