The mid-term elections are one week from today. The Republicans deserve to lose. The Democrats don't deserve to win.

The conditions for an opposition party victory are all there: an unpopular war, an on-again/off-again economy, a demoralized majority-party base, and a general fatigue felt among the American people toward the president. But when the opposition party promotes policies so far afield from the American mainstream, that party does not become the default party just because the majority party messes up.

Americans believe in God, want government off their backs, and when America is at war, Americans root for America. The national Democratic Party seems to have finally realized all this again. Charlie Rangel and Nancy Pelosi defended President Bush when he came under attack as the "devil" by Hugo Chavez. Barack Obama spoke openly about his faith in God. But are Americans buying it?

Leading Democrats express confidence that they will win back Congress. But they won't win the Senate, and their chances of winning back the House--though still better than even by my assessment--grow weaker daily. Strong candidates--Harold Ford and Jim Webb--will not win because the Democratic Party is so unpopular in the South. Pennsylvania Senate candidate Bob Casey and North Carolina House candidate Heath Shuler will win because they reject the national party's stance on key issues. The party has become a regional party, appealing to voters on the coasts, and in urban areas, but nowhere else. Americans don't support gay marriage, abortion, higher taxes, bigger government, open borders, or reduced sovereignty. Democrats do.

And if the Democrats fail to meet expectations on November 7, this will be the reason. If Democrats don't win Congress under the ideal conditions presented to them this year, intelligent Democrats must surely reassess the core ideas that their party espouses. But they won't.

You end on the note that "intelligent Democrats must surely reassess the core ideas that their party espouses. But they won't." I think that your claim is true only if by "intelligence" you mean "prudence" in Machiavelli's desicated sense of simple effectiveness in achieving one's goals. That is, if Democrats simply want power than yes by all means they have to change their stance on numerous key issues to become a majority party.

But if any Democrats actually believe in the nutty ideas they espouse then for THAT reason they won't reassess their core ideas b/c pride and true belief always makes admitting error difficult. Then they can just be relegated to a minority party and hopefully dwindle to the level of the Libertarian Party or some such.

I think it would be nice if people actually thought deeply about politics and the human good and came to hold principles and then acted upon those openly instead of just trying ideas out as a pragmatic means of obtaining power over others, that is, getting elected. Maybe we are witnessing some amount of Democratic politicians actually demonstrating that they do have convictions they are willing to go down in defeat trying to argue for in front of the electorate. That is fine by me (as long as they are defeated of course). Isn't that kind of the way it should be? It is partisanship which strikes me as much more unnatural as it promotes a homogeneity and mealy-mouthed lack of genuine principles in individuals in order to be admitted to the back rooms of power.

Dan yor misunderstanding of politics is unfortunate and broad.

Start with the most basic point though. Although you don't state it expliitly in your post, I assume you share the view that Democrats don't deserve to win because they haven't proposed a platform.

What you don't realize is that the Democrats consciously made a strategic decision not to propose one because they thought a refferendum election would win them more seats.

It seems they are about to be proved right.

Now one may take issue with the value of a positionless party, but in the end both parties and in this to win and one shouldn't mistake a bluff for a bad hand.

----------------------

Lets take the rest of this one by one.
________________________
AMERICANS BELIEVE IN GOD

One cannot deny that the perception of the Democratic party as being hostile to religion has hurt them at the polls. I would challenge, however, the idea that the Democratic elites, in practice, are any more secular than the Republican ones.

The Republican party has done a wonderful job of politzing the American fundamentalist movement by adopting several key positions, namley ooposition to abortion, gay rights, etc.

If you think, however, that this is anything other than a cynical ploy to manipulate religious people you are delusional. Daivid Kuo's recent book has pointed out what most thinking people have known all along: that the Republican Party is in politics to favour certain elements of the bussiness community (with a few small govenment Conservatives still left over from 94).

Big Business doesn't have enough votes to get them elected, so they manipulate Christians to vote for them by avowing positions on social issues that they themseleves do not believe in and have no intention of ever acting upon.

Why is abortion still legal? Why isn't there a consitutional amendment banning gay marriage?

George Bush spent acres of political capital in a failed drive to privatize Social Security (a laudable goal, but poorly done in his plan). Yet the only time you hear him talk about gay marriage is a few weeks before an election.

His father was pro-choice. His mother was pro-choice. He lived most of his adult life as a hardcore partier. And suddenly he's speaking in tounges and talking about "a culture of life.'?

Its a ploy! Its worked well for the past decade or so, but its wearing thin.

And as for the Democrats, many of them are religious.

Do you really think a guy like Rob Portman is more religious than someone like Elanor Norton? Or that George Allen is more religous than Tim Kaine?

The difference between Democrats and Republicans isn't so much that one believes in god, and the other doesn't. Its that one believes that faith and government ought to be seperated, and the other doesn't.
----

_______________________________
WANT GOVERNMENT OFF THIER BACKS

This allegation is especially iroinc under the Bush presidency.

Traditionally the Republican party has been the party of small government and civil liberties.

Since 2000 however, the party has become more Big Government than the Democrats ever were, and has eroded civil liberties.

Although the party did pass tax cuts that lowered most people's tax bill (but still disproportionatly favoured the rich), it has simultaniously raised discresionary, non-defence spending at the highest rate since the days of Lyndon Johnson's Great Society.

And growth, although strong, has not compensated for the fall in revenues.

The resulting budget deficit has raised our debt to high (albeit -for now- manageable) levels. But this new spending creates the possiblity that the governemnt will face a severe fiscal crisis in 10-15 years time, as the baby boomers retire, entirlment spending goes up and revenue goes down.

Unless spending is cut soon and deep, the prospect of tax hikes in the 10-15 year time frame is nearly certain. If we don't do it, we risk default and the currency will collapse.

Rather than assuring that the tax man is off our back, this Republican party has set the stage for a fiscal crisis that- if unchanged- can only be solved by higher taxes.

Aside from fiscal policy, this party has expanded Big Government into education (a policy that I personally favour), healthcare (strongly against), and social issues (strongly against, even if is mostly window dressing).

Who can forget the spectale of the Unied States Congress trying to legislate itself into the middle of a family dispute in Florida.?

That is the face of today's Republican Party.

I would contrast that with the Democrats' stances.

Democrats want the Government out of social policy, want to restore fiscal responsibility to Congress, and protect the civil liberties of Americans usurped under the Partiot Act.

It is not same landscape now as it was growing up in the 1980's.

The Democratic Party is the party of small government. The party of the balanced budget, the Clinton economy, freedom from other people's religious views, and freedom from government intusion into our most intimate affairs.

__________________________________________________
WHEN AMERICA IS AT WAR, AMERICANS ROOT FOR AMERICA

Implying what? That Democrats don't root for America?

This one isn't even worth my time.
----
______________________________
THEY WON'T TAKE BACK THE SENATE

I'm certainly with you here.

Most handicappers put the Senate at 50-50. I say its 75-25 that the Republicans keep control.

Democrats take MT, OH, RI, and PA and hold NJ and MD.

But they have to win two out of three border states, and I dunno.

You might be right that Ford and Webb lose, but don't fool yourself as to why.

Ford is black man in a white man's race. He'll win Memphis and Nashville, maybe even Brentwood. But he ain't winning Oneida and we all know why.

Webb is actually ahead in the most recent polls. Indications are that Allen's ruse backfired (as I predicted).

We'll see. It's too close to call. I think there's a 15% lie in both races (remember who Webb is married too.)

You say the Democratic Party is so unpopular in the South, but the South sure is a chagin' boy!

Northern Virginia looks a lot like Maryland, and now that Nashville's got some industry you don't have to be a drunk redneck to succeed in (ie country music), more sophisticated, less racist folk are movin' in.

All this may not swing the South this time around, but the more the South looks like Research Park Triangle and less like Deliverance, the more competitive the Democrats become.
----

_________________
REGIONAL PARTY

File this under Zell Miller is an idiot.

If you think that everything political happens on the 2000 and 2004 presidental maps: you are a complete moron!!

Democrats have governorships in TN, NC, VA, LA, NM, KS, OK, IN, WY, AZ, and of course MT. All 'red' states, as we stupidly say nowdays.

We will also pick up in this cycle CO and AR, with
AK, NV, and even ID, yes IDAHO still on the radar screens. All red states.

By the end of this cycle Democrats will have a majortiy of governorships, including 5 of the 11 states of the Old Confederacy and probably 6 of the 8 Rocky Mountian states.

In the United States Senate, Democrats are represneted well everywhere but the Deep South.

The the US House there are many, many districts in the South that would disagree with your statement that the Democrats appeal only to the urban disticts. In most Southern states the opposite is true, with the Democrats splitting the rural districts evenly.

And lastly, state legislatues. The farm teams of politics. Democrats are represnted well pretty much everywhere, even holding Alabama.

I'm not gonna get into how Clinton won Montana and Georgia.

Even at the presidental level, the fact is you are extrapoliating two presidential cycles and laying them down as some sort of politcal law.

How about this?

GW Bush is a Southerner, so the South voted for him.

Doesn't that make just as much sense as saying the Democrats can't win there.?

Don't know? Ask Mike Easley.
-----
_______________________________________________
Americans don't support gay marriage, abortion, higher taxes, bigger government, open borders, or reduced sovereignty. Democrats do.

Is there any truth to this sweeping statement?

Let's find out:

Gay Marriage- FALSE.

Most Americans oppose, but most Democrats also oppose (perhaps only for electral reasons).

Abortion-FALSE

Most Americans are IN FAVOUR, but want certain restritions. Most Democrats share that position.

Higher Taxes- TRUE

Most Americans certainly oppose higher taxes, most Democrats don't mind them so long as thier targeted properly.

Open Borders- FALSE

A little vague here what "Open Borders" means, but most Americans are soilidly pro-immigration. So are the Democrats. There is a strident, vocal minority that wants to shut immigration off all together -illegal or even legal. These people are Republicans. They are not in the mainstream, even in their own party- which is basically pro-immigration.

Reduced Sovereignty- UNCLEAR

Really unclear what is meant by this. Is the UN reduced sovereignty? The WTO? NAFTA?

_________________________________________
If the Democrats don't win...

They need to come up with a better strategy. Absoulutly agree.

But Dan, don't confuse politics with core beliefs.

Politics is a game. You play to win.

The Republian's have a better strategy than the Dems. They've managed to convince a whole flock of unsuspecting people that they have core beliefs and the Democrats don't.

That Democrats are all about stealing your guns, killing your baby, and letting the terrorists win.

What bullsh*t.

I'll agree that if the Dems loose they need to reevaluate.

Not thier beliefs, but how strongly they stand up for them.

Hope that was informative, y'all here have a lot to learn about politics.

Feel free to ask questions : )

peace

Bruce you massivly misunderstand the dynamic of a two party system if you think the the Democrats will dwindle at the level of the Libertarian Party.

Even during the Republican Party's darkest days it still stayed competetive. That's the nature of the two party system, when one abuses its power (as inevitable happens), the other takes over.
.
Ever heard of Duverger's Law? First past the post election systems produce two parties. Theorhetically the Democrats could dwindle if another takes its place, but what usually happens is the ideas of the third party become incorporated into sinking one, and it props back up.

Duverger's Law. Look it up buddy.

__________________________________________________
BTW I challenge you or anyone to name THREE nutty ideas that you associate with Democrats.

I will seek to prove to you that either 1. The idea is not nutty. of 2. It is not espoused by the majority of Democrats.

peace

Some nutty ideas espoused by Democrats: if it wasn't for immigration we would pay $5.00 for a head of lettuce; immigrants do the jobs Americans won't; our economy needs immigrants to stay competitive.

I'm sure I could come up with more, but I'm pressed for time. Later,

Saw a moonbatmobile the other day with a bumper sticker that stated that Karl Rove is a traitor.

I would offer a real traitor, certainly one who could be considered treasoness, as the senior Senator from the Republic of Mass., Ted Kennedy.

Why is this not bigger news?

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=/Nation/archive/200610/NAT20061020b.html

An excerpt:

'(CNSNews.com) - The antipathy that congressional Democrats have today toward President George W. Bush is reminiscent of their distrust of President Ronald Reagan during the Cold War, a political science professor says.

"We see some of the same sentiments today, in that some Democrats see the Republican president as being a threat and the true obstacle to peace, instead of seeing our enemies as the true danger," said Paul Kengor, a political science professor at Grove City College and the author of new book, "The Crusader: Ronald Reagan and the Fall of Communism."

In his book, which came out this week, Kengor focuses on a KGB letter written at the height of the Cold War that shows that Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) offered to assist Soviet leaders in formulating a public relations strategy to counter President Reagan's foreign policy and to complicate his re-election efforts.'

A logical old school Democrat like his brother John, who defended us against the Communist Horde, must be spinning in his grave. I can't help but think that if JFK were alive, he would unceremoniously b-slap some sense into his bloated brother.

And the Dems wonder why they'll always be working to attain that elusive majority?

Shoot: that would be "treasonous". Reading too many of HeHe's posts.

Do any of you think that the NJ marriage decision will figure into the election much?

I don't think so. I'm not basing that on any particular political knowledge, just my gut feel.

"It seems they are about to be proved right." -HeHe

It really doesn't, now.

"The Republican party has done a wonderful job of politzing the American fundamentalist movement by adopting several key positions, namley ooposition to abortion, gay rights, etc.

If you think, however, that this is anything other than a cynical ploy to manipulate religious people you are delusional. Daivid Kuo's recent book has pointed out what most thinking people have known all along: that the Republican Party is in politics to favour certain elements of the bussiness community (with a few small govenment Conservatives still left over from 94).

Big Business doesn't have enough votes to get them elected, so they manipulate Christians to vote for them by avowing positions on social issues that they themseleves do not believe in and have no intention of ever acting upon.

Why is abortion still legal? Why isn't there a consitutional amendment banning gay marriage? " -HeHe

Support for this paranoid conjecture please. The reason there is no constitutional amendment banning gay marriage is because attempting to pass one would be a complete failure.

The problem of judges has been addressed here before, and it seems that it is a more systematic one than simply who appoints them.

"The difference between Democrats and Republicans isn't so much that one believes in god, and the other doesn't. Its that one believes that faith and government ought to be seperated, and the other doesn't." -HeHe

The democratic base doesn't believe religion should be seperate from the state, they believe the state should ban it. They pull out seperation of church and state for every possible scenario, most of which have nothing to do with the US congress.

"Implying what? That Democrats don't root for America?

This one isn't even worth my time. " -HeHe

Apparently HeHe has never met a leftist. Then again, he himself only barely roots for America.

"Although the party did pass tax cuts that lowered most people's tax bill (but still disproportionatly favoured the rich), it has simultaniously raised discresionary, non-defence spending at the highest rate since the days of Lyndon Johnson's Great Society." -Eric Wilds

This is silly leftist inspired whining. The rich benefited disproportionately because they pay disproportinately. And they should benefit more than the rest of us. They invest more than the rest of us. Cutting taxes to the investing class leads to more economic growth for everyone.

"The resulting budget deficit has raised our debt to high (albeit -for now- manageable) levels. But this new spending creates the possiblity that the government will face a severe fiscal crisis in 10-15 years time, as the baby boomers retire, entirlment spending goes up and revenue goes down." -HeHe

Firstly, the deficit is a political football, and it is total government spending that matters.

Secondly, the deficit has dropped by over half since 2004 and is now well below the 40 year average. If congress were to keep spending to no faster than the rate of inflation (fat chance, I know) than we would be back in the black next year.

"The Democratic Party is the party of small government. The party of the balanced budget, the Clinton economy, freedom from other people's religious views, and freedom from government intusion into our most intimate affairs." -HeHe

HeHe is now officially out of his mind.

What are the democratic problems with the Medicare drug benefit? Didn't go far enough

What are their problems with the tax cuts? That they exist at all.

What are their problems with no child left behind? Didn't go far enough.

Social Security? Any retraction is undesirable.

The democrats are the party of bigGER government.

"Hope that was informative, y'all here have a lot to learn about politics." -HeHe

It was definitely informative.

"Some nutty ideas espoused by Democrats: if it wasn't for immigration we would pay $5.00 for a head of lettuce; immigrants do the jobs Americans won't; our economy needs immigrants to stay competitive.

I'm sure I could come up with more, but I'm pressed for time. Later," -Eric Wilds

They are correct. We can correct the problem all together by just abolishing the minimum wage.

Accidentally put Eric Wilds name in there when I was quoting HeHe. Sorry about that, mixed up the two posts.

Eric, this one is way too easy.

First let's dispose of the arguments, then i'll tell you why this all doesn't even matter

1. "If it wasn't for immigration we'd pay 5.00 for a head of lettuce."

Wether you like it or not, this is factualy true. I don't about the precise figure of 5.00, but if labour costs for the produer rise, then economics tells us that the price of the product will rise as well.

Hiring illegals under the table is certainly a good way to keep labour costs down. And that's why lettuce is a cheap as it is.

Its not nutty its economics. You should take a course.

2. "Immigrants do the jobs Americans won't"

This is absoulutley true, with one caveat. Immigrants do the jobs Americans won't do - for slave wages.

3. "Our economy needs immigrants to stay competitive."

This is debatable, but there is a very good case to be made that this is true. First, the immigrants we have coming into the United States are keeping the nation relatively young compared to our counterparts in Europe and Japan.

Although we will face a demographic crunch when the baby boomers retire, it will be much less severe than our developed peers, thanks to immigration.
_________________________

Now why all of this doesn't matter:

THESE ARE REPUBLICAN POSITIONS!

All three of these "nutty" ideas you just cited aren't just grounded in the science of economics, they are arguments used by one GW Bush in his defence of his immigration policy.

The Republican party is the party of Big Bussiness. And Big Bussiness likes immigration. It keeps their profits up. So the Republican party likes immigration.

The WSJ editorial page? Loves it. AEI? Loves it. GW BUSH. Loves it.

And when Republicans defend their immigration stane, they use economic arguments like the ones you cite above.

Democrats, by contrast, usually cite the "we are a nation of immigrants" crap.

Now Eric, I know conservative talk radio is on an all-out blitz to get Congress re-elected. And I know that part of that effort entails talking-up the border security cred of the administration and the minority of Repub Congressmen who want to go Par Buchanan on the border.

But turn back that dial, and listen to reason for a change.

At the end of the day, as I said, the Republicans are the party of Big Bussiness. And- just like with the Christian Reich- they may make noises your way before election day, but they have no intention of cracking down on immigration.

The Republican Party is pro-immigration, legal or illegal.

That's the truth.

Don't like it?

Vote Duncan Hunter for Prez.

Hi, I'm new and am learning how to re-educate you stoopid conservatives. I plan on spending an inordinate and futile amount of time here (as dicktated by the Master) so if you guys could just take a minute and soak in all of the important liberal truths, that would be great!

Only three? Here you are, three "nutty" Democratic ideas: (1) A woman has the right to murder her unborn child. (2) Foreigners (illegal immigrants, terrorists, et al.) possess the rights of American citizens. (3) A poorer citizen is entitled to some of the wealth of a wealthier citizen.

Glad to see 'liveshot' John Kerry self destructing....AGAIN!

Stupid a$$ libs. Never learn. They hate Bush so much that they mask any semblence of good reason they may have had.

Roe vs Wade has been on the books for 30 years and so is settled law. Marriage which has existed relatively unchanged for the past few millenia of Western Civilization is not settled law and open to change.

John Kerry is not a lib.

He's a dumbass skull and bones bastard just like Bush.

"He's a dumbass skull and bones bastard just like Bush."

Wow, you are not smart.

"Roe v. Wade is on the books, its settled law"

Yes the stare decisis argument is strong here.
But I repeat, if Repubs care about the issue that much they would have used the power of the bully pulpit to change American's minds. The way Reagan talked of an "Evil Empire" and Bush of an "Axis of Evil".

They didn't. And won't. Because its too good a campaign issue to ruin.

'Marriage which has existed relatively unchanged for the past few millenia of Western Civilization'

Tell that to the Ancient Greeks and Romans, whose biseuxal bathouse orgies were as much a part of their civilization as hot dogs our cuisine.

You know HeHe, I've been saying for some time now that libs eat their own. Didn't take you long to throw him under the bus, eh? This ought to help the Dems in the midterms.

What a bunch of maroons.

"Tell that to the Ancient Greeks and Romans, whose biseuxal bathouse [sic] orgies were as much a part of their civilization as hot dogs our cuisine."

What a non-sequitur. Were ancient Greek and Roman homosexuals married?

"I think it would be nice if people actually thought deeply about politics and the human good and came to hold principles, and then acted upon those openly...."

That's a high bar to clear. Isn't deep thought about politics rather difficult? I doubt that any significant portion of the electorate is even curious about political prinicples, much less capable of serious thought. I just hope that enough of them have been instilled with endoxa.

Probably true Ralph, I actually had in mind people running for elected office rather than the electorate in general so shouldn't have said "people" simply.

I was only trying to respond to Dan's suggestions that Democrats (by which I assumed he meant specifically Democrat politicians and office-seekers) reevaluate their core beliefs by saying that I am fine if they actually have principles they keep sticking to as long as they are repeatedly defeated. If they reevaluate their beliefs I hope that it would be done as an act of sincerity, by realizing they are wrong, rather than as a means to gain power.

Didn't the troll mention in an earlier post that Kerry was a good guy and would do all kinds of neat stuff, including get us out of the war? Maybe he did something that made sense and the trolls are mad at him now.

Yes he would make a better president than Bush.

That doesn't mean he's a good campaigner, or that he's the best the Democrats have to offer.

go back to the post.

Hehe,

Immigrants do not keep prices low -- although they do lower wages; do not make America more competitive, and are not doing jobs Americans refuse to do. The consequences of mass immigration are relatively simple to understand: a huge increase in the supply of labor, which puts downward pressure on wages, lowers the per-capita GDP of the country.

Economic growth -- increases in productivity -- does not come from importing more immigrants but creating a more capital-intensive economy that lowers prices. The large of supply of labor prevents America's agriculture industry from mechanizing and thus actually retards economic growth. All jobs in the United States were down before mass immigration commenced in the late 1960's.

In parts of the country still untouched by immigration -- the northeast, northwest -- jobs that we associate with immigrants are being done by American citizens.

More immigration does not make us more competitive. Again, a "competitive" economy is one that experiences increases in productivity, not one that imports more workers. If a large labor supply was a factor in economic "competitiveness" then Rwanda would out compete most of Europe. Iraq would be richer than Switzerland.

I agree that Republicans are on board for more immigration, but that still doesn't mean support for immigration isn't nutty. I don't think I'll vote Republican anyway, but I won't vote for the Democrats either.

Whatever party is out of power tends to be the best party. So Republicans were a better party when Clinton was in office and Democrats are a better party now that Republicans are in office.

Ben,

I agree that the "tax cuts for the rich" mantra the Democrats have perfected is ridiculous -- the rich benefit from tax cuts the most because they pay most of the taxes. But who cares? The "rich" also benefit the most when interest rates are cut because they can re-finance their million dollar homes at lower rates and save tens of thousands of dollars, so why don't Democrats complain about interest rate cuts? The same argument could apply.

Tax cuts do not benefit the economy unless they are met with reductions in federal spending. In fact borrowing money is worse than a tax increase. When the government raises taxes it takes some money that would have been invested, but most that would have been spent. However, when it borrows money it takes money entirely out of the savings pool, so borrowing, say 200 million dollars, is worse than raising taxes by 200 million.

The Republican Congress and President Bush get zero credit for any economic growth.

"Americans believe in God, want government off their backs, and when America is at war, Americans root for America....Americans don't support gay marriage, abortion, higher taxes, bigger government, open borders, or reduced sovereignty."

In my mind, these sentences are antipodal in substance. If Americans really wanted government off of their backs, they would never advocate for restrictions on marriage, a criminal law issue decided on a national level(Constitutional Amendment banning abortion), more security, or a war that is costing 2 billion dollars a week.

Government is expanding under both parties, because politics today is a Machiavellian power grab with no regard for the issues.

"The Republicans deserve to lose. The Democrats don't deserve to win."

This statement is true, so, sac up...start a new party that makes some sense, or become an independent. Smart Republicans all sound like they are crying in their beer.

"Tax cuts do not benefit the economy unless they are met with reductions in federal spending. In fact borrowing money is worse than a tax increase. When the government raises taxes it takes some money that would have been invested, but most that would have been spent. However, when it borrows money it takes money entirely out of the savings pool, so borrowing, say 200 million dollars, is worse than raising taxes by 200 million.

The Republican Congress and President Bush get zero credit for any economic growth. " -Eric Wilds

I'm not sure that I agree that borrowing is necessarily worse, but both are terrible. I agree that Bush and Congress deserve little credit.

Thing is that John Kerry is EXACTLY the type of candidate the Dems pick and that's why they're losers.

"Free em' all" Mike Dukakis, "Moonbeam" Al Gore, "Reporting for Duty" John Kerry. And many more liberal losers at other levels of government.

These guys are what the Democratic party stands for.

Hey Hehe. I'm still waiting for your brilliant refutation of the nuttiness of these Democratic ideas:

(1) A woman has the right to murder her unborn child. (2) Foreigners (illegal immigrants, terrorists, et al.) possess the rights of American citizens. (3) A poorer citizen is entitled to some of the wealth of a wealthier citizen.

I'm also wondering if Ancient Greek homosexuals were "married."

Actually Ben-T borrowing is much worse, becuase it comes with interest.

That means even higher taxes in the future.

If the cost of financing the government increases then the private sector must pay for it either through 1) higher taxes or 2) federal borrowing. If the government raisies taxes by X amount, part of that amount, say 10%, might've been saved while the other 90% would've been spent. So increasing taxes only drains a small amount out of new savings and investments. However, if the government borrows X amount then 100% of that amount comes from savings.

Economic growth is financed by savings, so borrowing X amount hinders economic growth more than a tax increase. Now, I'm all for tax cuts, especially on investment income and capital gains, but there's no free lunch. That is why conservatives have traditionally believed in "less government" not just lower taxes. Those days are gone.

"If the government raisies taxes by X amount, part of that amount, say 10%, might've been saved while the other 90% would've been spent. So increasing taxes only drains a small amount out of new savings and investments. However, if the government borrows X amount then 100% of that amount comes from savings." -Eric Wilds

If you mean in the United States today, then certainly, because of how low our savings rates are.

Ralph,
Please clarify the term Endoxa.

AM

1. You are making the assumption that abortion is murder, and science just can't back you up on that.

2. Foriengers don't posess the rights of American citizens. Democrats argue that- when it comes to terrorism cases- it is better for America in the long run if we grant them certain rights so we have the moral highground in the GWOT.

3. I don't know where you get this one. No one argues that a poorer person is entitle. We argue that transfer payments make everyone better off by stabalizing society. High inequality of wealth is associated with crime, revolt and authortarinaism.

Ask the First Estate how well highly unequal distribution befefited them.

hehe,

1) Science has nothing to do with the abortion. The debate in abortion is over the issue of when life begins or better when life acquires certain rights. Is there a scientific dispute between those who are pro-life and those who aren't? Everyone can agree on the process of fetal development without agreeing on abortion. The abortion issue is a question of ethics/religion, but not science.

3) The growing inequality in the United States is being driven by mass immigration. If we don't want the extreme levels of inequality characteristic of countries like Brazil then we need to reform our immigration system, and have a system that works for Americans.

I found that debating abortion with religious people is a fruitless exercise, so I'll leave that aside.

Income inequality has absolutly nothing to do with immigration.

There may be a tiny effect immigration has on wages. But only on jobs that were very low wage to begin with.

What do they have to do with the fact that the top 1 percent has 16 perent of the wealth, rather than 9 like in 2000.?

(1) "I found that debating abortion with religious people is a fruitless exercise, so I'll leave that aside."

I do not intend to use a single religious premise. It is an undeniable, scientific fact that a new human being is generated at conception. By "new human being" I mean "an organism possessing human DNA that differs from the DNA of either parent." The "intentional killing of an innocent human being" is a sufficient condition for murder, i.e., such killing is, by definition, murder. Every unborn human being is innocent. Therefore, any intentional killing of an unborn being is murder. QED.

(2) That is simply not the Democratic position. Whether in the Courts or on the floors of the Hosue and Senate, Democrats have argued that, e.g., illegal immigrants, have the rights of U.S. citizens.

(3) "Transfer payments"? You mean the forced redistribution of wealth through unequal taxation and entitlement spending? That is simply a means for a poorer citizen to receive some of the wealth of a wealthier citizen. And such means are just only if the poorer citizen has a just claim to that wealth, i.e., if he is entitled to it.

1. Well, on abortion again it comes down to what you think is a human being.

Yes a blastula is genetically human, and has the potential to grow and mature.

But according to science it also has no thoughts, no memories, and no ability to feel pain.

People can differ on this issue becuace it is so complex and emotional. I vote pro-choice though for one simple reason:

No matter what your position on abortion, we should all realize that a government edict banning it won't do any good.

Has the government stopped kids from smoking pot? Did it succeed in prohibition? Has it won the "war on drugs"?

NO. It lost the war on drugs, and would loose the war on abortion too because you can't fight market forces.

Pro-life voters are the most hypocrital, self-rightous bastards ever. They haven't succeed and will never succeed in stoping a single abortion by appealing to the government.

What they really should be doing is setting up alternitives to abortions, volunteering at adoption agencies, raising money for a national orginaztion that educates the public about adoption, etc.

Instead they just tick off the R on their ballot every two years and be done with it.

Reasonable people can disagree on the issue of abortion, but we should all agree that government isn't the solution.

2. Agh. WTF are you talking about? What kind of rights? Certainly not the right to vote. Or the right to welfare benefits. Yeah, Democrats believe in giving them drivers liences cuz that just stupid to have unlicenced people on the road. But what other rights are you even talking about. Explain yourself when you speak boy.

3.Yes transfer payments are payments that transfer wealth from one part of society to another.

Again, I'm not sure where this phrase "entitled" comes from. Social Security benefits are considered "entitlements" becuase everyone pays into the system and so are "entitled" to get benefits out of it. Unemployment benefits work the same way.

Sometimes Medicare is included too, because its funded from tax revenues most people pay at some point in their lives.

Welfare and Medicaid are different. They are meant to help the poor, not because the poor are entitled to have free money, but because transfering a [minimal] amount of wealth has signifacant benefits for everyone. Mediciad, for instance vaccinates poor kids so your kid doesn't get sick.

Now, both of these programs have their problems. One can argue that the government cannot afford to keep spending these kinds of sums, or that it spends them inefficently, or that it should incoroprate more market-based solutions.

But the moral basis for giving poor children measles vaccines, old people flu shots, is sound.

BTW the earned income tax credit is much better than any of these programs.