If you voted solely on economic issues....

[Scam of God]

1. Green
2. Libertarian
3. Democratic
...
...
...
?. Republican

[Scam of God]

While I tend to trust the individual, it's always the few that get greedy and fanaggle money out of people like me who trust others.

Both Parties as presently arranged are great centralizers of power: the Democrats are right for wanting to champion the needs of the working class, but their methods are completely wrong in achieving it; the Republicans should be applauded when they do move against political centralization, but too often it's in the name of corporate, economic centralization.

[Scam of God]

Both Parties as presently arranged are great centralizers of power: the Democrats are right for wanting to champion the needs of the working class

Some Democrats do. Let's not forget the DLC types or the record amounts of money the financial sector poured into Obama's campaign...

Point taken. Nevertheless, I think the pro-business Democrats are better at putting a pro-business philosophy into practice than are pro-business Republicans. I can't think of a single Republican that could have replicated the successes of the 1990s.

[Scam of God]

Both Parties as presently arranged are great centralizers of power: the Democrats are right for wanting to champion the needs of the working class

Some Democrats do. Let's not forget the DLC types or the record amounts of money the financial sector poured into Obama's campaign...

Point taken. Nevertheless, I think the pro-business Democrats are better at putting a pro-business philosophy into practice than are pro-business Republicans. I can't think of a single Republican that could have replicated the successes of the 1990s.

The Congress that oversaw it?

Not hardly. They largely opposed the DLC programmes that made the 1990s the economic juggernaut it was - Clinton's massive expansion of the EITC, for instance. Gingrich openly campaigned against it in his Contract on America, and - behold! - that decade saw the highest period of growth for the lowest tax percentile since the 1950s.

I am very tired of this old canard. Clinton was always the DLC's man.

[Scam of God]

Both Parties as presently arranged are great centralizers of power: the Democrats are right for wanting to champion the needs of the working class

Some Democrats do. Let's not forget the DLC types or the record amounts of money the financial sector poured into Obama's campaign...

Point taken. Nevertheless, I think the pro-business Democrats are better at putting a pro-business philosophy into practice than are pro-business Republicans. I can't think of a single Republican that could have replicated the successes of the 1990s.

The Congress that oversaw it?

Not hardly. They largely opposed the DLC programmes that made the 1990s the economic juggernaut it was - Clinton's massive expansion of the EITC, for instance. Gingrich openly campaigned against it in his Contract on America, and - behold! - that decade saw the highest period of growth for the lowest tax percentile since the 1950s.

I am very tired of this old canard. Clinton was always the DLC's man.

The '90s were not a product of any particular policy but rather than technological revolution that was taking place, the rise of computers and the Internet, mass communications, etc.

Let's not forget that the bubble burst relatively quickly.

But it was largely Clinton's moderate, business-friendly image that fostered the rapid growth in the technological sector. And while the bubble did burst, it's still probably the most promising sector for economic growth for the foreseeable future.

Business-friendly Republicans and business-friendly Democrats are not the same beast. The former is extremely skeptical of real technological innovation; the latter makes it a central part of their policy. The former represents the established industries, the latter those which are struggling to be established.

[Scam of God]

Both Parties as presently arranged are great centralizers of power: the Democrats are right for wanting to champion the needs of the working class

Some Democrats do. Let's not forget the DLC types or the record amounts of money the financial sector poured into Obama's campaign...

Point taken. Nevertheless, I think the pro-business Democrats are better at putting a pro-business philosophy into practice than are pro-business Republicans. I can't think of a single Republican that could have replicated the successes of the 1990s.

The Congress that oversaw it?

Not hardly. They largely opposed the DLC programmes that made the 1990s the economic juggernaut it was - Clinton's massive expansion of the EITC, for instance. Gingrich openly campaigned against it in his Contract on America, and - behold! - that decade saw the highest period of growth for the lowest tax percentile since the 1950s.

I am very tired of this old canard. Clinton was always the DLC's man.

The '90s were not a product of any particular policy but rather than technological revolution that was taking place, the rise of computers and the Internet, mass communications, etc.

Let's not forget that the bubble burst relatively quickly.

But it was largely Clinton's moderate, business-friendly image that fostered the rapid growth in the technological sector. And while the bubble did burst, it's still probably the most promising sector for economic growth for the foreseeable future.

Business-friendly Republicans and business-friendly Democrats are not the same beast. The former is extremely skeptical of real technological innovation; the latter makes it a central part of their policy. The former represents the established industries, the latter those which are struggling to be established.

Naturally, I disagree. As a business-friendly Republican (and I mean small businesses and entrepreneurs, not transnational corporations), I am a big proponent of the use of technologies and investments to encourage new ideas, market-based proposals to enable the working class an opportunity to make their own life, and to increase productivity.

I see much more room for this philosophy within the Republican party.

Then good for you. You ought to try to make the Republicans more flexible in the industries they represent. But I guarantee you now that you will face stiff opposition in this - conservatism, while perfectly happy to conserve those industries which have proven profitable, is hardly willing to take a change on upsetting the established order. You'll have my support; now if only you can get yours.