Korean Job Discussion Forums

[Ya-ta Boy]

Senator Biden was on TV tonight and said he thought in 1980 the people turned away from the FDR Democrats because they had lost faith in them governing. He now thinks that the people have turned away from the Reagan Republicans because they have lost faith in them governing.

After 26 years, is the Conservate era over? Or was Nov. 7 just a bump in the road?

As much as I want to believe it is over, that they've hit the high water mark and are now ebbing, I don't buy it. At least not yet. Several people said the Dems didn't win; the GOP lost. I think that is true.

In my opinion, the Democrats can only capture the governing majority by aggressively labeling the GOP as the party of extremism: the party of foreign military adventures, fiscal irresponsibility, intrusion into our private lives, starting huge government programs, sexual hypocrisy--turn conservatism into a dirty word. Secondly, I think the only way to neutralize some of the opposition is to take the position that different areas of the country have different ideas/values and that most of the issues that divide the country must be left to the states to solve and be content that laws about certain things will have to be very different in different parts of the country. If you are gay and want to get married, then you are going to have to move out of Atlanta and go live in Boston. Accept that there is not a damn thing that can be done about guns.

[Rteacher]

Sounds like Jeffersonian democracy... Lincoln Republicans might come back again too...

Personally, I'm waiting for a non-sectarian faith-based coalition with a slaughterhouse-abolitionist faction to emerge as a decisive force in U.S. politics...

[Satori]

[Ya-ta Boy]

[freethought]

The idea that the republicans lost rather than the Demcrats winning supports your opening statement. To quote the wise philosopher, Homer Simpson, "De-fault; the two sweest words in the english language."

The Republicans claimed to be the party with integrity, honesty, of values and morals and the only party fit to govern. They have proven that simply isn't true. The Colbert goodbye to the republican majority video is case in point. They went after Clinton for really nothing, they ignore their own indiscretions, their economic policies have been less than successful (Trillions in debt accumulated by 'reagan republicans').

They have proven/demonstrated that what they claimed to be was false, and their policies, be they from the white house or Capitol Hill, have met with mixed results at best: health care, no child left behind, just say no, prudent fiscal management.... the list is incredibly long. Then when you throw the degrading status of civil Liberites in America, and it's a fait accompli.

They don't deserve to govern, they have proven themselves inept. If that means the dems win, then so be it. The republican record indicates that quite literally, anyone could do better. 'Anyone' now has a shot of their own. Let's hope they do something with it.

[Adventurer]

I can understand where you are all coming from, and I mostly agree, but I partially disagree.

There was a large turn out among young people, and I believe young people tend to be more liberal than older Americans, if I am not mistaken. There is the revulsion factor that Ralph Nader spoke out. There were so many young people who found Bush's presidency to be so repulsive, they felt a political rebuke was need, and there had to be a change of course. More people tend to associate with the Democrats in the population at large, but you have more Republicans who tend to vote disproportionately. That probably was less of a case in this election. Bush galvanized a lot of people to vote. It was a vote against Bush by both those who vote Republican and those who have, in the past, related to the democrats and new liberal voters.

As far as the New Deal and the Great Society, the U.S. has moved to the right when compared to the 1960s. That explains the huge amount of power the GOP has wielded for so long and the many Democratic hawks.
This victory, however, gives many on the Left certain breathing room and maneuvarability. The GOP has made liberal views on economics, foreign policy more attractive. Yes, the GOP has had failed leadership, but that leadership is juxtaposed by a leadership that seemed to have more direction under Bill Clinton. When you measure Bush vis-a-vis William Clinton, you had an articulate president who tried to emulate Kennedy but took less fool hardy risks, and you had Bush trying to copy Reagan and failed miserably and took risks Reagan did not take.

[Ya-ta Boy]

[cbclark4]

I agree and I like Ketchup.

cbc

[Junior]

Who cares? islam will rule all your silly asses pretty soon. allah akhbar

[Adventurer]

[bucheon bum]

Did it occur to you that the US has shifted towards the right economically speaking because it works??

Bush's econ policy=awful combination of the worst of both the right and left wing economic policies (ie tax cuts while massively increasing spending).

Clinton's=best during my lifetime. I think his econ policy was a lot closer to "compassionate conservatism" than Bush's ever was.

If right-wing economic policy doesn't work (and bush's econ shouldn't count), then explain India's boom starting in the 90s. Explain China, Singapore, and Hong Kong.

What country is the most prosperous in Latin America? Chile. Funny how it has the most open economy in the region.

What EU country has the most open economy? Finland. Is it seeing the same problems as Germany, France, and Italy? Hardly. (also has the best education system in the world, which obviously helps too)

In regards to health-care, we'll see. It'll take a real crisis that affects more people before we finally "see the light."

[Adventurer]

[bucheon bum]

I was merely elaborating on your remark that the Democrats have moved to the right when it came to economic policy. You seemed to be arguing it was due to the media and whatnot. I was simply arguing that perhaps they actually moved in that direction because that actually seems like better policy than what they previously supported.

[Adventurer]

In the U.S., there is not a vibrant media that is a counter balance to those owned by the elites. There is not a BBC or a CBC. I am sure that Rupert Murdoch, GE, and the others who own the networks will influence the networks. They do not have an interest in showing the views of the people they oppose unless it is inevitable and too obvious because you cannot ignore the politicians. They have their weight. So using the media question, alone, we cannot show evidence to disagree with you.
So you make a valid point. So let us turn to economics.

Do you think that spending on literacy programs, increasing aid to college students, scaling back on their debt, which would also probably promote marriage and settling down and more children, and universal health care would harm the economy? Not if the programs are administered properly. They would actually help the economy, I think. Why?
An educated population is needed in order for the U.S. to compete with other nations. With the opening of the doors to Free Trade, then the elites cannot simply open those doors and then harm college students. It is suicide. It is too economically myopic, if that is done. That is why the democrats need to do something in that regard.

The people on the right are more epitomized in the GOP, but they exist in both parties. The classic right-winger opposes the programs we are talking about. Is it because economic studies shows that any spending on social programs would harm the economy? That is a fallacy. It is because these programs are not free. It would make it harder to reduce taxes to the bare minimum some of them want. They voice this through out the land. And I am arguing they make this view point louldy heared in the media. Parents often give some help to their children even after they are 18 including among the elites, so logical programs that boost the general population make good economic sense. Are you saying this does not work? That is the real question, as Shakespeare would say.

But good point...You showed a weakness in the media argument.

[Gopher]