A Balance of Power and Ideas?

QUINNSCOMMENTARY · Post by **QUINNSCOMMENTARY** » Sun Oct 19, 2008 10:35 am

Scrat;1026326 wrote: I think this time around it will be a good thing. We need to get something done in this country.

Perhaps, assuming that the "something" that gets done is right for America now and in the years ahead.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Mon Oct 20, 2008 3:45 am

QUINNSCOMMENTARY;1022869 wrote: It appears likely that after the next election, we will have a one party Congress and President. Is that a good thing?
That's never a good thing. The best thing for our country is government gridlock. Having one party in control means they can move forward, which means someone must decide what "forward" means. It's always the wrong direction. It inevitably results in politicians "doing" things to "help" people. Politicians always have to "do" things so that when they run for reelection they can point and say "I did that." Too many voters see the small picture that their current situations were helped and don't see the bigger picture of who had to pay for that help.

Logical limits for federal government in the US were passed generations ago. Any "progress" beyond that is harmful to our country.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Mon Oct 20, 2008 5:17 pm

Scrat;1028362 wrote: I agree with you AC but considering what has been going on in the recent past I am willing to give it a go. Maybe they will stop trying to rule the world and start taking care of America.

Or we could end up in a nuclear war.

Then I suggest voting one of the smaller parties.

QUINNSCOMMENTARY · Post by **QUINNSCOMMENTARY** » Tue Oct 21, 2008 3:05 pm

Scrat;1028765 wrote: This time it's Obama, the lesser of 2 evils as usual. To have McCain in office is to have more ruinous wars and the living standards to fall further.

It's not Congress or any party that will cause the standard of living to fall, that is happening because so many people were living beyond their means, this is just an adjustment back to reality.

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Tue Oct 21, 2008 3:58 pm

QUINNSCOMMENTARY;1022869 wrote: Regardless of which party is in control, a substantial percentage of Americans will be either unaffiliated or a member of the other party, so is one party and one mind set representative government if you happen to be on the other side of the political spectrum? :rolleyes:

The only problem with voting is that the majority keeps the power...:wah:...

But this goes back to the Democrat vs Republican ideology that many say shouldn't be categorized wholeheartedly...Many Democrats have voted Republican before and vica versa thing...

The fact of the matter is is that the campaigns are only effective when they demonize "the other party"...It's the campaigns that need fixing...Otherwise how would you tell the difference between one or the other without already having had voted them into an office?...Think about it...

I'm all for the monarchy...As long as I'm the one crowned King of course.

Sink your teeth into this one...We have two Presidential leaders...That's right!!!!!!!...Obama/McCain as President...:wah:...

Could you see the dinner table now?...:wah:...

Wait...They might actually like that better!!!!!!...

:wah:

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Tue Oct 21, 2008 4:45 pm

Scrat;1030016 wrote: I don't know if this is the right way to look at it. Rep and Dems are 2 factions of the same ruling elite. Voting effectively may make people feel like they have done something to influence their future ect, taken some form of control in their lives but in reality nothing has changed.
That's pretty much what I've been sayin'. To vote for either is to vote for both. They've been in so long they've set the rules so that no real competition has a chance.

Now there's where some trust-busting is needed! :yh_idea

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Tue Oct 21, 2008 4:55 pm

Scrat;1030016 wrote: I don't know if this is the right way to look at it. Rep and Dems are 2 factions of the same ruling elite. Voting effectively may make people feel like they have done something to influence their future ect, taken some form of control in their lives but in reality nothing has changed.

My emphasis is more so on people not necessarily educated as to the true agenda of Presidential nominees being influenced to vote on those who have a better sales pitch for a campaign...

The fact remains, ironically enough, that there is significantly more people running for President of the United States of America yet only two legitimate contenders...

The problem lies in the campaigns and the people that automatically tune other Presidential campaigns out because they don't have enough sponsorship AKA: Votes being bought.

Make all campaigns funded all by the taxes of the people paying for what I would consider a limit of but encouraged to see 20 people with equally pragmatic campaign adds divided equally. No one buying their way to the top by virtue of promises that are of no benefit to the significant majority of the country. Obviously the sum of tax payers' dollars being limited to a reasonable amount.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Tue Oct 21, 2008 5:03 pm

Scrat;1030018 wrote: I liked Ron Paul, he didn't fit the elite that makes the choices for us.
Yup. Radio & TV killed his campaign. He might've won if we could only read his words rather than hear his voice.

wildhorses · Post by **wildhorses** » Tue Nov 04, 2008 2:37 am

QUINNSCOMMENTARY;1022869 wrote: In the beginning....

there were no political party affiliations, but today it seems that political party affiliation takes precedence over common sense or even the national good.

It appears likely that after the next election, we will have a one party Congress and President. Is that a good thing?

Our government is set up with checks and balances under three branches, legislative, judicial and executive.

Is that balance in jeopardy when both houses of Congress are controlled by the party of the President?

A few years ago perhaps it would not be an issue, but today with nothing but partisanship, are we going to have the kind of government we think we have?

Regardless of which party is in control, a substantial percentage of Americans will be either unaffiliated or a member of the other party, so is one party and one mind set representative government if you happen to be on the other side of the political spectrum? :rolleyes:

OMG. I agree with Quinn?

Yes our government was set up to balance itself. It appears there is a major flaw when one party can control everything. Regardless of which party gets that total control....it is not healthy

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Tue Nov 04, 2008 4:30 am

Ups and downs in history of one-party rule | csmonitor.com

The history of one-party rule in America is fraught with triumphs and peril.

Franklin Roosevelt swept into power in 1933 at a time of economic depression, and, with a Democratic congressional majority behind him, was able to enact a raft of legislation in just a few months. But in his second term, President Roosevelt overreached and ran afoul of his own party.

Two more recent presidents, Democrats Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter, also began their tenure with congressional majorities – in Carter’s case, quite sizable ones – but with both men, the relationship grew tense. Carter enjoyed some success with Congress, but his outside-the-Beltway style, and the aides he brought with him from Georgia, often clashed with the Washington insiders.

With Clinton, the failures of his first two years – fueled by a cantankerous Democratic majority – cost his party control of both houses in the first mid-term elections. It was only when Clinton faced Republican majorities in Congress that his presidency took off.

For Senator Obama, should he become president, the most relevant historical example is President Franklin Roosevelt, says presidential historian Robert Dallek.

“We were in dire straits, says Mr. Dallek. “As Roosevelt said himself in his first inaugural, ‘This country is asking for action and action now.’ That’s what he gave them. In the first 100 days, he passed 15 major pieces of legislation. He couldn’t have done it unless he had a crisis and strong party support.

Everybody'd better hang on to your wallets! :-3

QUINNSCOMMENTARY · Post by **QUINNSCOMMENTARY** » Tue Nov 04, 2008 2:10 pm

wildhorses;1044845 wrote: OMG. I agree with Quinn?

Yes our government was set up to balance itself. It appears there is a major flaw when one party can control everything. Regardless of which party gets that total control....it is not healthy

I had to laugh out loud at this one. In my office, I am generally out of sync with the norm that goes on in office and business decisions and politics. At staff meetings, there are a few people who are at opposite ends of the spectrum from me but on occasion the phrase rings out...

OMG, I agree with Quinn.

Now, if I could get to hear that more often, all would be right with the world. :wah::wah::wah::wah::wah: