The future of the two parties

[barfbag]

socialism when it comes to government and economics, socialism almost never does much good at all.

Utter nonsense.

Socialist countries have economic hardships not seen in countries where the market has more freedom.

[Person Man]

socialism when it comes to government and economics, socialism almost never does much good at all.

Utter nonsense.

Socialist countries have economic hardships not seen in countries where the market has more freedom.

Define "socialism" and "where the market has more freedom".

and if we want to "go there", capitalism can have at least as negative long term outcomes as socialism.

No one wants to wait  two years to buy a car or pay five bucks for a cup of black coffee. I understand that. Then again, if people had the choice, they wouldn't want to pay  several day's pay to be seen for a cold or a toothache or have to but their kid's clothes at the thrift shop so they can afford to send them to school. Morning in America/TEA Party Liberalism  and  50+% GDP Socialism are great ideas on paper, but the human brain isn't evolved to live those kinds of ways.

[barfbag]

socialism when it comes to government and economics, socialism almost never does much good at all.

Utter nonsense.

Socialist countries have economic hardships not seen in countries where the market has more freedom.

Define "socialism" and "where the market has more freedom".

and if we want to "go there", capitalism can have at least as negative long term outcomes as socialism.

No one wants to wait  two years to buy a car or pay five bucks for a cup of black coffee. I understand that. Then again, if people had the choice, they wouldn't want to pay  several day's pay to be seen for a cold or a toothache or have to but their kid's clothes at the thrift shop so they can afford to send them to school. Morning in America/TEA Party Liberalism  and  50+% GDP Socialism are great ideas on paper, but people just can't live like that.

Capitalism is an extension of freedom and freedom doesn't guarantee equal results. In the real world not everyone makes it. Safety nets in combination with the free market of free trade, low taxes, and lower corporate taxes creates the moderation needed for success. We really do have a pretty good economic system here. Socialism in terms of employees owning part of their place of employment is about the most radical idea I've heard since Sandra Fluke said I should buy her birth control so she can sleep around.

[opebo]

Socialism in terms of employees owning part of their place of employment is about the most radical idea I've heard since Sandra Fluke said I should buy her birth control so she can sleep around.

Oh my god, that rears its ugly head again.  Vulgar chaps when it comes down to it, aren't you?

[Person Man]

Socialism in terms of employees owning part of their place of employment is about the most radical idea I've heard since Sandra Fluke said I should buy her birth control so she can sleep around.

Oh my god, that rears its ugly head again.  Vulgar chaps when it comes down to it, aren't you?

Of course those are kind of abstract ideas that he is talking about.  Is he talking about banning coops and replacing taxes with fees?
I think he's thinking of replacing taxes with fees and that's not a small government solution, that's a no government solution. In terms of "freedom not being equal outcome" is freedom also the freedom to predetermine outcomes ? 

Liberalism is just as abstract and unworkable as Socialism. 

In the real world people can be encouraged by liberalism to be penny wise and dollar foolish as they are by socialism to be lazy or "babied".

[barfbag]

Socialism in terms of employees owning part of their place of employment is about the most radical idea I've heard since Sandra Fluke said I should buy her birth control so she can sleep around.

Oh my god, that rears its ugly head again.  Vulgar chaps when it comes down to it, aren't you?

Of course those are kind of abstract ideas that he is talking about.  Is he talking about banning coops and replacing taxes with fees?
I think he's thinking of replacing taxes with fees and that's not a small government solution, that's a no government solution. In terms of "freedom not being equal outcome" is freedom also the freedom to predetermine outcomes ? 

Liberalism is just as abstract and unworkable as Socialism. 

In the real world people can be encouraged by liberalism to be penny wise and dollar foolish as they are by socialism to be lazy or "babied".

No I'm not talking about replacing taxes with fees. I said lower taxes. Ideally, I'd like us all to pay a flat rate and use fees in addition to pay off our debt. Those who use the services such as roads pay as they go. Pragmatically speaking there is no predetermined outcome. Although, I do support safety nets such as social security, Medicare, Medicaid, WIC, and food stamps. My economic theories are center-right and in no way extreme.

[Person Man]

Socialism in terms of employees owning part of their place of employment is about the most radical idea I've heard since Sandra Fluke said I should buy her birth control so she can sleep around.

Oh my god, that rears its ugly head again.  Vulgar chaps when it comes down to it, aren't you?

Of course those are kind of abstract ideas that he is talking about.  Is he talking about banning coops and replacing taxes with fees?
I think he's thinking of replacing taxes with fees and that's not a small government solution, that's a no government solution. In terms of "freedom not being equal outcome" is freedom also the freedom to predetermine outcomes ? 

Liberalism is just as abstract and unworkable as Socialism. 

In the real world people can be encouraged by liberalism to be penny wise and dollar foolish as they are by socialism to be lazy or "babied".

No I'm not talking about replacing taxes with fees. I said lower taxes. Ideally, I'd like us all to pay a flat rate and use fees in addition to pay off our debt. Those who use the services such as roads pay as they go. Pragmatically speaking there is no predetermined outcome. Although, I do support safety nets such as social security, Medicare, Medicaid, WIC, and food stamps. My economic theories are center-right and in no way extreme.

But don't you think that more could be done guarantee true equal opportunity? Maybe if people didn't have to worry about the basics, they could afford to start a business or concentrate on work. Maybe if there were more antitrust laws, there would be more choice and competition instead of simply hoping what was the consumers' choice or the right allocation of resources will continue to be so in the future. As a result, there would be less cynicism and more active involvement.

[barfbag]

Socialism in terms of employees owning part of their place of employment is about the most radical idea I've heard since Sandra Fluke said I should buy her birth control so she can sleep around.

Oh my god, that rears its ugly head again.  Vulgar chaps when it comes down to it, aren't you?

Of course those are kind of abstract ideas that he is talking about.  Is he talking about banning coops and replacing taxes with fees?
I think he's thinking of replacing taxes with fees and that's not a small government solution, that's a no government solution. In terms of "freedom not being equal outcome" is freedom also the freedom to predetermine outcomes ? 

Liberalism is just as abstract and unworkable as Socialism. 

In the real world people can be encouraged by liberalism to be penny wise and dollar foolish as they are by socialism to be lazy or "babied".

No I'm not talking about replacing taxes with fees. I said lower taxes. Ideally, I'd like us all to pay a flat rate and use fees in addition to pay off our debt. Those who use the services such as roads pay as they go. Pragmatically speaking there is no predetermined outcome. Although, I do support safety nets such as social security, Medicare, Medicaid, WIC, and food stamps. My economic theories are center-right and in no way extreme.

But don't you think that more could be done guarantee true equal opportunity? Maybe if people didn't have to worry about the basics, they could afford to start a business or concentrate on work. Maybe if there were more antitrust laws, there would be more choice and competition instead of simply hoping what was the consumers' choice or the right allocation of resources will continue to be so in the future. As a result, there would be less cynicism and more active involvement.

Anti-trust laws are strangling our economy.  Whether or not monopolies are bad for the economy or a reflection of supply and demand is a chicken and egg debate and there may not be an answer. I don't think the tax payers should be responsible for supplying everyone with basic needs.

[Person Man]

Socialism in terms of employees owning part of their place of employment is about the most radical idea I've heard since Sandra Fluke said I should buy her birth control so she can sleep around.

Oh my god, that rears its ugly head again.  Vulgar chaps when it comes down to it, aren't you?

Of course those are kind of abstract ideas that he is talking about.  Is he talking about banning coops and replacing taxes with fees?
I think he's thinking of replacing taxes with fees and that's not a small government solution, that's a no government solution. In terms of "freedom not being equal outcome" is freedom also the freedom to predetermine outcomes ? 

Liberalism is just as abstract and unworkable as Socialism. 

In the real world people can be encouraged by liberalism to be penny wise and dollar foolish as they are by socialism to be lazy or "babied".

No I'm not talking about replacing taxes with fees. I said lower taxes. Ideally, I'd like us all to pay a flat rate and use fees in addition to pay off our debt. Those who use the services such as roads pay as they go. Pragmatically speaking there is no predetermined outcome. Although, I do support safety nets such as social security, Medicare, Medicaid, WIC, and food stamps. My economic theories are center-right and in no way extreme.

But don't you think that more could be done guarantee true equal opportunity? Maybe if people didn't have to worry about the basics, they could afford to start a business or concentrate on work. Maybe if there were more antitrust laws, there would be more choice and competition instead of simply hoping what was the consumers' choice or the right allocation of resources will continue to be so in the future. As a result, there would be less cynicism and more active involvement.

Anti-trust laws are strangling our economy.  Whether or not monopolies are bad for the economy or a reflection of supply and demand is a chicken and egg debate and there may not be an answer. I don't think the tax payers should be responsible for supplying everyone with basic needs.

I am not convinced of that and any stranglehold that it is has is worth it.

But as I said, the most likely scenario in the next few cycles is that the Democrats either mess up, campaign poorly or cede their share of control of "the national debate" and the Republicans find a way to win with their current platform by getting enough votes elsewhere without youngs or minorities or things go more or less the same way as they do now and the next successful Republican wins by being less conservative (modest tax simplification, social security reform and action on religious and ethnic issues) and cobbling up enough of the old coalition for a win the same way Clinton and Carter did.

[barfbag]

Socialism in terms of employees owning part of their place of employment is about the most radical idea I've heard since Sandra Fluke said I should buy her birth control so she can sleep around.

Oh my god, that rears its ugly head again.  Vulgar chaps when it comes down to it, aren't you?

Of course those are kind of abstract ideas that he is talking about.  Is he talking about banning coops and replacing taxes with fees?
I think he's thinking of replacing taxes with fees and that's not a small government solution, that's a no government solution. In terms of "freedom not being equal outcome" is freedom also the freedom to predetermine outcomes ? 

Liberalism is just as abstract and unworkable as Socialism. 

In the real world people can be encouraged by liberalism to be penny wise and dollar foolish as they are by socialism to be lazy or "babied".

No I'm not talking about replacing taxes with fees. I said lower taxes. Ideally, I'd like us all to pay a flat rate and use fees in addition to pay off our debt. Those who use the services such as roads pay as they go. Pragmatically speaking there is no predetermined outcome. Although, I do support safety nets such as social security, Medicare, Medicaid, WIC, and food stamps. My economic theories are center-right and in no way extreme.

But don't you think that more could be done guarantee true equal opportunity? Maybe if people didn't have to worry about the basics, they could afford to start a business or concentrate on work. Maybe if there were more antitrust laws, there would be more choice and competition instead of simply hoping what was the consumers' choice or the right allocation of resources will continue to be so in the future. As a result, there would be less cynicism and more active involvement.

Anti-trust laws are strangling our economy.  Whether or not monopolies are bad for the economy or a reflection of supply and demand is a chicken and egg debate and there may not be an answer. I don't think the tax payers should be responsible for supplying everyone with basic needs.

I am not convinced of that and any stranglehold that it is has is worth it.

But as I said, the most likely scenario in the next few cycles is that the Democrats either mess up, campaign poorly or cede their share of control of "the national debate" and the Republicans find a way to win with their current platform by getting enough votes elsewhere without youngs or minorities or things go more or less the same way as they do now and the next successful Republican wins by being less conservative (modest tax simplification, social security reform and action on religious and ethnic issues) and cobbling up enough of the old coalition for a win the same way Clinton and Carter did.

Whether or not Republican nominees need to be more or less conservative is another can of worms. Moderates don't win national elections, but if we look at the years moderates have run; 1976, 1988, 1992, 1996, 2008, and 2012, we find very reasonable reasons for their losses. In 1976 Americans were still washing themselves of Watergate. Michael Dukakis was a complete putts in 1988. When Bush lost re-election in 1992 we'd just had 12 years of the same party in office. Clinton was very popular and things were going well for our nation in 1996. There was no way a Republican could've won in 2008. Really 2012 is the only year we could've won out of our moderate years.

[Person Man]

Socialism in terms of employees owning part of their place of employment is about the most radical idea I've heard since Sandra Fluke said I should buy her birth control so she can sleep around.

Oh my god, that rears its ugly head again.  Vulgar chaps when it comes down to it, aren't you?

Of course those are kind of abstract ideas that he is talking about.  Is he talking about banning coops and replacing taxes with fees?
I think he's thinking of replacing taxes with fees and that's not a small government solution, that's a no government solution. In terms of "freedom not being equal outcome" is freedom also the freedom to predetermine outcomes ? 

Liberalism is just as abstract and unworkable as Socialism. 

In the real world people can be encouraged by liberalism to be penny wise and dollar foolish as they are by socialism to be lazy or "babied".

No I'm not talking about replacing taxes with fees. I said lower taxes. Ideally, I'd like us all to pay a flat rate and use fees in addition to pay off our debt. Those who use the services such as roads pay as they go. Pragmatically speaking there is no predetermined outcome. Although, I do support safety nets such as social security, Medicare, Medicaid, WIC, and food stamps. My economic theories are center-right and in no way extreme.

But don't you think that more could be done guarantee true equal opportunity? Maybe if people didn't have to worry about the basics, they could afford to start a business or concentrate on work. Maybe if there were more antitrust laws, there would be more choice and competition instead of simply hoping what was the consumers' choice or the right allocation of resources will continue to be so in the future. As a result, there would be less cynicism and more active involvement.

Anti-trust laws are strangling our economy.  Whether or not monopolies are bad for the economy or a reflection of supply and demand is a chicken and egg debate and there may not be an answer. I don't think the tax payers should be responsible for supplying everyone with basic needs.

I am not convinced of that and any stranglehold that it is has is worth it.

But as I said, the most likely scenario in the next few cycles is that the Democrats either mess up, campaign poorly or cede their share of control of "the national debate" and the Republicans find a way to win with their current platform by getting enough votes elsewhere without youngs or minorities or things go more or less the same way as they do now and the next successful Republican wins by being less conservative (modest tax simplification, social security reform and action on religious and ethnic issues) and cobbling up enough of the old coalition for a win the same way Clinton and Carter did.

Whether or not Republican nominees need to be more or less conservative is another can of worms. Moderates don't win national elections, but if we look at the years moderates have run; 1976, 1988, 1992, 1996, 2008, and 2012, we find very reasonable reasons for their losses. In 1976 Americans were still washing themselves of Watergate. Michael Dukakis was a complete putts in 1988. When Bush lost re-election in 1992 we'd just had 12 years of the same party in office. Clinton was very popular and things were going well for our nation in 1996. There was no way a Republican could've won in 2008. Really 2012 is the only year we could've won out of our moderate years.

Values voters turned out the same way they did for McCain and Bush. So I don't think it was that the base stayed home, if that's what you mean. It is a good argument that only candidates from the base can win it for the Republicans because every candidate that was supposed to be moderate lost (except 41) and every conservative candidate has won since Watergate. However, the reason for this could be that when Republicans know they are at a disadvantage, they are less confident and try to push to the center for electability purposes. Generally, this isn't enough as if it is that Independents know they are ashamed of their policies when they do this.

The only reason now that the Democrats seem to be following the same pattern is that there is a national brand (besides habitual democrats and shrill protesters)  and people can now gauge them the same way they have gauged Rs since 1976.

So, starting in 2000, we could say that Gore and Kerry simply couldn't turn out the base the way Obama did and that before then, Clinton still had the ability to go LCD (the way Eisenhower did). However, this wasn't because of ideological purity but simply out of the confidence in the brand that the candidate projected.

[Non Swing Voter]

I don't see the Republican party lasting too much longer in its current form (super-religious, super white, etc.).

Therefore, I think the two party system will have to split along different lines (i.e. gay marriage will be legalized and become a non-issue... other social issues will move in that direction too)...

Republican Party = Libertarian, fiscally conservative, socially libertarian live and let live.

Democratic Party = Fiscally liberal, not socialist but moving in that direction, socially still more liberal and using the government to solve social problems.

I could actually see Republicans becoming competitive in states like New Hampshire, Maine, Connecticut, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Michigan, Iowa again... and Democrats becoming competitive in Texas, Georgia, Arizona, etc.

Every post of yours has been about the republican parties failure and the democratic parties success. I'm getting pretty sick of this, the politics of each party change over time, democrats in the 60's and 70's were definitely more conservative than they are now. I've talked about this before and I'll explain it again, the republican party will not die, no political parties ever die and I'm sick of partisans from both parties getting all confident that their party will dominate simply because they win a few presidential elections.

I do see different states moving in different directions in the future, as states always have moved in different directions throughout history. Who would've predicted 70 years ago that Vermont out of all states would become perhaps the most democratic state after a long transformation in New England? The notion that republicans will have to go to the left on social issues simply because there not doing good and the trends are against them is ridiculous and unlikely (at the moment), but in return, they could go to the right on economics and fiscal issues.

Republicans shouldn't have to go to the left on any issues, they should simply make common sense arguments and maybe they'll do better than they are now. I'm also noticing that both political parties are going to their extremes (anybody who says they're not are obviously partisans) and I feel (at the moment) that only republicans are really getting the blame for being far right. I remember democrats being accused of being "far left" in the Bush years, its all just the same garbage posted over again.

Anyways, if you ask me, Yes, I would support a revival and a new version of the GOP. But that's me, that's not the GOP. And its way to early to start talking about GOP reform and shifting states until we have concrete evidence of trend affects in 2016.

I'm glad you are sick of them.  I hope it discourages you from posting in my threads...  You are by far the most disingenuous poster on this board, which is why I routinely ignore your responses to me.

[Non Swing Voter]

Socialism in terms of employees owning part of their place of employment is about the most radical idea I've heard since Sandra Fluke said I should buy her birth control so she can sleep around.

Oh my god, that rears its ugly head again.  Vulgar chaps when it comes down to it, aren't you?

Of course those are kind of abstract ideas that he is talking about.  Is he talking about banning coops and replacing taxes with fees?
I think he's thinking of replacing taxes with fees and that's not a small government solution, that's a no government solution. In terms of "freedom not being equal outcome" is freedom also the freedom to predetermine outcomes ? 

Liberalism is just as abstract and unworkable as Socialism. 

In the real world people can be encouraged by liberalism to be penny wise and dollar foolish as they are by socialism to be lazy or "babied".

No I'm not talking about replacing taxes with fees. I said lower taxes. Ideally, I'd like us all to pay a flat rate and use fees in addition to pay off our debt. Those who use the services such as roads pay as they go. Pragmatically speaking there is no predetermined outcome. Although, I do support safety nets such as social security, Medicare, Medicaid, WIC, and food stamps. My economic theories are center-right and in no way extreme.

But don't you think that more could be done guarantee true equal opportunity? Maybe if people didn't have to worry about the basics, they could afford to start a business or concentrate on work. Maybe if there were more antitrust laws, there would be more choice and competition instead of simply hoping what was the consumers' choice or the right allocation of resources will continue to be so in the future. As a result, there would be less cynicism and more active involvement.

Anti-trust laws are strangling our economy.  Whether or not monopolies are bad for the economy or a reflection of supply and demand is a chicken and egg debate and there may not be an answer. I don't think the tax payers should be responsible for supplying everyone with basic needs.

how are antitrust laws strangling the economy?  and which laws are you referring to?

[Person Man]

Socialism in terms of employees owning part of their place of employment is about the most radical idea I've heard since Sandra Fluke said I should buy her birth control so she can sleep around.

Oh my god, that rears its ugly head again.  Vulgar chaps when it comes down to it, aren't you?

Of course those are kind of abstract ideas that he is talking about.  Is he talking about banning coops and replacing taxes with fees?
I think he's thinking of replacing taxes with fees and that's not a small government solution, that's a no government solution. In terms of "freedom not being equal outcome" is freedom also the freedom to predetermine outcomes ? 

Liberalism is just as abstract and unworkable as Socialism. 

In the real world people can be encouraged by liberalism to be penny wise and dollar foolish as they are by socialism to be lazy or "babied".

No I'm not talking about replacing taxes with fees. I said lower taxes. Ideally, I'd like us all to pay a flat rate and use fees in addition to pay off our debt. Those who use the services such as roads pay as they go. Pragmatically speaking there is no predetermined outcome. Although, I do support safety nets such as social security, Medicare, Medicaid, WIC, and food stamps. My economic theories are center-right and in no way extreme.

But don't you think that more could be done guarantee true equal opportunity? Maybe if people didn't have to worry about the basics, they could afford to start a business or concentrate on work. Maybe if there were more antitrust laws, there would be more choice and competition instead of simply hoping what was the consumers' choice or the right allocation of resources will continue to be so in the future. As a result, there would be less cynicism and more active involvement.

Anti-trust laws are strangling our economy.  Whether or not monopolies are bad for the economy or a reflection of supply and demand is a chicken and egg debate and there may not be an answer. I don't think the tax payers should be responsible for supplying everyone with basic needs.

how are antitrust laws strangling the economy?  and which laws are you referring to?

I think he is referring to the Sherman Law and later amendments. Perhaps he is of the opinion that the only thing that matters is the maximization of the amount of goods produced, not the health of the market or consumer choice or any other combination of variable meant to optimize supply sensitivity to demand.

[Sconnie]

You guys are just silly - the Democratic party is not left wing - its precisely moderate to even center right!  It has always been a centrist party, and has never had any real left wing bent, and particularly not since the 1980s.

Ah, that talking point. Gotta love it.

You see, politics differs from country to country. Liberalism and conservatism are not absolute ideologies, as your belief here argues. They are really just perspectives on change, that's all. Conservatism ranges from strong skepticism of big government and high taxes here to a relative willingness to pay higher taxes in Europe. Socialism is accepted and the norm in Europe, while it is rightfully frowned upon here. Liberals are socialists, generally speaking, in Europe. Liberals here are not, they merely seek a more mixed economy. And thank God for that.

The argument that one's party in this country is moderate is laughable, and it occurs in both parties. It's just that the media have focused on the Republicans, who have nominated purists to mostly disastrous results. But a similar phenomenon has occurred in the Democratic Party as well, with many liberals wishing to purge the party of Blue Dogs, to not-so-successful results. I know conservatives who claim the Republican Party is full of leftists, which of course is not true. Well, my friend, my fellow conservatives are your equivalent.

[opebo]

Liberals here... merely seek a more mixed economy.

No, they don't seek a 'mixed economy'.  They seek exactly the same kind of economy as the Republicans. 

[Person Man]

You guys are just silly - the Democratic party is not left wing - its precisely moderate to even center right!  It has always been a centrist party, and has never had any real left wing bent, and particularly not since the 1980s.

Ah, that talking point. Gotta love it.

You see, politics differs from country to country. Liberalism and conservatism are not absolute ideologies, as your belief here argues. They are really just perspectives on change, that's all. Conservatism ranges from strong skepticism of big government and high taxes here to a relative willingness to pay higher taxes in Europe. Socialism is accepted and the norm in Europe, while it is rightfully frowned upon here. Liberals are socialists, generally speaking, in Europe. Liberals here are not, they merely seek a more mixed economy. And thank God for that.

The argument that one's party in this country is moderate is laughable, and it occurs in both parties. It's just that the media have focused on the Republicans, who have nominated purists to mostly disastrous results. But a similar phenomenon has occurred in the Democratic Party as well, with many liberals wishing to purge the party of Blue Dogs, to not-so-successful results. I know conservatives who claim the Republican Party is full of leftists, which of course is not true. Well, my friend, my fellow conservatives are your equivalent.

Define socialism.

[barfbag]

Socialism in terms of employees owning part of their place of employment is about the most radical idea I've heard since Sandra Fluke said I should buy her birth control so she can sleep around.

Oh my god, that rears its ugly head again.  Vulgar chaps when it comes down to it, aren't you?

Of course those are kind of abstract ideas that he is talking about.  Is he talking about banning coops and replacing taxes with fees?
I think he's thinking of replacing taxes with fees and that's not a small government solution, that's a no government solution. In terms of "freedom not being equal outcome" is freedom also the freedom to predetermine outcomes ? 

Liberalism is just as abstract and unworkable as Socialism. 

In the real world people can be encouraged by liberalism to be penny wise and dollar foolish as they are by socialism to be lazy or "babied".

No I'm not talking about replacing taxes with fees. I said lower taxes. Ideally, I'd like us all to pay a flat rate and use fees in addition to pay off our debt. Those who use the services such as roads pay as they go. Pragmatically speaking there is no predetermined outcome. Although, I do support safety nets such as social security, Medicare, Medicaid, WIC, and food stamps. My economic theories are center-right and in no way extreme.

But don't you think that more could be done guarantee true equal opportunity? Maybe if people didn't have to worry about the basics, they could afford to start a business or concentrate on work. Maybe if there were more antitrust laws, there would be more choice and competition instead of simply hoping what was the consumers' choice or the right allocation of resources will continue to be so in the future. As a result, there would be less cynicism and more active involvement.

Anti-trust laws are strangling our economy.  Whether or not monopolies are bad for the economy or a reflection of supply and demand is a chicken and egg debate and there may not be an answer. I don't think the tax payers should be responsible for supplying everyone with basic needs.

how are antitrust laws strangling the economy?  and which laws are you referring to?

I think he is referring to the Sherman Law and later amendments. Perhaps he is of the opinion that the only thing that matters is the maximization of the amount of goods produced, not the health of the market or consumer choice or any other combination of variable meant to optimize supply sensitivity to demand.

I'm not sure if you mean me? A lot of things matter in our economy. The atmosphere needed to thrive internally is motivation and innovation within the individual. Externally, low taxes, infrastructure, and education are fundamental. Once you get past the fundamentals, the private sector is where jobs should be created unless a sector is struggling enough that other sectors are hurting. In this case we need to help out. For example, we should place tariffs on imported goods from companies which send jobs overseas and against products from countries that manipulate currency. Honestly, we should eliminate the corporate tax or at least cut it in half to create a better atmosphere for businesses to stay. We're chasing companies overseas right now. Subsidies aren't the answer but sometimes necessary in a recession economy in order to keep manufacturing jobs from suffering due to a loss of hours. People having money in their pockets benefits other sectors of the economy. The perfect economy is balanced. I hope it doesn't sound like I'm picking favorites with the manufacturing sector.

Lower Taxes:

Pros- People have more of their own money in their pockets to help consumer spending.
Cons- Welfare services must be reduced.

Education:

Pros- More people are qualified for higher paying jobs regardless of background.
Cons- People have more debt and not everyone will be able to have higher paying jobs.

Infrastructure:

Pros- Jobs are created which puts people to work.
Cons- Debt is created and the jobs are temporary.

[DesertGator23]

I think there is hope for the Republican Party for the future. If they would take those Ron Paulites into the fold, and support candidates with his views to run, they can attract the young voters, the future of this country.

Those on the left who keep on saying the Republican Party is heading for extinction really dont remember that back in 2004, people were saying the same thing about the Democrats. The democrats are over confident in their abilities to keep minorites in the party.

Overall, its really a tossup, and of course, i could be wrong.

[Person Man]

I think there is hope for the Republican Party for the future. If they would take those Ron Paulites into the fold, and support candidates with his views to run, they can attract the young voters, the future of this country.

Those on the left who keep on saying the Republican Party is heading for extinction really dont remember that back in 2004, people were saying the same thing about the Democrats. The democrats are over confident in their abilities to keep minorites in the party.

Overall, its really a tossup, and of course, i could be wrong.

The map will either continue to evolve, with the sunbelt moving D and the rustbelt and moving R or will revert back to where the Bible Belt gives Democrats a second chance and the mountains gives Republicans a second chance and we get something like a 1990s or 2000s map. 

[barfbag]

I think there is hope for the Republican Party for the future. If they would take those Ron Paulites into the fold, and support candidates with his views to run, they can attract the young voters, the future of this country.

Those on the left who keep on saying the Republican Party is heading for extinction really dont remember that back in 2004, people were saying the same thing about the Democrats. The democrats are over confident in their abilities to keep minorites in the party.

Overall, its really a tossup, and of course, i could be wrong.

The map will either continue to evolve, with the sunbelt moving D and the rustbelt and moving R or will revert back to where the Bible Belt gives Democrats a second chance and the mountains gives Republicans a second chance and we get something like a 1990s or 2000s map. 

Possibly, but I think New Mexico, Nevada, and Colorado will eventually be light blue. Actually New Mexico might be light blue from here on out. The only reason I have it in the barely Democratic column is because of 2000 and 2004.

[Person Man]

I think there is hope for the Republican Party for the future. If they would take those Ron Paulites into the fold, and support candidates with his views to run, they can attract the young voters, the future of this country.

Those on the left who keep on saying the Republican Party is heading for extinction really dont remember that back in 2004, people were saying the same thing about the Democrats. The democrats are over confident in their abilities to keep minorites in the party.

Overall, its really a tossup, and of course, i could be wrong.

The map will either continue to evolve, with the sunbelt moving D and the rustbelt and moving R or will revert back to where the Bible Belt gives Democrats a second chance and the mountains gives Republicans a second chance and we get something like a 1990s or 2000s map. 

Possibly, but I think New Mexico, Nevada, and Colorado will eventually be light blue. Actually New Mexico might be light blue from here on out. The only reason I have it in the barely Democratic column is because of 2000 and 2004.

It was because Bush appeared very moderate on race relations though it was probably all part of Rove's idea to push hard right with groups they were winning and push to the center on groups they are not. He though that if he could get from 38% to 42% of the vote in New York or from 66% to 69% in Wyoming, it directly would help him get from 49% to 51% of the vote in Florida and Ohio. He was correct.

[barfbag]

I think there is hope for the Republican Party for the future. If they would take those Ron Paulites into the fold, and support candidates with his views to run, they can attract the young voters, the future of this country.

Those on the left who keep on saying the Republican Party is heading for extinction really dont remember that back in 2004, people were saying the same thing about the Democrats. The democrats are over confident in their abilities to keep minorites in the party.

Overall, its really a tossup, and of course, i could be wrong.

The map will either continue to evolve, with the sunbelt moving D and the rustbelt and moving R or will revert back to where the Bible Belt gives Democrats a second chance and the mountains gives Republicans a second chance and we get something like a 1990s or 2000s map. 

Possibly, but I think New Mexico, Nevada, and Colorado will eventually be light blue. Actually New Mexico might be light blue from here on out. The only reason I have it in the barely Democratic column is because of 2000 and 2004.

It was because Bush appeared very moderate on race relations though it was probably all part of Rove's idea to push hard right with groups they were winning and push to the center on groups they are not. He though that if he could get from 38% to 42% of the vote in New York or from 66% to 69% in Wyoming, it directly would help him get from 49% to 51% of the vote in Florida and Ohio. He was correct.

With the electoral map advantage gained between 2000 and 2004 all Bush had to do was add to or keep his majorities in states he won. Actually, all he needed to do was keep Ohio with and without hindsight. The only other close Bush state from 2000 was Nevada which matched the national average.

[Person Man]

And Rove engineered that.

[barfbag]

And Rove engineered that.

Yes he did and I have a statue of him in my room.